Hon Darren Hughes
Deputy Leader of the House
Speech Notes
Embargoed until delivery
Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill:
First Reading Speech Notes
Madam Speaker,
As the Leader of the House has said, this is a very simple bill. I want to use my speech to day to dispel some of the
myths being peddled about it.
This first myth I need to dispel is around electioneering. This bill will not allow parties to use parliamentary funding
to pay for electioneering material.
This is made quite clear in clause 3 which states that funding cannot be used for communications services that include
electioneering.
Those who claim that the bill will provide for electioneering are misleading the public. This bill continues the clear
legislative prohibition on using parliamentary funds for electioneering. This clear legislative prohibition did not
exist until we legislated for it last year. This provides clear and transparent rules which all parties must abide.
The second myth I need to dispel is that this bill is part of some grand plan to allow MPs to spend when others can’t.
This bill does not allow MPs to spend money on campaigning when others can’t. It provides rules under which MPs can
carry out their obligations to communicate with their constituents. Perhaps National MPs don’t take this obligation
seriously, but MPs supporting this bill certainly do. On a related point, Mr Brownlee continues to peddle the line that
the Electoral Finance Bill has changed the rules around accounting for MPs spending as election expenses. This is not
true and if Mr Brownlee doesn’t know this then he needs to read the current Electoral Act.
The Electoral Act of 1993, passed when a National Party Government held office, provides quite clearly, that activity
undertaken in a member’s capacity as a Member of Parliament, does not count towards election spending. Nothing in the
Electoral Finance Bill changes this and nothing in this bill changes it. What the National Party seems to be suggesting
is that MPs should be prevented from communicating with their constituents. This is not something that we can support.
The third myth I want to dispel is that this bill is being somehow ‘rushed through the House’. This bill is following
the normal legislative process for a bill of this sort. The bill relates to appropriations. It had to meet the test for
such bills, otherwise it would not have been allowed on the Order Paper in this form. It will proceed through the normal
deliberative process for such bills. It is the National Party that seems determined to try to play games with the proper
legislative process on this bill. I would be surprised if the Shadow Leader of the House really believed his mock
outrage on this. He has been in this House long enough to understand the legislative process, but it does concern me
that some of his acolytes might actually believe his crocodile tears. We are not taking any short cuts with this bill,
we are not rushing it through under urgency and we are not bypassing scrutiny. We are simply following the normal
legislative process.
Another myth that Mr Brownlee insists on propagating is the idea that this bill allows the Labour Party to use
government departments funding to promote the interests of the party. Again this is simply not true. This bill relates
to spending for Parliamentary purposes. Mr Brownlee seeks to confuse two quite separate issues. We heard Mr Brownlee
doing this again on National Radio on Tuesday. Nothing in this bill relates to spending by the Government. It only
relates to spending by Parliamentary parties – and let’s be clear, the party which benefits the most from funding for
Parliamentary parties is the National Party.
Finally I need to address a whole range of myths about what this bill is actually about. This bill is not about the
Electoral Finance regime. This bill is not about Labour’s pledge cards, or National’s pledge pamphlets. It’s not about
whether money that has already been repaid should have been. It’s not about whether Katherine Rich in 2005 or Bill
English in 2002 pushed the boundaries of the rules.
It is actually a quite simple bill. It is about whether the current legislative framework under which we are operating
should be extended through to June 2009. I wish we were debating a substantive rewrite of the rules that would provide
an enduring legislative framework. Unfortunately the proximity of the election made it impossible to reach agreement
among parties on such a framework. For this very reason it is essential that we extend the current interim framework
until 2009. This will allow parties to work together outside the heat of an election campaign and come up with some
enduring rules that we can all agree on.
In commending this bill to the House I would also like to acknowledge the support that has come from across the House
for this measure. It is not that often that Labour and Act agree on an issue, let alone Labour, Act, the Greens, New
Zealand First and United Future, but I think it shows that this is not an example of Labour trying to foist something on
the House. This bill has grown out of genuine consultation between parties across the House and is an example of the
benefits of parties working together in good faith. It is a shame that the National Party could not bring itself to see
this process through.
Madam Speaker,
I commend this Bill to the House.