Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) Link to this
I move, That the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time it is my intention to move that the bill be referred to the Electoral Legislation Committee, which has been established to consider two other bills that this bill relates to, and that the committee be asked to report back on this bill no later than 12 November 2010. For reasons that I will explain later in my speech, it is essential that the bill is passed before 1 January 2011.
This is a short bill that provides a definition for the term “funding entitlements for parliamentary purposes” for the purpose of clarifying the principal duties of the Parliamentary Service in terms of who or what is funded by the Parliamentary Service. This takes the interim definition in the Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Act 2009 as the starting point for the proposed permanent definition, which will become part of the Parliamentary Service Act 2000. Some new elements are also being proposed in this bill, which I will explain in greater detail shortly.
I think it is worthwhile to remind the House of the history of the interim definition. The Auditor-General’s report on advertising expenditure during the 2005 general election concluded that some of the expenses met by the vote from the Parliamentary Service appropriation were, in fact, election expenses and should not have been paid by Parliamentary Service. Following the release of the Controller and Auditor-General’s report there was a need to establish and define what “parliamentary purposes” are and, in particular, what is meant by electioneering when considering communications by members and parliamentary parties. Concern was also expressed that although the Controller and Auditor-General’s report focused on advertising expenditure, it had implications for all expenditure under Vote Parliamentary Service appropriations. The Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Act 2006 was subsequently introduced to give clarity to the phrase “funding entitlements for parliamentary purposes”. This is an important term for defining the elements or entitlements that members and parties receive under the Parliamentary Service Act 2000 and the Civil List Act 1979. The definition specifies that publicity is within the scope of funding entitlements for parliamentary purposes unless it includes explicit electioneering—that is, publicity material that explicitly seeks votes, donations, or party membership.
The interim definition established in the 2000 Act has been subsequently rolled over in 2007 and 2009 in what is currently the Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Act 2009. Because the current interim definition expires on 31 December 2010, it is essential that this bill be passed by that date. The interim definition provides a brightline test with very clear guidance about what is prohibited. This is generally considered to be satisfactory because it has stood the test of time. It has been maintained through three interim statutes that have been in place for a number of years. The bill builds on what is the interim definition for reasons of consistency, which I shall also explain later in greater detail. It has proven to be administratively practical by the Parliamentary Service since its introduction in 2006. There has not been a need to require major changes in members’ and parties’ practices, which would have been a consequence of the Auditor-General’s approach. It is clear about the publicity material that can be funded using parliamentary funds.
I think it is worth noting at this point that the bill has a number of connections to two electoral bills that have already appeared before the House, namely, the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill and the Electoral Referendum Bill. As my colleague the Hon Nathan Guy said in the House on 4 May in regard to the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill, this is an important bill that has cross-party consensus in developing electoral law. This is also true of this bill and at this time I wish to thank all parties on the Parliamentary Service Commission for their involvement in developing the policies that have led to the preparation of this bill.
Generally speaking, the bill maintains the legislative framework that has been in place since legislation was passed in 2006 and preserves the convention observed by members before 2006, which was that parliamentary publicity entitlements should not be used for electioneering purposes. It is entirely reasonable to treat referenda in the same way as elections, as to most people they are very similar activities. The bill does this by establishing a rule to prevent members of Parliament and parliamentary parties from using parliamentary funds for any advertisement that explicitly supports voting for a particular way in a referendum. The other most notable feature of the bill is the rule to prevent MPs and parliamentary parties from using parliamentary funding for any persuasive election publicity during the regulated period of a general election, or referendum publicity where a regulated period is imposed in a Government-initiated referendum. Members will have to fund this type of publicity by other means. This provision demonstrates how the Government, with the consensus of other parties in this House, has used the electoral finance review process to address issues of concern. During 2009 the Government released an issues paper as part of the electoral finance review process that questioned whether the rules were sufficiently clear that Parliamentary Service funding cannot be used for election purposes.
As I have already observed, the Government has openly raised issues relevant to this bill in the electoral finance review and it has been a cooperative process across the House. With the cooperation of other parties on the Parliamentary Service Commission, we have sought to develop enduring solutions by building on rules that were enacted in 2006 with an aim of achieving greater clarity. The Parliamentary Service Commission’s work will be picked up by the Electoral Legislation Committee, which, because it has already considered the electoral bills that this bill is related to, is well placed to give prompt consideration to the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill so it can be passed before the current interim Act expires. I commend this bill to the House.
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) Link to this
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the first reading of the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill. Never before in the history of any consideration of parliamentary legislation has such Mugabe-style legislation been defended in such a pedestrian fashion as we have just heard from the Leader of the House, the Hon Gerry Brownlee. [ Interruption] The Hon David Carter says to be charitable, and Michael Woodhouse, who is a new member, has a bewildered look on his face, which is not all that different from the look he has at question time, actually, but I am assuming it is bewildered now. My description of this legislation as “Mugabe-style” is not my own personal view; I will be voting in support of this bill, as will my Labour colleagues. The description of this definition of funding entitlements for parliamentary purposes as “Mugabe-style” is a direct quote from Gerry Brownlee, who tonight is the Minister in charge of introducing this legislation to the House. This bill rolls over what was an interim definition of parliamentary purposes, which, just a matter of a few months ago, was so bad that it was not to be simply opposed by the National Party in Opposition, but it was to be elevated to such a level of Dr Evil status as to be Mugabe-like. Yet I never heard once during the Leader of the House’s contribution any sort of graceful jumping down off the horse in that respect as to how all of a sudden he now has insights that have changed his view as to how this legislation is not Mugabe-style but, rather, is enforcing and reinforcing our democratic style in New Zealand.
I say to the Government that tonight the Labour Party will do a terrible, evil, hopeless, duplicitous thing: we will maintain a consistent position. I know that the Tories over there, at the mere thought of a consistent position, are falling off their benches. It is like one of those new vampire TV seasons, where a bit of daylight falling on them sees them melt. But we will vote the same way that we voted in Government. We will stand on the same definition that we believed in when we were the Government, and we will back this legislation as a result of that.
Hon Dr Jonathan ColemanHon DARREN HUGHES Link to this
Jonathan Coleman is busy over there, squawking away from the third row, which originally I thought was not a high enough place for him, but the last 18 months have made me absolutely convinced of that view, but he has to know why. He voted against this legislation when he was in Opposition and said that it was a terrible thing. I know that my colleagues have found all sorts of quotes from Opposition members from that time, so let me—
Hon DARREN HUGHES Link to this
You know, being a member of Cabinet in New Zealand is such a limiting experience. He does not have a speaking slot, so he cannot tell us what are the new facts or the new information that led to a change in this whole area.
Hon DARREN HUGHES Link to this
Oh, I thank the member for saying that. The Hansard reporter has recorded it and I can respond to it, so it is now on the record that National members say that, on legislation like this, it depends on what side of the House one sits on as to what the definition of “parliamentary purposes” should be. You know, there is nothing more reliable than a Tory in that respect, and I thank the honourable member across the House for that.
Hon DARREN HUGHES Link to this
Oh no, I do not wish that I was one of the National members, because I cannot believe the language that we heard. I respect the Leader of the House on a number of levels, but I wish that there could have been some explanation as to why the Mugabe-style legislation, after his careful, diligent consideration of the legislation, turned out to be exactly the same as Labour’s legislation, and all of a sudden it is no longer Mugabe-style.
Hon DARREN HUGHES Link to this
Well, I know that the member has become quite skilled at the U-turn in recent times, but I would have thought there would be a little more Kirkcaldie and Stains class about this, rather than the Farmers version that we saw tonight in respect of this legislation.
Hon DARREN HUGHES Link to this
Farmers Trading store—where the member gets all his best suits.
The other point that needs to be raised is with regard to Bill English, who I hoped would be taking a call tonight, because this is the sort of legislation he should be opposing on conscience grounds. I am not sure whether it is a party vote, but on conscience grounds he should oppose this because of what happened when he was the Leader of the Opposition. We heard a remarkably incisive, insightful, and revealing speech during the third reading of the Appropriation Bill today. All the Minister of Finance’s personal disappointments, defeats, and anger were channelled through that speech. If anyone who is observing the debate tonight wants to know about political disappointments and setbacks, then he or she ought to read that speech. It is rich material.
I am grateful to Mr English for the way in which he gives these speeches from time to time. But when he was the Leader of the Opposition, most of the 2002 election campaign was funded through the Parliamentary Service. So National members opposite tonight, who previously opposed this definition and are now in support of it, need to reflect on how this point was driven through by Mr English when he was in charge. When we hear speeches from him about fiscal prudence, wasteful expenditure, and all those sorts of matters, they need to know that there is a veritable pot-pourri of examples from Mr English, whether it is Parliamentary Service spending or Ministerial Services spending, on which he really should not be lecturing the rest of the House. His colleagues would do well to advise him on that point.
The Leader of the House has spelt out what this legislation does. I have not gone over that ground again because, as I said—
Tim MacindoeHon DARREN HUGHES Link to this
Well, Mr Macindoe interjects, but the point, if he had been listening at the beginning, is that Labour’s position is consistent.
Hon DARREN HUGHES Link to this
The consistent point is that the definition in this bill, which I doubt the member has read, is the same one that this party has supported, has brought before Parliament, and has voted on, and on which it has faced ridicule from the Opposition, including David Carter, who was once a front-bencher. David Carter was once the finance spokesman for the National Party. He was once at No. 3 in the party. It is hard to know that from his work rate today, I know. We see him once every sitting session, but when he does come along, we remember that he was once a senior man in the National Party. In those days, National members used to get up and rail against legislation of this type. We are in support of it. We are in support of the brightline test—always have been. We are in support of the definitions that sit in the bill—always have been. We are looking forward to the consultation that the Government says it will have through the select committee process.
None of this is new, but it would be too disappointing just to sit here and not point out some of the irony that comes along. I know that irony goes alongside life; it is part of the natural human condition. Anger is not, which is why Bill English always surprises me so much. But I would have thought that it would be good manners, when legislation like this is going through, for members opposite to say: “Look, we have now had a chance to think about it.”, and they could have invented three or four things. I am sure that the Ministry of Justice could find three or four—
Hon DARREN HUGHES Link to this
Well, “Sir Humphrey” is Wayne Mapp, so I would be very careful about that. That side of the House is littered with Jim Hackers and Humphrey Applebys. In fact, as I look at the member more, I see that he reflects that kind of personality in every single respect. I am not sure that he has had so many interjections as he has tonight. I am being so generous to him in responding. In fact, tonight the member achieves his Hansard world record. He will be wanting to go on the Westminster scholarship to London for 6 weeks on the back of that achievement pretty soon, I am sure.
Labour will support the first reading of this legislation. We will send it off to a select committee and see it go through. It is important that this happen. In fact, when the interim definition was put through, both sides of the political divide—the Government and the Opposition—did say that we had to get beyond an interim definition and work out a new definition. I am glad that the imagination, creativity, class, and genius of Gerry Brownlee has seen the interim definition become the permanent one, with no difference whatsoever.
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
We were held back by the Opposition. They couldn’t let go. They had to hold on.
Hon DARREN HUGHES Link to this
It is true that the Government was held back by the Opposition, but not in this term; it was during the last one. That is what happened when we saw this legislation go through previously.
If we can get some permanent settlement on these matters, then I think it will be useful, because so many things have been said by members across both sides of the House on this issue over the years. It will provide a proper and sensible resolution to the matter. I am just grateful for the fact that this Government has an Opposition that is far more willing to cooperate in a sensible way on matters like this, rather than, to quote the immortal words of the Hon David Carter: “When we are sitting on one side of the House, we will say one thing. When we are sitting on the other side, we will say the other.” That can only be reminiscent of a policy that was to be a step change with our economic performance with Australia. When one is on this side of the House, it is so easy to define what the difference is with regard to the gap between New Zealand and Australia. One just gets up and say: “It is in big trouble, and we are going to sort it out.”, and when one is on that side of the House, one is left debating statistical series courtesy of Statistics New Zealand, where one is not quite sure whether it is the average wage, the median wage, the average income, the purchase price parity, and all the other things that those members say, and one has eight or nine different series of statistics that one has to quote. But when one is over here, it all seems so easy.
In a spirit of generosity towards the Government, we say that we are with the Government on this. We support it. We think the Government has done a great job on it, and we just hope that when the accrued accounts of the Parliamentary Service come out, we find that the xerox machine that has helped this legislation go from Labour to National has not been put on our budget.
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) Link to this
The only remarks about the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill in the commentary state that it provides a meaning of the term “funding entitlements for parliamentary purposes” for the Parliamentary Service Act 2000. It then goes on to state—very quietly, I might add—“Following the Controller and Auditor-General’s 2006 report on his inquiry into advertising expenditure incurred by the Parliamentary Service in the 3 months before the 2005 General Election …”. It just quietly mentions that an inquiry was done into election spending in 2005. It would be remiss of me if I did not remind the public of how we got into that position and a little bit about that review.
Members may recall a piece of marketing literature distributed during the 3-month regulated period prior to the 2005 election, which had the parliamentary crest attached to it and was therefore paid for by the New Zealand taxpayer. What was written on it went something like this: “ ‘My Commitments to You’ 1. No interest on student loans for New Zealand based graduates 2. 7,500 extra cataract operations and 10,000 extra major joint operations in the next term 3. Final date for lodging historical Treaty claims by 1 September 2008, and commit to finish all settlements by 2020 4. Increase maximum rates rebate to $500 and increase income eligibility thresholds 5. $1,000 kick start for everyone joining KiwiSaver … 6. 5,000 extra Modern Apprentices 7. 250 extra community police on the streets”. That was the Labour pledge card paid for by the Kiwi taxpayer prior to the 2005 election.
The cost of that promotion was $446,000; an additional investment of some $7,500 per electorate—$7,500 per electorate. It was part of a wider taxpayer-funded campaign in the 3-month period prior to the 2005 general election of $800,000, which approximated to an additional spend of $13,000 per electorate. I was told time and time again as a new candidate in that election that $20,000 was the maximum spend in an electorate. The pledge card went way beyond that.
The pledge card was blatant electioneering designed to solicit votes from Kiwis by promising to do a range of things in the next term of Government. Let us take the 7,500 extra cataract operations in the next term. That was clearly a promotion designed to benefit that party in the election campaign of 2005. It was pure and simple electioneering. It broke the rules, it leveraged taxpayer money to provide an unfair advantage, and it resulted in legislation being passed following the election to retrospectively approve the spend. It was indeed one of the very low points of the last term of Government. I am proud that this bill seeks to prevent that type of rort from happening again. This is a good thing, this is a very good thing, and I recommend this bill to the House.
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) Link to this
It is delicious irony, is it not? The emperor with no clothes came to the House tonight as the first speaker on the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill. He was full of gravitas, with no emotion, and no hysteria at all about this fundamentally good bill before us tonight. But he was exposed in his speech by saying that the difference between then and now is that we are on this side of the House. We will never let National members forget that.
I want to say some other things. Of course Labour members support this bill; Darren Hughes has laid out our position. It is about defining clear, common-sense rules around parliamentary spending in campaigns and in referendums. So of course we support it.
I mention, too, that we love to see National entrenching this position in this bill tonight. We will try to stop doing what National did when we were in Government when we wanted to get a constructive set of rules working to find something that was enduring for the future. I will mention a couple of other things that National members railed against when they were in Opposition. Not just for days but for weeks and weeks they built up hysteria about rorts in electoral spending. On this issue Nick Smith said: “I know of no time in my 17 years when I have seen a bill that will bring this Parliament into as much disrepute as the bill before us.” It is exactly the same issue; the same wording that has come through tonight. He also said it was a rort. Judith Collins said that it was a disgrace. Anne Tolley had the line: she said it was a rort and an absolute disgrace for democracy in New Zealand. Tony Ryall came to the House and said: “It should matter to the lower benches of the Labour Party, because they may be in a future Parliament and they will not want a future Government to jackboot over their rights as an Opposition, as this Government is jackbooting over the rights of all New Zealanders with this attack on the democratic values that most New Zealanders hold dear.”
That was the National members when they were in Opposition. They attacked our position then, and it remains fundamentally unchanged. Of course we will support this bill tonight; we have absolutely no problem with supporting this bill. This was our position—it always was our position—and we will be cooperative. We were promised that there would be wide consultation on this; we have not had wide consultation on it, at all. We worked constructively on the electoral finance review when it was undertaken and we look forward to this bill going to the Electoral Legislation Committee, where we will be constructive. But we hope that the Government allows a decent period of time so that consultation happens at the select committee.
I support this bill mainly because it is sensible. I welcome the entrenchment of a change of position by National. It is funny how when Labour members are on this side of the House and National members are on that side of the House they change the rhetoric that goes with bills before us. But we will support it.
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) Link to this
I will take a short call on behalf of my colleague Metiria Turei. Given the state of my voice, I am thankful that it will be a short call.
The Green Party will support the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill being referred to the select committee because we believe that it is crucial that spending for parliamentary purposes be aligned with electoral finance law. Fortunately, as the Leader of the House has said, the Electoral Legislation Committee is currently considering electoral finance laws. The committee should be able to consider this legislation alongside electoral finance law legislation.
I shall make a few remarks about the definition of “electioneering”. Overall, the provisions are not controversial, given that they cement and only slightly extend the existing rules. The extension primarily concerns the use of parliamentary spending in a referendum by adding to the definition of “electioneering” any communication that explicitly “supports voting for one of the answers to the precise question to be put to voters in an indicative referendum initiated under the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993; or supports voting for one of the responses to be put to electors in a government initiated referendum:”. “Electioneering” is also defined to mean “a referendum advertisement published during the regulated period in relation to a government initiated referendum.” Those are sensible extensions that are consistent and rational.
Additionally, the bill raises the issue of spending generally in referenda and election campaigns. Although it is quite right in the current context that parliamentary funds are not spent on electioneering, it is also crucial—if we are to have fair elections and fair referenda—that there should be caps on spending by both political parties and third parties that campaign. This is a live issue that has been raised a great deal by submitters to the Electoral Legislation Committee. The Green Party supports the view that those caps are necessary, because without such caps it is entirely possible that a referendum outcome or an election outcome could be based on deepness of pockets as opposed to arguments and logic. Elections and especially Government referenda must be contested in the fairest possible environment, and caps on spending are essential to achieve that.
I will make a few remarks on MP expenses. The provision in this bill that excludes participation in the official inter-parliamentary travel programme from funding entitlements for parliamentary purposes means that the regular members’ expenses disclosure will not include these costs. We think that is a sensible step to take.
The Green Party is proud to have led Parliament in the disclosure of MPs’ expenses. We announced in June 2009 that Green Party MPs would regularly release our accommodation and travel spending details. As a result of our first release of that information in June 2009, the Prime Minister followed us with an announcement that he and the Speaker would work on a proposal to release that same information for all MPs in July. As a result of our setting the agenda on the process for transparency, Parliament has followed, and we are proud of that achievement.
There is no doubt that more could and should be done in this area. We were very pleased with the Report of the Fourth Triennial Parliamentary Appropriations Review released last month. The authors agreed with the Green Party that we need to have an independent review of all MPs’ and Ministers’ allowances, so that we can construct a system for the use of public money that meets 21st century public expectations, and builds confidence among the public in their elected representatives. Because we have not had such a review, we are seeing the release of information and changes to the fringes of the system that are not fully transparent or principled. An independent review is an absolute necessity to prepare Parliament for future demands for transparency and accountability. Good government and healthy politics must be at the core of the institution of Parliament. The Green Party will stand firm to promote and protect them. Some small steps have been taken, but more are necessary. The Green Party will continue to play a part in leading that change. Thank you.
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) Link to this
I am happy to take a very brief call on the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill to outline, of course, Labour’s support for this legislation and the principles contained within it. We have consistently supported this legislation since 2006, when the Auditor-General raised the issues that he did. Labour’s position on this has not changed, unlike the Government’s.
I was interested, however, to see that Chris Tremain decided to introduce into the debate the issue of the pledge card. Labour was disappointed with the Auditor-General’s decision about the pledge card, and we stumped up and paid that money back. But I will tell the House that one thing people knew about the Labour Party pledge card was that we would keep the promises that were on it.
I have here a pledge card that was distributed at the last election. Four of the pledges have already been broken, and, by my count, at least three more are at risk. Out of a total of 11 pledges, National has already broken four, and there are at least three more that it is thinking about breaking. Steven Joyce is thinking about breaking National’s pledge on interest-free student loans. He has been musing out loud about how unaffordable they are. National has already broken its pledge on tax cuts. It has already broken its pledge on front-line services. It has already broken its education pledge. It has already broken its pledges on superannuation.
One thing we knew about the Labour pledge card was that when Helen Clark signed her name to it and said that the Labour Government was going to deliver on it, we actually were going to deliver on it, whereas National’s pledge card stated: “If National is elected to lead the next Government, I personally guarantee that we will: …”. Whose name is on the bottom of that piece of paper, personally guaranteeing all those promises that have been broken? It is John Key’s. His signature is at the bottom of the National pledge card, but those promises have not been kept.
Labour has consistently supported the position that is outlined in this legislation. Labour has consistently supported that, unlike National. Gerry Brownlee described it as “utterly disgraceful”. This very legislation being introduced to the House now was—
It was exactly the same legislation, and Gerry Brownlee thought it was utterly disgraceful. Nick Smith stood in this House and said of the same legislation: “I know of no time in my 17 years when I have seen a bill that will bring this Parliament into as much disrepute as the bill before us.” That was Nick Smith’s position on this legislation. He was one of Bill English’s right-hand men.
That is right. He was the field marshal and Bill English’s numbers man.
It is ironic that he thought this legislation was going to bring Parliament into disrepute, when the 2002 National Party election campaign presided over by Bill English was funded entirely by the taxpayer. Do we remember the billboards up and down the country? They showed Bill English in front of the beach saying: “No special deals. The beaches are for everyone.” I wonder whether National’s position on that has changed in the last few months, as well, like all of the promises on its pledge card. Those words—
Hon Bill EnglishHe does not remember. The billboards were all over the country; they said: “No special deals. The beaches are for everyone.”—and Bill English cannot remember who paid for them.
They had the parliamentary crest on them. The taxpayer paid for them.
We know that, not just because they had the parliamentary crest on them but because we know that the National Party had no money. We know that it had no money, because when Don Brash rolled Bill English, he stood up in the caucus and read out a letter that said that National had no money, and that was why he needed to replace Bill English as the National Party leader. All these years later Bill English is still simmering with resentment, and we saw that this afternoon in the appropriations debate when he canvassed all of that bitter history of Don Brash rolling him.
Of course, we know what happened to Don Brash in the end. The Hollow Men came along. Nicky Hager came along and ruined it for Don Brash, with a bit of help from people on the side. I wonder who may well have been involved in that. A few people on the other side of the House have never stood up and denied that they were involved in leaking the information to Nicky Hager.
Well, one could ask Mr English about the emails. Suddenly he is very quiet again. He is keeping his lips firmly sealed. Bill English has never denied that he had anything to do with the leaking of the emails. He has never stood in the House and said that he had nothing to do with it. I wonder why that could be.
I will come back to this bill that we are debating in the House today. Judith Collins described this bill as being “such a disgrace”. I wonder whether she will vote for this bill in a few moments. Anne Tolley, the Minister of Education, whom we know we can believe because she is very consistent in the things that she says, said: “This bill is a rort. It is an absolute disgrace for democracy in New Zealand.” That was the position of the Minister of Education when this bill first came before Parliament.
Like lambs to the slaughter. Gerry Brownlee just a few short moments ago said this legislation had “stood the test of time”. The legislation that Anne Tolley thought was a disgrace for democracy Gerry Brownlee thinks has stood the test of time. David Carter, of course, gave that very enlightening observation that it is Mugabe-style legislation when National is in Opposition, but it is perfectly legitimate now that National is in Government.
At least Labour has some consistency in our position here. We supported this legislation when it was first introduced. We supported the interim definition of funding for parliamentary purposes. Gerry Brownlee said the Government needed to find a more enduring solution to that interim definition. We now have it and it is exactly the same; National has just changed the word “interim” to “permanent”. But Labour has consistently supported it.
Finally, I remind the House of what Tony Ryall said about this legislation. He said: “It should matter to the lower benches of the Labour Party, because they may be in a future Parliament and they will not want a future Government to jackboot over their rights as an Opposition …”—to jackboot over their rights. So, by his own definition, Tony Ryall and National are jackbooting over the rights of the Labour Opposition with the legislation they have brought before the House.
Finally—I know it is my second “finally”, but there is always time for one more—Chris Tremain talked about spending limits when he talked about the 2005 general election campaign. Perhaps we could rewind the tape and go back to the little issue that was National’s GST problem. It spent all that extra money on television advertising, but it forgot to pay the GST on it, so National exceeded its own spending limits. It broke the law by spending more money on television advertising than it was allowed to, because it forgot that it had to pay GST.
I wonder whether the people at home who are paying more GST every time they go to the supermarket could simply say when they got to the checkout counter that they had forgotten about the GST, and ask for it to be taken off the bill and sent to Bill English for him to pay. It will not matter that they have exceeded their budget; they can keep on spending, because they forgot about the GST. That is what the National Party did in 2005 when it wanted to spend more than it was legally entitled to.
Hon Clayton CosgroveThey never ever paid it back. The Labour Party paid back the money owing for the pledge card, but the taxpayers are still waiting for the GST money from National’s 2005 election advertising. They are still waiting for the National Party to stump up and pay the money.
David Bennett is shaking his head, and I agree with him: it is an absolute disgrace, and I am pleased to see that David Bennett, who is on the backbenches of the National Party, thinks it is a disgrace, as well.
I am very pleased to see the interim definition that Gerry Brownlee thought was “Mugabe-style” legislation now becoming permanent, because it is a sensible solution, and that is why Labour will be voting in favour of it.
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) Link to this
I had not planned to take a call in this debate on the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill. I told the National whip that I would not be speaking. However, I do not believe that the comments from Chris Hipkins, who has just resumed his seat, can go without being responded to.
No, it is not too late, and I want to respond to Mr Hipkins’ comments, but before I do, let me comment briefly on the contribution of Kevin Hague. Kevin said he was speaking on behalf of his co-leader Metiria Turei. Metiria serves with me as a member of the Electoral Legislation Committee, and the Green Party has advocated that there should be a cap on the coming referendum on the possible change of the electoral system. The evidence that the committee has heard is that many organisations are interested in the outcome of that coming referendum and want to contribute to the public debate on it. To suggest that we should see some sort of cap is totally impractical, because many organisations have made submissions on the referendum, and many organisations should have the right to express their views.
For example, we have four different electoral systems up for grabs, if you like, in the coming referendum. Who is to say he or she has the God-given right to promote one particular viewpoint? There may be half a dozen different organisations that want to promote a pro-MMP campaign, and there may be three or four organisations that want to promote a pro - first-past-the-post campaign. When it comes to imposing limits, what do we do? Do we say we will allow $500,000 to promote each type of electoral system, and if there are five organisations wanting to run a campaign, they should have $100,000 each, and if there are two, they should have $250,000 each? It simply is not practical to have a limit on that referendum, because, unlike a citizens initiated referendum where we have one organisation promoting a referendum, and a spending limit within which it must make its case to the people, there could be any number of organisations wanting to express a view and influence the outcome of that referendum.
However, let me come back to the comments of Chris Hipkins. He criticised the National Party for overspending on television advertising in the 2005 general election. I think National had an allowance of $900,000, and spent $1 million on TV advertising, and then it said that in its calculations it had forgotten to allow for GST. National said that it could spend only $900,000 but had spent a million, and it had broken the law. Someone listening to the debate this evening would think the Labour Party was the paragon of democracy, standing up for free speech and democracy. Very few people in this country will be aware that it is illegal for a political party to go out and buy broadcasting time, other than what is given to it by the organisation responsible for overseeing elections.
That is the National position. So we currently have a law under which it is illegal for the ACT Party, the Green Party, and the Māori Party to purchase broadcasting time and try to compete with the two largest parties in this Parliament. It is illegal for us to compete with the Labour Party and the National Party. Those two larger parties get something like $900,000 or $1 million for broadcasting. The allocation for the Green Party at the last election was around about $200,000, and the Māori Party and the ACT Party were given $100,000. The law of New Zealand makes it illegal for the ACT Party to purchase additional time with its own money. We do not ask for the taxpayer to pay for it. We would like to raise our own money to try to compete on an equal footing with both the Labour Party and the National Party, and the law denies it.
We have a bill going through the Electoral Legislation Committee right now that could change that law, but I am told that although the National Party would support that change, the Labour Party and the Green Party will not. I am told that the Minister of Justice would be happy to amend the legislation to provide an equal chance for all of the political parties in this country to raise their own money and enable them to compete at the next election on an equal footing, but the Labour Party and the Green Party are opposed to it. So for members on the other side of the House to stand up and have the gall to suggest that they support a free and democratic society when they know full well—
Well, let me ask Labour members whether, if the ACT Party were to introduce amendments to that legislation to provide for all parties in this Parliament to campaign on an equal basis, they would support it. The situation is that at the last election the two largest parties in this Parliament were given by the taxpayer $900,000 each to purchase broadcasting—radio and television time—and the ACT Party was given $100,000, the Māori Party $100,000, and the Green Party $200,000. We are denied the chance to raise our own money to compete. When I first met Tariana Turia prior to the 2008 election, I recall her telling me that the Māori Party was significantly disadvantaged. It wanted to purchase radio broadcasting time on Māori radio and was denied the chance to do it. If it could have raised the funds it could not spend the money. Let me repeat for the Labour Party that if it is prepared to support an amendment to the legislation, I am prepared to go to the Māori Party and seek support—
It would be wrong. We have just heard from Mr Parker that he thinks it is right for the Labour Party to be able to spend $900,000 on broadcasting time, for the National Party to spend $900,000 on broadcasting time, and for the smaller parties in this Parliament to be denied the chance to compete on an equal footing. I am not surprised that Mr Parker says Labour opposes that, because I asked that question of Mr Little when he appeared on behalf of the Council of Trade Unions. I asked him why the Labour Party was opposed and whether he thought that was reasonable, and he said he thought it was. He said it was perfectly sensible for both the Labour and National parties to have $900,000 to spend on broadcasting time, while smaller parties in this Parliament are denied the chance to compete on an equal footing. That tells us something about the principles of the two largest parties in this Parliament. Thank you very much.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) Link to this
I am very happy to respond to that speech by John Boscawen, because the member who has just spoken confuses the principle of freedom of expression with the right to buy an election outcome. I say to Mr Boscawen that the ACT Party is on 2 percent, and the allocation that the party receives of the public moneys that go into broadcasting is already disproportionately high. The member’s party already receives money at a level that is disproportionately high.
The underlying issue that John Boscawen complains about is that there is any limit on broadcasting expenditure, and I am quite happy to stand in this House and defend the status quo. It is a stark choice between the style of our elections and of those that take place in the United States, where money talks, money works, and money buys an election outcome. ACT Party members can spend 24 hours a day putting their total effort into an election outcome. They are completely free to express themselves, to try to convince every other person. What ACT cannot do is disproportionately use its wealthier status to buy an election outcome in a way that exercises influence disproportionate to the pathetic 2 percent that it is at in the polls.
I revert to the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill. The bill maintains the brightline test. It effectively says that except for the 3-month election period, where no public moneys can go into an advertisement, the things that we do as politicians to promote ourselves as politicians are allowed. It acknowledges that we are effectively trying to encourage people to support us. That is what politicians do: we try to advocate for causes, just as John Boscawen was doing in advocating for a cause that he believes in—and he is perfectly entitled to do that. We are all entitled to try to influence people as to how they will vote at the next election. That is what we do every day in this House, and that is why in the end the Government has been forced to come back and say it might have been strident in its criticisms previously when this legislation was passed, but when one looks at it, one cannot have anything other than a brightline test, because nothing else works.
So this legislation says one cannot have taxpayers’ funds going into advertisements and things that encourage people during the 3 months prior to an election but outside of that we can use the money that we have to run this Parliament, and to pay for telephones and the publications that we put out, in a way that promotes the things that we stand for. That is absolutely intrinsic to the process of politics, and one cannot have a functioning democracy if politicians cannot do that. That is why, despite the rhetoric that we had from the National Party when it was in Opposition, which described this legislation in very extreme terms—and we have heard other members describe how they used the descriptions “Mugabe-style legislation”, “utterly disgraceful”, and “a rort”—the reality is that this legislation is good legislation. It stops parliamentary parties, in the 3 months prior to an election, using any parliamentary funds for advertising purposes, and it also stops us at any time directly asking people to vote for us. But it does enable us to go about the business that politicians have to go about, which is to try to show why the policies that our party stands for are better than the policies that the parties that we oppose stand for. That is why the Labour Party has been consistent in its support of the brightline test, and it is pleased to see that other parties in Parliament have now reached the same position.
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) on behalf of the Leader of the House) Link to this
I move, That the Electoral Legislation Committee consider the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill, that the committee report finally to the House on or before 12 November 2010, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c).