Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill

Hon TONY RYALL Link to this

Oh, on the expiry date. I would like him to explain to us why this bill should not expire early. I think that this bill should expire early, and that Parliament should have to go back and sort it out again on this basis.

As this Minister knows, electoral law in this country has more or less been developed on a reasonably bipartisan or multipartisan basis over many, many years. It has been done on the principle that the victor should not be able to change the election law every time it wins. In my time in Parliament, and also in the Minister’s time, the issue that has been the sole area of divergence amongst political parties was when the electoral rolls would close for an election period. National used to say it was 1 month before the election, and Labour used to say it was the day before the election. Well, now there seems to be agreement on the rules that stand.

Virtually every piece of significant electoral law has been agreed between both parties, and it has been for the very good reason that we should not have a situation where the victor is able to write the electoral rules to suit itself. As the member knows, things like the Standing Orders operate on a principle of what goes around comes around. What might happen to an Opposition because of a Government’s majority in one Parliament might easily be reversed to happen to that Government when it is in Opposition next time. It is that principle that has encouraged parties to more or less always come to some sort of agreement on electoral law.

The Minister can say that Labour has voted against National’s electoral laws forever, but I say to him that he should go and look at the debate. There have been arguments on very minor issues, but on the key issues in respect of the electoral settings in this country there has been agreement between the parties. The Minister should look, for example, at the development of the MMP legislation in 1993-94. Both parties worked very cooperatively. Mr McCully and Mr Caygill worked very cooperatively to get that legislation together. That ensured that the legislation is durable. Parliament has not had to change the basic framework of that legislation. That is the benefit of having all parties working together. I would like the Minister to answer why we cannot have that approach this time.

Can the Minister answer—with the red printing presses running overtime down at Labour Party headquarters—why he is proposing a number of pieces of legislation that state that if this brochure I am holding were distributed by a sitting Labour MP it would not be an election expense, but if it were distributed by a non-MP Labour candidate then it would be an election expense? How does that work? It is the same brochure with the same content, but when distributed by an MP it is not counted as an election expense, whereas when it is distributed by a candidate it is counted as an election expense. I think the Minister owes an explanation to the Committee.

A number of amendments have been moved on the expiry date of this bill, because we think the expiry date should change. Parliament should have to work in the way that it has done previously, to make sure that there is a multiparty approach to this bill. These sorts of bills are all about the majority enforcing its view on the minority, without any consultation or taking matters into account. The consequence of that is that we are ending up with a bill that sets a very bad precedent. Of course, the Minister will say that Gerry Brownlee agreed with all this. That is simply not correct. Gerry Brownlee made it absolutely clear that this bill would not work in the interests of New Zealand, and, as has been stated previously, that the rules that applied before the last election should apply now because they were clear.

If the Labour Party used $800,000 of taxpayers’ money to send its pledge card, then the pledge card should have counted as an election expense. Why are the rules changing in this legislation, so that the pledge card will no longer be considered an election expense? With what justification is this happening? Does the Minister have the same justification as Peter Brown gave the Committee last night, which is that the legislation will protect him from the Auditor-General?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this

We are indeed talking about the expiry date of this bill. The issue is that we have had settled rules around the allocation of expenditure and the limits, and around the way they operate in an election campaign. This bill seeks to override them. This bill overrides the Auditor-General.

Peter Brown perfectly let the cat out of the bag last night. He said that this bill is about saving us and about protecting members of Parliament from the Auditor-General. That is what Peter Brown said. Members on this side of the Committee asked why we have to have a special bill to protect us from the Auditor-General, but only until 30 June 2009. In other words, the Government is saying: “Let’s just cheat for the next election, because the polls aren’t looking too good. We know it’s unprincipled. We know it’s just a cash grab. We know it’s just about cheating.” But, as the New Zealand Herald so accurately stated—

Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this

Absolutely! The Minister in the chair, Dr Cullen, has no respect for democratic principle and no respect for fair elections. He has become so intoxicated by power that he will do anything to hang on to his role, including cheating on electoral laws.

I say to the Minister in the chair that an unprincipled National Government could easily have introduced biased electoral laws with the huge reforms that involved the introduction of MMP. But National actually passed those huge electoral laws back in 1994, with an absolute consensus between National and Labour. Yes, we could have been arrogant oafs and skewed the scrum; we did not, because this party—the National Party—

Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this

—is actually committed to some basic democratic principles, I say to Shane Jones.

I would like Mr Jones or Dr Cullen to explain how it is fair that under this bill we have a definition of electioneering that is completely different from that which applies to citizens under the Electoral Finance Bill. Why is it that if a private citizen wants to publish a pamphlet, then it is deemed to be electioneering if it expresses any view on any subject on which any political party or candidate has a view? But when it comes to the exclusion of the use of public money and the definition of electioneering for politicians, it is basically deemed to be electioneering only if the pamphlet states “Vote for me”. We all know of material that goes far wider than that.

I know that Dr Cullen has got all excited in the House recently because I put out a newsletter in the last month. That newsletter talks about my work in Nelson and the hard work the National Party does in advocating views that are important to the people of Nelson. But what is peculiar to my situation, I would say to Dr Cullen, is that the newsletter has been in the same format for 18 or 19 years, and I have never been found—unlike the Minister in the chair, Dr Cullen—

Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this

—I have never been found by the Auditor-General to have breached the rules around the use.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this

Well, the members opposite take great pride in this. Is it not interesting? I stick up for a family—a mum and a dad who want to see their kids. Members opposite think it is funny that a mum and dad have not seen their children for 6 years.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this

Those two speeches were so full of factual errors and misinterpretation that it was quite extraordinary. Let us just take one small point. Dr Smith said he has put out the same newsletter for 18 or 19 years. That is remarkable. He has been an MP for 17 years, but he has put out the same newsletter for 18 or 19 years. That is very, very well done. How prescient of him, at the start of his political career—17 years as an MP!

Secondly, Dr Smith has got it wrong about the Electoral Act and the definition in relation to MPs. That definition appears in the 1993 Electoral Act, which was introduced under the previous National Government. It has not changed, and it is still the same—he is wrong.

The third point is that we were asked why we did not try to put in place new legislation. Well, we did try. That is exactly what we have spent much of this year talking with all the other parties about. National got to the point where it said it actually thought that was a good idea, but it would not support it. National wanted to debate the issue in the context of the Electoral Finance Bill, so it said it was not going to agree to a new, permanent regime. National members did say the legislation should be rolled over, and, yes, rolled over to the middle of next year, sometime just before an election. That was also pretty clear.

Then the member said that he has never said anything like “Vote for me”, using the Parliamentary Service expenditure. What does “Why New Zealand needs a new Government” mean from a National MP? Or does he think that Nelson voters are so thick that when there is a Labour-led Government in office, “Why New Zealand needs a new Government” does not mean “Vote National”? Is that what he thinks? The member actually has one of the more intelligent electorates in the country in Nelson, although voters there have had a lapse for six elections in a row in that regard. Actually no, I am sorry—it is not six; it is five. Dr Smith was first elected in 1993, not 1990. He actually did not get elected in 1990. He has been an MP in this place for only 14 years; I correct myself as well as him on that. The newsletter also said “nick4nelson”. “Nelson, get nicked”, we might say, if we put it somewhat differently in terms of the approach from that member.

The real point about all of this is that the law is not settled. What this bill does is to return the law and extend the current law to what everybody understood it to be before 2005. That includes the National Party’s understanding of it in the 2002 election campaign, with Bill English’s “My commitment” public advertisement in that campaign having been paid for by the Parliamentary Service. Or is Mr English a hypocrite? Oh, well, that is an interesting response to that point. One can fill in the gaps after the three dots in that regard.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this

What the Auditor-General refused to do was to look at what National did spend its money on. He was asked to do so and he refused. He did not look at the money that that party spent on staff in 2005 and at what those staff were doing, and we all know that because National refused to tell us what those staff were doing. Those members refused to reveal their accounts at that point. [ Interruption] Oh, we know exactly what the member’s staff were doing at that point: they were engaged in electioneering.

But the fundamental flaw in the argument from the National Party is this: MPs do not stop being MPs 3 months, 6 months, or 9 months before an election. MPs stop being MPs at midnight on election night, unless re-elected. That is actually the law. And MPs, surprisingly, are engaged in politics. I know that Dr Smith is not. I know that Dr Smith adopts a very pure life, publicly and privately. I know that he always tells the truth. I know that he never questions the referee, whether it is the Auditor-General or the court or whomever it may be. I know that no member of the National Party would ever accuse independent assessors in the Public Service of lying. I know that some of them gave the impression that they did—

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this

Oh, the member did—sorry, he just did. I correct that. He did just accuse the State Services Commissioner of lying—and Mr Hunn, the former commissioner, and Mr Sherwin, the head of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. I ask whether there is anybody else the member would like to add to the list of liars in the public sector, inside the Chamber and under privilege. I ask whether the member would like to add any more names in that regard. The only person I know of in this House about whom a court has said he lied is Dr Nick Smith. The court said it did not believe the tale that he told. That is what the court said.

And I say MPs do have to explain their views and will continue to do so.

CHRIS TREMAIN Link to this

No one ever said that that member was standing in the seat of Napier; he was resident in the electorate of Napier. I would imagine that having the Deputy Prime Minister resident in the electorate of Napier would have some influence over the residents of that community. Obviously that was not the case, with the vote going from 11,800 to 4,500 and then to a loss of 3,600 for Labour.

I want to come back to the junior candidate. Our president reminded us time and time again that there was a standard level of money that we could spend—$20,000—and we could spend it only in the 90 days before the election. We had to authorise everything, make sure our logos were fine, but spend only $20,000. Even with those rules, it is not a fair playing field and I accept that; the power of incumbency is huge. If someone is an electorate MP, the advantage is massive. That person has all sorts of things in his or her favour: an office, a motor vehicle, and staff. The playing field is not fair and I accept that. I accept that incumbency factor. I was happy to take on the underdog status. It is a bit like the Hawke’s Bay rugby team taking on Waikato this year, or taking on Wellington, Canterbury, and Auckland; that team was the underdog. But the difference was that when that team took on those other teams the rules were the same for both and the teams expected to play on an even playing field. However, that was not the case for me when I came in as an underdog candidate into the Napier seat that previously had had 11,800 as its majority.

It was not just the incumbency factor that I had to put up with. I could have accepted the benefits of incumbency for the sitting MP, but on top of the $20,000, another candidate is up against a whole lot more. We turned up to campaigns at the Eastern Institute of Technology where there were literally hundreds of pens with the parliamentary crest on them being handed out to the young students. At candidate meeting after candidate meeting that we went to, these pens with the parliamentary crest on were being handed out. On top of that there were newsletters coming out. Dr Cullen would have received into his own letterbox A4 newspaper pages out of the Napier Mail funded by Parliamentary Service in those last 90 days. How is that fair? How is that fair—accepting the benefits of incumbency—to a new candidate coming into that situation? On top of that, the pledge card came out at the same time. There was $800,000 of advertising, all funded by Parliamentary Service and all working against the new candidate.

New Zealand has a sense of fairness. We understand that incumbency carries advantages, but we want a fair playing field. We want the underdog to have a chance, just like the Hawke’s Bay rugby team that stood up against Auckland, Waikato, and other teams around New Zealand. That team had a tough field to play on, but when the two teams got on to the field in these games, they were playing by the same rules. On a number of occasions, Hawke’s Bay actually stood up against the odds and beat those champion teams. That is what the National side of the Chamber is calling for—fairness.

We accept that an incumbent MP has an advantage; we have to accept that. But when we get into the final stage of the election process, there needs to be fair rules for new candidates coming in. That is why National members stand for that fairness. That is why I challenged Dr Cullen to stand against me in the seat of Napier at the next election, to have a crack at Napier, to put his bill to the test, and to see whether he could win the seat of Napier back for his party. Unfortunately, I have news that may be bad news, or it may be good news; he did not take up the challenge and is not prepared to have a go. Thank you very much.