Hon DAVID CARTER (National) : As the debate around the Electoral Finance Bill enters its final stages in the Committee the arguments still remain the same. This bill has been cobbled together by the Labour Government and supported by New Zealand First and the Greens, and the only purpose behind the bill is to rig the electoral system in order to give the gasping, dying Labour Government another chance. That is the only thing behind this bill, and Winston Peters knows it well. That is what is behind this bill.

The bill is fundamentally flawed—fundamentally flawed. There has been a convention around electoral finance legislation in the past whereby legislation like this bill is developed on a consensus basis.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Rubbish!

Hon DAVID CARTER: It is developed on a consensus basis, and Winston Peters knows that. He knows that very, very well.

But on this occasion Jill Pettis said it all. She said that there are people around New Zealand today who want to write cheques for the National Party because they want to see the end of the corruption that exists at the moment within the current Government. That is what is going on with this legislation. Winston Peters knows it, but I would tell—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. If Mr Carter wants to talk about corruption, then I am sure he is looking in the mirror, but he will not make that allegation about any member of this Government or, for that matter, a Minister. He has just mentioned my name. If he wants a rundown on corruption, then he should tell members what is going on in the Rakaia selection process right now, where there were five candidates and now there is only one, or he can give any other example. But he cannot make that accusation. It is outside the Standing Orders.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I would just like to draw members’ attention to the fact that the member was on a point of order. There should have been silence, and there was a lot of talking. It was actually quite hard to follow. [Interruption] I am ruling on a point of order. Members know that that is a term that is not to be used against a member or against a party, as per Speakers’ rulings, so I just caution the member.

Hon DAVID CARTER: If Helen Clark thinks that this bill will save her Government, then she has another think coming, because the public of New Zealand know what is going on with this legislation. Winston Peters knows what is going on with this legislation, Helen Clark knows, Doug Woolerton knows—they all know. This legislation is about screwing the scrum. It is about making sure the Government gets an advantage in putting its message out, using taxpayers’ money, after it got caught last year taking $850,000 off the taxpayer. After Winston Peters’ party got caught taking $50,000 off the taxpayer, Winston Peters said he would pay it back, and the cheque was in the mail—yeah, right! That money has never been paid back. That is what this legislation is about; it is about any mechanism the dying parties of New Zealand First and Labour can find to screw the scrum, take money off the taxpayers to sell their message, and in the meantime attempt to slow down the National Party in getting its message out to the public.

DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour—Dunedin South) : I would like the opportunity for a brief call; I will be more expansive later on in the debate.

I think it is important that we consider these matters in the wider context. Most people in this country know that we are here because of what the National Party—not the Exclusive Brethren, not the racing industry, but the National Party—got up to in 2005. I think it is important in the wider Australasian context that we think about the wider social context. We live in a time of substantial proliferation of the so-called independent thinktanks. We are only too aware of the extent of the covert flow of funds in our communities.

We have, in terms of the media reporting, a lack of objectivity about this issue. There was the extraordinary position recently of so-called independent commentators such as David Farrar, a National Party staffer, and ACT bagman Mr Boscawen being characterised as having some degree of independence and objectivity. That is clearly not the case.

But there are some glimmers of hope—more in the Australian media, I must say, than here. I refer members to the excellent ABC documentary The Brethren Express, which contains fascinating New Zealand material. It is yet to be shown on our television. One can assume that the decision to show it here will be made shortly, but it is available to members and to listeners by way of the ABC website.

There are also some other local resources about the Australasian socio-political scene that are extremely informative and useful as a resource to our whole community. The first one I refer to is some wonderful work by an academic called Marion Maddox, an Australian who is now in the department of religious studies at Victoria University in this very city. Marion Maddox is the author of the book God Under Howard, and her exposé of the marginalisation by the former Australian Prime Minister of the traditional churches and his encouragement of the fringe churches is an extraordinary read. When I have finished these comments in a few moments I will ask leave to table her Ferguson Lecture, given in New Zealand in 2006, which makes extraordinary reading.

I close by referring also to another most important resource; namely, the evidence given to the select committee by Nicky Hager, which is not contained in his book and is quite new material. I refer members to that document—in particular, pages 2 to 7 of the transcript of his evidence—and I would like to make one direct quote. Mr Hager stated on page 4 of the transcript: “I suspect that the National Party helped to draft the Exclusive Brethren ads, but I don’t have proof of that. What I am absolutely sure of, what I have absolutely confident knowledge of, is that the people who the Exclusive Brethren liaised with and informed of their plans completely were the leader, Don Brash, the finance spokesperson, John Key, and the campaign manager, Steven Joyce, and that a very short period after that, the whole campaign team—people like McCully and Brownlee—also knew. The subsequent denials were not correct. They were untrue.”

Thank you Madam Chair. I seek leave of the House to table the 2006 Ferguson Lecture God and New Zealand Public Life.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is an objection.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) : I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this perfidious Electoral Finance Bill, and I say “perfidious” in the true sense of the word, because it is a breach of faith by this Labour Government to the people of New Zealand and it is treacherous because indeed it is totally in the self-interest of this Labour Government.

When we talk about the title of this bill, we can think of it as the “Labour Government Suppression of Democracy and Human Rights Bill” because Helen Clark, on Labour’s now infamous 1999 pledge card, said: “Labour will build a future in which everyone has a stake and a chance.” Here we are, 8 years later, and the New Zealand Herald’s front page said it all: “Democracy under attack” and “a dramatic assault on human rights.” I could hardly believe that the Human Rights Commissioner felt so strongly that she would describe the chilling effect that this bill caused, regarding the regulated periods.

Even further to that, if one looks at the footnote regarding the chilling effects, this is what the Human Rights Commissioner said: “ ‘Chilling effects’ refers to the stifling effect that vague or over-broad laws may have on legitimate speech and activity.” That is the indictment on this Labour Government and that is the indictment on that interjector over there. She goes on to say: “This term has been used in the United States for several years when William J Brennan, the first Postmaster General, referred to the chilling effect on the exercise of First Amendment rights.” This is, indeed, a great indictment on this Government.

But another title suggested to me by the Hon Georgina te Heuheu was the “Labour Government’s Sticky Pink Hands in Ordinary New Zealanders’ Pockets Bill”, because here again is this socialist Government that just cannot help itself in controlling the rights and freedoms of ordinary New Zealanders. This week the House will debate the third reading of the Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill, and there again, the Government is attempting to trample over universities’ freedom of expression and autonomy. Again, there is a chilling connection between that and, of course, the very same bill that we are speaking about.

There is no doubt that Bill English’s amendment should be taken up by this Government so that at least the regulated period does not cover a full third of the electoral cycle, but instead goes from April onwards.

R Doug Woolerton: This member is degenerating at an alarming rate.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: I suggest to that interjector over there, who is so keen on suppressing fundamental human rights, that he listen to this very, very sensible suggestion that extends from April and on to the election. Even yesterday, when I attended a bus protest at Maramarua, one of the ordinary parents of these children whose lives the Labour Government is putting at risk said to me: “Will I be able to protest next year, under this Labour Government?”. Ordinary people do not understand what this Government is placing on them.

Finally, a third fitting title for the bill might be the “Helen Clark Legacy to Suppression of Free Speech Bill”. She is the lady who said, back in 1999, that everyone would have a stake and a chance. I can tell Ms Clark that on the streets of Pukekohe and on the farms of Port Waikato, people are saying that this time her arrogance has gone just too far. The Law Society has it absolutely right in the conclusion of its submission when it states: “Rather, the bill in its current form is a flawed attempt to achieve a legitimate social objective.” It should be thrown out.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) : I will tell the good doctor what perfidy is: it is deceit—saying one thing whilst acting the very reverse in terms of one’s behaviour. That is what perfidy is. To get up and talk about this side of the Chamber being responsible for it is really a disgrace. The National Party now gets over $7 million from the New Zealand taxpayer every year. Next year it will get $7 million more, plus it wants the $2.2 million cap. That is over $9.2 million dollars, all in the one year, and National members have the effrontery to argue—and be supported by the New Zealand Herald and other commentators—that this system is somehow unfair. That is disgraceful.

How much money does the National Party need? It now gets $7 million from the taxpayer every year. It will get that amount in 2008, and it will have a cap of $2.2 million as well. That is almost $9.5 million for the 2008 election year. The National Party is running around with the mealy-mouthed New Zealand Herald correspondents, saying that somehow it is being unfairly treated. That is disgraceful.

I will tell members what is unfair about politics. What is going on in the Rakaia electorate right now is apposite to this debate. National had five candidates, many of them dominion councillors and long-serving members of the party. One was a nephew of Don McKinnon.

R Doug Woolerton: Where did he go?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: He was told by National Party headquarters that he should not stand and that he should pull his name out, because David Carter is the preferred candidate—David Carter, who could not win any seat ever, and is now carpetbagging, not in Lyttelton but in Rākaia. With all his money, he got told by the hierarchy that that was the choice and other worthy souls were told “No.” This is how the National Party organises elections.

R Doug Woolerton: Outrageous!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It is outrageous. I challenge anyone who wants to persist with this silly, scurrilous argument to explain this: do members recall the Campaign for Better Government in 1993, with one Mr Peter Shirtcliffe and his family members? It was a thoroughly stuffed-shirt affair, as the English would say. He claimed to have thousands of members, but they turned out be his wife and his daughter—that was it. And who was it that paid all their money? A foreign-owned company called Telecom. It had the effrontery to come into the New Zealand system and seek to organise the shape, character, and form of New Zealand’s democracy. How outrageous! Did members see “Granny Herald” writing editorials about this affront? Did members see any New Zealand newspaper prepared to say that it is outrageous that a foreign-owned company now thinks it can organise New Zealand’s democracy? There was not a syllable, not a sound, and not a word. Nothing whatsoever came from these horribly concerned lips in 2003. That is the National Party’s record when it comes to democracy. It knew what Fay Richwhite were doing in the New Zealand market place. Did National members ever criticise Fay Richwhite? No. They spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on criticising an MP who was taking on this activity. That is National’s record. All of a sudden, National members are out there, saying that this legislation is heinous.

They should tell me this: which businessman will be disallowed, excluded, disbarred, or ruled out of taking part in the 2008 campaign? They should name one. They should name one business interest who will be denied being included or involved in any way he or she may wish to be—legally, of course—in the 2008 campaign. National Party members should tell me now. They have been telling everybody else around the country and boring Rotary Club members silly with this argument, but they cannot tell Parliament. They save up all these arguments for the local RSA meetings, I suppose, as though its members are concerned to hear that sort of deceit. But National members cannot name one business interest who is ruled out, cannot participate, or is not able to be involved in the 2008 campaign. They cannot name one.

Then again, some of the members of that party know nothing about what fair democratic traditions are about. Unlike people like Holyoake, this is a new breed who think that just getting money is all they have to do. It shows in their behaviour—the Ryalls, the rat pack, the brat pack. They are so powerful that even though they have a new leader called Key, they can get Carter—who is a hopeless member of Parliament and was a hopeless Minister—a nomination in a blue-rinse seat, not by way of debate, challenge, and vote, but by being the one candidate in Rākaia, of all places. Now, ain’t that the truth!

LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) : In 1943 Winston Churchill said in the House of Commons: “Everyone is in favour of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled. But some people’s idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says something back, that is an outrage.” That is what the Electoral Finance Bill is about. It is a self-serving bill. It is a bill about keeping a Labour Government in power. It is a bill designed to give the incumbents a gravy train of funding and limit everyone else’s rights of expression.

This is a Government that purports to support human rights in Zimbabwe and Fiji, yet at the same time wants to limit Kiwis in having their say. Last night I attended a citizenship ceremony in Te Aroha. It was a citizenship ceremony in which some folk from Zimbabwe and from Fiji wanted to become Kiwis. They had earned that right to become Kiwis. They came here because of our values, our opportunities, our free speech, and our free expression. I wonder what they will say when this bill comes in on 1 January and denies them and limits those opportunities.

This is Draconian legislation. We have seen dictators in the past. I tell members that those who interfere with their constitutions will rue that day. At the end of it, they all fail. This Government is going down the road. This Government is failing New Zealanders and New Zealand as a whole. This Labour Government has become obsessed with power. It is arrogant. It will not listen. It knows best. Everything we see today is designed around keeping this party and this Government in power.

The editorials, television, media, and marches are all coming out against the bill. We saw that the Law Society has very strong comments about how abusive this legislation is. The Human Rights Commission described the bill as “a dramatic assault on the freedom of expression”. It does not come much stronger than that. The commission said the bill was “a dramatic assault on the freedom of expression”. New Zealanders are incensed with this Government, which wants to run their lives. This Government will rue the day it decided to push ahead with this self-serving legislation.

The Government recently passed the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill. That bill legitimises the illegal spending from the last election. The Auditor-General made the rules very plain, and Labour had to pay back $800,000-odd. That is why New Zealand First has a bill—because of its illegal spending. So what does this Government do? It changes the law. It comes out and legitimises that illegal spending.

Now we have parties and candidates within Parliament being able to use taxpayer money to pay for their campaign. Of course, that should be considered election advertising. Election ads could be run during the election campaign, and the costs of those ads will not count towards the party’s and the candidate’s election expense cap.

That is what is so wrong; there will be one rule for the incumbents, one rule for MPs, but other parties will be locked out. This is de facto State funding of political parties. That is what it is. It is de facto funding of these operations. It gives a huge advantage to the parties already in Parliament and a huge advantage to the candidates already here, but everyone else is locked out.

This bill makes a mockery of free expression of speech and it makes a mockery of the whole funding regime. MPs should be subject to the same definition of electioneering as other people, or third parties, as they have been described. Otherwise, it is manifestly unfair and undemocratic. I subscribe to what Voltaire said—or what is attributed to him: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” That is National’s position.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) : Seldom has so much cant been heard from a political party than that which has dribbled out of both sides of National’s mouth in the debate on this bill. We have heard nothing but mock outrage from speaker after speaker. Those members do not believe what they say, but they are saying it for political purposes, and that is the cynicism of this National Party. Its members have constantly misquoted the Human Rights Commission.

When the bill was introduced to the House and was referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee, the Human Rights Commission made some very important points about the bill as introduced. The commission worked closely with the select committee. It gave advice, it worked alongside the committee, and it ensured, along with the committee, that changes were made to the original bill. The bill as reported back to this Parliament and the amendments made in my name, which have improved on even what the committee did, have led to the Human Rights Commission saying that it is largely happy with this bill, and I will stake my reputation on that comment.

The National Party is constantly saying that the Human Rights Commission is still very concerned. That is not true. It is time that was put on the record, because one would think that those National members live in a time warp and that absolutely nothing has ever changed. You see, they really believe that there is not a place for a select committee and that there is not a place for a debate like this in this Parliament. That is what they truly believe. We believe that this is the place to debate the issues. This is the place to put amendments on the Table—

Christopher Finlayson: Yes, and we were shut down prematurely!

Hon ANNETTE KING: I am sorry that Chris Finlayson is interjecting, because I was going to say that at least he has attempted to put forward amendments that could improve this bill, unlike his leader and unlike his deputy leader, who, I believe, have done nothing but stand up in this Chamber and address it in a verbally abusive manner—a manner that I have not seen for many, many years. I believe Bill English’s contribution to this debate on Thursday—when he stood up and abused me in a way that has led to people phoning my office to say that that was absolutely disgusting—is the mark of the man. This is a debate of ideas, this is a place where we can have robust debate, and I believe in robust debate. When a person has to get down to personally denigrating people, when a person has to call them every name found in one’s small brain, then I believe that that person is not prepared to debate the issues, and that he or she wants only to make a political point.

Mr Carter said that the ordinary people do not understand. I can tell this Committee that the ordinary people understand only too well. They understand that at the last election National Party members tried to buy an election. They were doing it secretly, they were doing it in an underhand manner, and it was only because the Green Party caught them out that what they were doing was exposed. It would not have been known if that detective work had not been done by the Green Party. We may have had a different result. They were not prepared to own up. In fact, Mr Brash could not remember meeting the Exclusive Brethren. John Key still does not remember receiving the email about the money that was being spent. Is it not amazing that he cannot remember it, but he can remember not receiving it? That must be amazing—being able to remember not receiving an email.

I say to the members opposite that this bill sets out to make it fair for all New Zealanders; that we cannot buy an election in a democracy; and that there is nothing wrong with being honest and transparent about what money we have and where that money comes from. I think Winston Peters raised a very good question indeed. He said “Name one business,”—and I would say one person—“one organisation, that will not be able to participate in next year’s election process.” National members could not name one, because people and organisations are able to participate, they just have to be transparent about it.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) : We are debating the title and the commencement date of the Electoral Finance Bill. We are discussing two big principles here today with this bill, and I think we are confusing them and doing rather a poor job of it. The two big principles are democracy and freedom of speech. In this debate this Committee and, I am afraid, this Government are confusing two quite different things. Freedom of speech is the ability to speak our minds. It is the ability to state our opinions, whether they are right or wrong and whether or not people find them offensive. Of course, there are limits on freedom of speech. We cannot defame someone, we cannot be offensive, and we cannot cause distress in the public theatre by calling out “Fire!” when there is no fire. But we are very careful about limiting freedom of speech.

We have a view that we can express any idea on politics that we care to. We particularly guard those people who want to speak out and whom we oppose, because that is the test of freedom of speech. That is why I have always stood up and said that the Exclusive Brethren should be free to express their political views. The issue is not whether I agree with them; the issue is whether they are free to express it without Government regulation or Government sanction. If we have to get Government recognition or sanction in order to express our political opinion, it is not free speech. That is the point. We should not have to go to the Government and sign up and register with the Government to express our point of view.

The second great principle that we are discussing here is democracy. Somehow, the two have become confused; in order to have a functioning democracy, we have to hobble people’s ability to spend their own money, to express their views, and how they might go about it. We do not. The way we have a democracy is we have one person, one vote, and everyone’s vote counts. The people can vote and change the Government. That is what the definition of a democracy is—a functioning democracy. We do not achieve a democracy by saying: “Oh, those people over there are too smart. We need to somehow reduce their IQ.”, or “These people over here are too fit and they could knock on too many doors. We need to somehow slow them down.”, or “This party over here has too many members. We have to restrict it.”, or “This party over there has too much money.”, or “This church group is too organised and is putting out too many pamphlets. Therefore we have to restrict it to somehow level the playing field to achieve a democracy.” No. We achieve a democracy by having each person with one vote, and we achieve freedom of speech by allowing people to express their political views freely.

I say that it is a shame that we have conflated those views. It is a shame that this bill has been developed in the most partisan manner possible, with abuse being hurled from one side to the other. I think it is a great shame that the Government and the supporters of this bill have launched into personal attacks on those people who oppose the bill, whether they be individuals, organisations, or, indeed, the news media. We do not normally see that from the Minister Annette King.

Hon Annette King: You haven’t seen it now.

RODNEY HIDE: I hope that Annette King will stick to the policies. No, I say to the Minister. I heard her attack John Boscawen.

Hon Annette King: I didn’t mention him.

RODNEY HIDE: I absolutely heard the Minister attack John Boscawen, and I say to her that this is what chills New Zealanders. Citizens should be able to express their view. Newspapers should be able to editorialise, and if we disagree with them, I say to the Minister—and I say to this Government—let us have the debate, not the abuse.

METIRIA TUREI (Green) : I appreciate the passion in Rodney Hide’s speech, but I think it is important to note that the Electoral Finance Bill is not about stopping people from talking. This bill is about applying the same principle—that there should be limits as to how much is spent in a campaign. There are currently limits on political parties and on candidates. The royal commission, 11 years ago, said there should be limits on others, as well, and we are simply enacting that recommendation. This bill is not a breach of freedom of speech. It does not prevent people from being engaged. It makes sure that the rules are sound and apply equitably across all the players in the campaign.

This afternoon I want to specifically mention the amendment in the name of Christopher Finlayson of the National Party to change the date on which this bill comes into force, from “the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” to 1 April 2008. The Greens have never been 100 percent committed to a start date of 1 January. We understand why it is necessary to extend the regulated period, and we need only look at the “Iwi/Kiwi” billboard campaign—the racist campaign of the National Party—to realise how early political parties will begin their election campaign and how easily they can avoid their spending caps by campaigning early. So we do believe there should be an extension of the regulated period.

Our preference would be for around, say, 1 March. We investigated what it would take in this part of the debate to make that change so that the bill would not apply until 1 March and the regulated period would not apply until 1 March. We found that if a provision such as that written by Chris Finlayson was put forward and passed, it would undermine every aspect of the bill, and this is for quite technical and legal reasons. The amendment would mean that the bill would not come into force until—in National’s amendment—1 April. But that would not stop the regulated period. It makes no difference to the regulated period. What it does do is make the bill inherently inconsistent in its provisions. Then the only option is for the law courts to determine whether a regulated period of 1 January applies, whether a regulated period applies retrospectively, whether a regulated period applies only from the date that the bill comes into force—which would be 1 April—or whether, in fact, the regulated period would apply at all because of that inherent inconsistency.

If passed, Chris Finlayson’s amendment would mean that there may not be a regulated period at all. That would mean that the caps would not apply for third parties, for candidates, or for political parties. The National Party would be able to spend anything it liked, because no regulated period would exist if this provision put forward by Chris Finlayson was passed and the law courts found the bill was so inherently inconsistent that they could not apply the regulated period.

It does beg the question: if I got that advice and I found that out, with relatively junior experience as a lawyer, then what advice did Chris Finlayson receive? He must have received the same advice. I talked to the Office of the Clerk. I got independent advice about this issue. Chris Finlayson is a much more experienced lawyer than I am and he is much older than I am. He must have got the same advice—that if his provision passed into law, the regulated period as a whole would be at risk and there may not be a regulated period at all, and that would allow the National Party, and indeed any political party, to spend any money it wanted over the whole period right up until the day of the election.

That is certainly not a risk that the Green Party would ever be prepared to take. We believe that the reasons behind the regulated period are to help maintain a level playing field and to help ensure an equitable spending regime for political parties, candidates, and third parties, and that that is an important thing to do. We do not believe in eliminating the regulated period.

It concerns me a great deal that this might be the covert purpose behind Chris Finlayson’s amendment to shift the date on which the bill comes into force to 1 April. I would be very interested to hear what his advice was and whether he got the same advice that I did, from a variety of sources, that this could indeed be the impact. Perhaps he does not know. Perhaps it was not the advice he got. Perhaps his intention is perfectly innocent. That may well be the case. Certainly there is no way, surely, that the National Party could possibly support eliminating the regulated period so that it could spend whatever it liked.

PANSY WONG (National) : At least the Green Party member is prepared to reveal some of her real intentions about supporting the bill. Somehow this bill is all about not allowing the National Party to do x, y, and z. It is very strange to pass legislation that targets one political party and say one wants a level playing field. But at least the member is trying to tell us some of the real intentions in ramming through this legislation. The Minister in the chair, the Hon Annette King, has been talking about our deputy leader, Bill English, who happens to be accepted in the public and in the media as being about the only person who really understands the Electoral Finance Bill, and all he did was ask some questions about the meaning of—

Hon Judith Tizard: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I am terribly sorry to interrupt the member, but the sound is so loud that it is actually hurting my ears. Could we have it turned down?

PANSY WONG: That is a compliment, coming from the Hon Judith Tizard.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): There is not a lot I can do. It is the system.

PANSY WONG: What a way to complain! Certainly, some of us have voices that can be heard, and that is some consolation to me. I hope the Minister will hear this properly.

At least we can tell that there is some consistency among the Labour Government. When the Hon Annette King, the Minister in the chair, cannot answer the questions she blames and attacks the Hon Bill English. All he did was ask some questions about the interpretation of the legislation. The consistency from the Hon Annette King is the same as that from the Prime Minister, Miss Helen Clark. She hit out at the New Zealand Herald when that paper dared to run an editorial asking questions as to why the Labour Government is trying to rush through the legislation. She criticised it as being shallow, error-prone media. She went on to lament that journalists in New Zealand are not taking more interest in the effect of international foreign affairs on New Zealand, and the only reason is that the media outlet did not send enough journalists to cover her photo-opportunity overseas trip.

In fact, I did question why, right now, this House is debating the Electoral Finance Bill, when we take into the wider context today’s Dominion Post headline “5000 children ‘slip through the cracks’ ” of not enrolling in any school. In the House today all the Minister of Education could do was ask “How accurate is 5,000?”. Well, whether it is 4,000 or 5,000 children, the public should be very concerned about that. Also in today’s Dominion Post was a statement: “Courageous neighbours are being praised for saving the life of a mother who was being stabbed repeatedly in the middle of the night.” I would suggest that the wider context out in the public is about law and order, education, and the health system falling apart because of too much bureaucracy and not much attention paid to the real issues. Here we are with the Labour Government continuing to engage in pushing through legislation, with the help of the New Zealand First doormats, that the public does not want passed. Ten thousand people marched in the street, and the Labour Government will simply not take notice. Well, actually I can see why MPs like Doug Woolerton from New Zealand First want to rush through this legislation. I understand he wants to support this legislation because the existing MPs and political parties in the Parliament actually have the right advantage in passing this legislation. Candidates who are not in the Parliament from 1 January would have only $20,000 to spend until whenever election day is, but MPs and elected political parties right now in Parliament can spend whatever they like. Why do we have this benefit and privilege? It is because the Labour Government rushed through legislation to do that.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) : As David Benson-Pope noted earlier this afternoon, it is important to look at the Electoral Finance Bill in its wider context. This is the second time in this term of Parliament that we on this side of the Committee have listened to the Labour-led Government defending the indefensible, and the public know it. The public can see right through what is going on in this Committee. At about this time last year the Government introduced the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill.

R Doug Woolerton: Was that a year ago?

JACQUI DEAN: It was a year ago, and the appropriation legislation was updated earlier this month as well. The Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill was, of course, to retrospectively make legal that which was illegal. I never thought I would see the day when I would sit in the House of Parliament debating a bill that had as its core purpose to make legal that which was illegal. My forebears will be spinning in their graves. This Labour-led coalition Government passed legislation at about this time last year to cover its butt after spending $800,000 of taxpayers’ money—not party money, not money it had raised itself, but taxpayers’ money, our money, our taxation money—on its air-brushed pledge card.

The Auditor-General, Kevin Brady, wrote a report about the time of that bill and he made several points in it. The first thing that the Auditor-General noted was: “I thought there was little doubt that it was not permissible to use public money from the Party and Member Support appropriations for electioneering. I expected MPs and parliamentary parties to be especially careful in that area.” But not the Labour Party, which is why about this time last year we had the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill to make it legal. I say that is shameful in this House of Parliament. So what do we have now? The Labour Party was shamed—some parties in this House have not been—into eventually paying that taxpayer funding back, and now it is broke. The Labour Party is broke and that is the truth about what is behind this current bill in front of us. The Labour Government is broke, and so it wants once again to screw the scrum with the Electoral Finance Bill. This bill—the second piece of reprehensible legislation we are debating today—is all about Government funding by stealth by a broke Government.

This bill is purely about screwing the scrum in favour of the Government. This bill is not about providing a fair playing field—those claims are nonsense. This bill is openly about Labour trying to win another election. Well, how noble is that? I would suggest to members that this is the second shameful piece of legislation brought to this Committee by this current Labour-led coalition Government. Every mention we hear in this Committee of this bill nobbling National’s rich mates reeks of tall poppy envy. Well, guess what? This Parliament should be better than that. We should be passing law in this Parliament better than that. The Minister Rick Barker in his speech openly acknowledged that this bill is about nobbling National’s supporters while protecting those who support this bereft Government.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) : I was not going to take a call until the member alluded to the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill that we passed last year in this Parliament. I know that we are debating the Electoral Finance Bill, but I want to clarify a few things that went on with regard to the other bill. The member alluded to documents like the pledge card that are meant to be illegal, such as this National Party pledge card, which was put through the letterboxes of just about everybody in the country in 2002. The rules did not change between 2002 and 2005, and I cannot see for the life of me any difference between this card and the Labour Party’s pledge card. But I can see a lot of difference between both of those cards and this. This is a policy document that outlines New Zealand First’s policies, and the Auditor-General would ping us for $159,000, in large measure, over it.

I just happened to meet the Auditor-General on the plane last week. He came up to me and we had quite a cordial discussion, which in some way surprised me.

Phil Heatley: Did he know who you were?

PETER BROWN: Yes, he did. He knew exactly who I was. I asked him one or two questions. He said that he is very, very pleased that Parliament has passed the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill. The Auditor-General told me personally that he is very pleased that we passed that bill, because it sets down in law what we have been doing under Speakers’ directions for many a year. That party over there, the National Party, has taken more advantage of the rules and regulations in this place than any other political party has, by a country mile.

We need the Electoral Finance Bill. New Zealand First will support this bill because we are well on record as saying that we want politicians to be honest. We are honest, and we want to keep politicians honest. That used to be our campaign slogan. This bill makes the process honest, and we are going to support it. I know what is upsetting the National members: they cannot get their mates, as they did in 2005, to invest in brochures in a de facto way. There was $1.2 million spent on producing brochures in support of the National Party.

Chester Borrows: Is that OK?

PETER BROWN: It is not OK, and the member knows that. It is a long way from being OK.

New Zealand First has no opposition at all to third parties—people who do not want to be part of a political party—getting involved in the process. It has no objection to that at all. But we want there to be controls. There are caps on individuals. There is an election campaign cap of $20,000 per candidate and of $1 million for a party. It is only right and proper that other parties—not political parties, but other outside organisations—that want to play a part in the election process should be financially capped, as well. The debate should have been about whether that limit is adequate, too much, too little, or what have you. I think that the amount was $60,000 in the original version of the bill, and it was doubled when the bill came back from the Justice and Electoral Committee. The National members should have argued about whether that was enough or not enough. I could see some merit in doing that, but I cannot see merit in saying we are going to have an uncapped system and let an outside organisation put as much money as it wants into influencing the way that New Zealanders vote. That is why New Zealand First is supporting this bill.

I have said before in this Chamber that that issue was recognised by the Royal Commission on the Electoral System, which stated: “It is illogical to limit spending by parties if other interests are not also controlled. Supporters or opponents of a party or candidate should not be able to promote their views without restriction merely by forming campaign organisations ‘unaffiliated’ to any party. … Nor should powerful or wealthy interest groups be able to spend without restriction during an election campaign while [the parties] are restricted.” That was stated by the Royal Commission on the Electoral System. Members opposite may not like MMP, but we have got it. The public voted for it, we have got it, and it will be honest.

PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) : I would like to challenge the statement made by Annette King earlier, which came as quite a shock to this side of the Chamber, and certainly it would have come as a shock to those listening. She said there is not a third party across New Zealand—any lobby group, or one of those groups interested in the political environment or in laws passing through Parliament—that is in any way stopped or prevented from freely expressing its view in election year. If she is saying that such third parties are not impeded in any way, that tells us in the National Party that Annette King and the Labour Government just do not get it. There used to be a time when Plunket, Women’s Refuge, the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, or any one of a myriad of organisations in New Zealand could just put ads in the paper, or could picket, or pick up a megaphone, or send out pamphlets and freely criticise what any political party was saying in election year. Members of those organisations could just get up in the morning and go out and protest, or they could run an ad in the New Zealand Herald. Members of the Littlies Lobby, Plunket, Women’s Refuge, or the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society could get up in the morning and deliver pamphlets.

That is what they used to be able to do, before this legislation. Now those organisations or any other organisation have to fill in forms and go through some sort of bureaucracy. They have to send those forms into the Electoral Commission saying everything they want to do and what ads they will run—whatever. That is the first thing. They have to go through all this bureaucracy just to have a view. Secondly, they have to employ a financial officer to oversee what little money they have to spend in an election year putting forward their view.

So, first, they have to go through all this bureaucracy; secondly, they have to start employing administrators in order to submit their spending returns, their advertising, and their pamphlets. So what we have is these organisations across New Zealand, which by far in the majority are voluntary, and which struggle to raise funds for women’s refuges, for the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, for Plunket, or for whatever it might be, having to spend time, money, and resources on bureaucracy on the one hand, and on administrators on the other hand, just to have their say as Kiwis, as New Zealanders.

New Zealand First does not care about that, for two reasons. One is that there is no private citizen in New Zealand who wants to give it any money any more to help its campaign. New Zealand First is bleeding votes and no one wants to send it a cheque. Secondly, it does not care whether the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, Plunket, Women’s Refuge, or any other organisation in this country wants to have its say, because those organisations speak against New Zealand First. New Zealand First is against freedom of speech and, of course, those organisations want freedom of speech. That is why New Zealand First opposes that, and it is why Winston Peters is now sniffing out Tauranga again. It is because the vote for New Zealand First is way down at 2 percent, and for the Labour Party the vote is way down at about 30 percent.

Here is how absurd this legislation is. The Minister who promoted this legislation did not realise that it does not relate just to cash given to political parties. It could be timber for signage. It could be crayfish for some sort of fund-raiser. When that was pointed out to her by the Electoral Commission itself she was shocked to find that a lot of people give donations in kind, not just cash, to political parties. She had arranged that all those donations, whether they were cash, signage, crayfish, or whatever, would have to be sent to Wellington and put through the system.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) : I want to correct one thing that Phil Heatley said. Although he said many things that were total garbage, there is one thing that I want to correct. He constantly used the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society as his evidence against the Electoral Finance Bill. I assure the member that all the concerns raised in the society’s submission have been addressed and met and the society is happy.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : I thought I would take a short call on behalf of the Green Party to talk a little bit about the free speech issue from another direction. I think the Electoral Finance Bill will improve the free speech of people like my colleague Chris Finlayson and others who I know have an independent mind. I would not like them to have to suffer the restrictions on their free speech that come with big bucks being poured into political campaigns.

I sympathise with the right to free speech of the National Party and the ACT party, etc., because I do not want us to go down the track the United States has clearly gone down. If one reads the lead-up to the nominating conventions of the Democratic and Republican parties one sees that the discussion in relation to the contest between Hillary Clinton and BarackObama is all about who has the most money—who has the most millions of dollars. That is the key thing in the campaign. People know that the result of the Democratic nomination will be decided largely by who has the big bucks, who can put the adverts on television, and who can swamp the places where the primary elections are held. That is what it is all about.

There are articles all over the American press on this issue. Take, for example, Hillary Clinton, who, even though she has personal views that are quite liberal—a bit like Chris Finlayson in our Parliament—has been pushed towards what is called the centre, or we could call it the right, because that is where the interests of big money are. That is a pattern across America. We need only look at the senators and Congress people. The senator from Washington state is often called the “Senator for Boeing”, because Boeing is the big company in that state. Boeing gives money and it determines who gets the senatorial position in Washington state. So although the “Senator for Boeing” might have different views from Boeing, he or she has to suppress those views. That is the way American democracy works.

Even with the little bit of gifting we get in this Parliament today we have to be careful—and it is happening as we move towards Christmas; I think all MPs have received a half-dozen pack of beer from Lion Breweries recently. We in the Green Party have to work out some way of shifting that on without being bought off by it. But, psychologically, all those gifts have an impact. We do not want to offend people who are friendly towards us and who might give us things, when it is only on a minor scale. But if this bill is not passed and the funding of political parties goes really out of control, then we will move more and more down the track of the American situation.

I would not like people like Chris Finlayson to be under that pressure of big money too much. I have found I have quite a lot of common ground with Chris Finlayson on issues of democratic rights and things like that. I am trying to save him by opposing National’s amendments and the direction the National Party is taking on this bill.

The Electoral Finance Bill is not a perfect bill. Everyone knows that, and that is why the Green Party is putting forward the idea of a Citizens’ Assembly, assisted by experts, to have a look at this whole question, and to a large extent to take out of the hands of politicians the control of how election financing is determined. We do have self-interests, and I think it would be good if the public could play a greater role in determining the restrictions on election funding—how they take place, and how they take place in the best way to enable free speech. That is my view. We have a model in the United States of what happens without that. Thank you.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) : Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on clauses 1 and 2. I suggest that maybe the title of the bill should be “We Lost and We Just Can’t Accept It Bill”, because in our area most of the noise has come from Labour MPs who lost their seats to National Party people—now members of Parliament. They cannot accept that they lost because they did not do the work. They want to believe—and they truly believe in their illusion—that their seats were stolen from them by the Exclusive Brethren. Well, if we look at the pamphlet put out by the Exclusive Brethren, we see that the one naive mistake they made that separates what they did from whatever the unions did was to put a false address on it. They thought they were so smart that they could get away with putting a false address—or an empty section, should I say—on the form authorising the pamphlet. But the guts of the pamphlet was exactly the same as what the unions had put out. So we have the naive Exclusive Brethren and we have the unions.

It is really interesting to consider exactly how the unions go about raising their funds. I have a mate in the Dairy Workers Union, who, prior to the election, went along to a meeting where somebody stood up and moved that the union give $10,000 to the Labour Party. With his best mate standing for National in the electorate, my mate said: “Only if we give $10,000 to the National Party.” What happened? Two bloody great big union delegates got out of their seats up the front, and came and sat down one on either side of him—tipping out the people who had been sitting there—and put their hands on his knees. It was not that they were snuggling up to him; it was to make sure he would not get up and say anything else. What that says to me is that the Labour Party is quite happy to accept extorted money. It is quite happy to accept money that is extorted, but it is unhappy when, in an election campaign, other people accept support that is freely given—or so we were told in a television documentary that was done soon after.

To have the address of an empty section on a pamphlet is naive, but it reminded me very much of a couple of things the Labour Party did—

Hon Annette King: It was deceit.

CHESTER BORROWS: Deceiving? Deceiving, like what? Well, it was deceiving, for instance, to have certain dead people vote in the Wairarapa election in 1987. Labour was caned for that. Another little deception was the misuse of the Privacy Act whereby in the last election campaign Labour got the names and addresses of State house tenants from Government records, wrote to every one of them, and put out its propaganda. No Labour Party members have ever stood to justify that action of Labour as part of its strategy for that campaign. It just goes to show that their morals are lopsided.

Then they talk about anonymous donations. They cane the National Party for apparently receiving anonymous donations, without their ever accepting or explaining that in 1999 they accepted $800,000 worth of anonymous donations. And what do you know? They did it again! In 2002 they accepted $350,000 worth of anonymous donations. But, hey, that is OK! And what do you know? They did it again! In 2005 they got just about $300,000 in anonymous donations—and that was OK! The only thing that really winds them up is that they did not get as much as National. Well, what do you know! The reason for that is the tide is going out; the tide is going out for Labour. Its members understand that.

Another thing they have never explained is the $800,000 worth of taxpayers’ money they took from their leader’s office budget to use for their pledge card and for other parts of the campaign—$400,000 for that. Did they explain that? No, they did not, nor will they. They accept that they were wrong. They have even paid it back. Well, that is not so bad. Maybe New Zealand First could take a leaf out of their book. So they have paid the $800,000 back, but have they moved, through this legislation, to make sure that that cannot be done again? No, they have not. Why not? Apparently, they are as pure as the driven snow; they are the only ones on the right side of anything.

They cannot accept that they lost those seats because they did not do the work or were seen as useless. They never showed up. Throughout the 7-month campaign run in Whanganui, I twice saw one of the most vociferous critics of the Exclusive Brethren. She did not have it in her!

JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki) : It would be really easy to stand up here in the Chamber this afternoon during the debate on the title and commencement clauses of this bill and suggest a few alternative titles. But the first thing I want to do is to assure the Minister that on this side of the Chamber she is not seeing mock outrage, at all. There is no mockery in what we are debating here today. I can assure her that we are responding to the many, many New Zealanders who have told us how much they dislike this bill and who have said they do not want their freedom of speech shut down. I have replied to them that I will be vigorously opposing this bill—and I have done so—and that I will be doing it with the support of my colleagues.

This bill could well be relabelled the “Bill of Wrongs”, and if we did relabel it with that title, we would need to attribute that good idea to the Listener, which is widely thought of as a left-leaning publication. But back in August they already knew at the Listener that the assertion of former Minister Mark Burton that the Government was “seeking to encourage full and open expression from a diverse range of interests in the run-up to a general election” was bogus. As a Listener editorial said, this bill could hardly be less likely to achieve that.

Peter Brown told us that New Zealand First wants controls, and that it wants this bill to supply the controls, on the way that election campaigning is undertaken. That would be absolutely fine if we had cross-party support, and if in fact it did not result in a lessening of the freedom of speech—a lessening of the democracy that we have come to rely on in this country. Similarly, the bill could be retitled the “Shut Down the Voice of New Zealanders Bill”. This bill seeks to dissuade New Zealanders from making comments, during the course of the election period, through registration processes. The bill could be labelled the “Last Gasp for Labour’s Future Bill”. Unashamedly, this Government is using the bill to shut down debate, to shut down criticism, and to make it very difficult for anyone to participate in debates.

But—and this is a very big, capital-letters, in-bold “but”—at the same time, this Government will authorise millions of taxpayer-funded advertisements to promote its policies, in order to flood the minds and consciousness of the public as it makes decisions about New Zealand’s future. The description in the Dominion Post last month of this attitude by the Labour Government—one of attempting to elevate ambition over ethics—is very apt.

Hon Annette King: Gosh, you’re great at mock outrage.

JO GOODHEW: And this is not mock outrage; I am outraged, and I can tell the Minister that I have waited a long time to stand and represent the outrage of the people of Aoraki, as well. Next year the courts will determine how this bill is interpreted. Lawyers will grapple with this ill-conceived, ill-drafted, shambolic bill, and New Zealanders will further develop their unease. That unease is currently showing in polling. This is an unprincipled, desperate, unethical, abysmal apology for legislation. It is a disgrace to this Parliament.

The commencement date of this bill is a sham. The legislation seeks to control debate for a period unprecedented in New Zealand's history—11 months. There is no need to wonder why; this desperate Government is clinging on to power and seems oblivious to the scraping of its fingernails on the blackboard of power. New Zealanders are cringing as they hear that sound. They are recognising the antics that smack of an anti-democratic process. Thousands have marched in the streets to protest the rigmarole they will be put through to participate in the democratic process. Many of those people have never participated, or openly criticised the Government or any other political party, in the past, but they are affronted by this apparent attempt to stifle the freedom of speech in next year’s election.

But, worse still, this Government is not just desperate. It is not even dateless. Unfortunately, on its date it is carrying with it New Zealand First, the Progressive party, United Future, and the Green Party. No, it is not dateless, but certainly on this occasion the minor parties are not discerning in their choice of a date. They, too, are being recognised by the public of New Zealand for their partnership in this sorry saga. A healthy democracy should not tolerate this attempt to rort the democratic process. The Law Society has trumpeted the failure of this bill, and the Human Rights Commission has added a strangely cautionary note, given that this is a Labour Government bill.

R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) : I did not actually intend to speak on this part, but I feel I have to. I have to tell people who are listening about all of these people in New Zealand who are rising up against this bill. I will talk about something I read in the newspaper. I am not slagging off John Boscawen or anything like that, but to get the 5,000 people to the march in Auckland that the whole of New Zealand was worried about, he had to enlist the services of a secretary. Then he had to enlist the services of telephone survey people—from a foreign telemarketing organisation—and have them ring 82,000 Aucklanders to get 5,000 to a march. That is what he had to do.

Let me tell members what the National Party had to do in order to get even a modicum of dissent over this bill. Through its membership it had to put out an email campaign, the likes of which we have never seen before. It put out, through an email campaign to all its members, a directive telling every member to go to another member, etc.—like a pyramid-selling scheme—in order to bring awareness of this bill to the forefront. This was to raise National members’ anger against this bill.

But do members here know what? It has not done that. Outside the National Party and outside the 5,000 people who went to John Boscawen’s meeting, after 82,000 phone calls, numerous ads in the newspaper, and numerous radio ads the public of New Zealand is actually reasonably relaxed about this bill. I have had people say to me—National Party people mainly, because I still know a lot of them from the old days—“Doug, you’ll rue the day that you voted for this bill.” Well, I can tell members that we do not give a damn that those National Party people have been rarked up. National Party people do not vote for us. A few might after this election, I might add, but, by and large, National Party people do not vote for us.

So National members have been rarking up their own people, and John Boscawen has been working diligently to get 5,000 people to a march. This has all been organised to a degree that the New Zealand union movement could only envy. The union movement would envy the organisation, the money, and the friends enlisted to get this level of concern in New Zealand about this bill.

I tell members that average New Zealanders are not concerned about this bill. They do not want their elections bought, and they do not want their elections corrupted by people who have a really strange view of the world—people who are mainly intent on pushing their own views.

I can tell members that John Boscawen came to see me; I invited him to come to have a chat. I will not quote what he said to me but it is suffice for the Committee to know that he really means what he says and that he does not understand the electoral system completely. So intent is he on spending in excess of the limits prescribed by this bill that he said he would set up his own political party in order to achieve that. I said: “Great! That is precisely what the bill intends. If people want to participate as citizens, they spend so much—no problem. If they want to spend more than that, they register as a third party. If they want to extend all those limits, they list as a political party.” That is what the bill intended, yet so intent is he that he sees it as his cunning little plan—he says so in the newspaper.

The bill allows what John Boscawen intends. The bill understands that people will want to spend different amounts of money. But in the future such people will be known; they will not be able to run some sort of subversive campaign to help another political party break its spending limits.

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) : I am proud—absolutely proud—to oppose this Draconian Electoral Finance Bill. This is a dark day for democracy; it is a black day. I attended those marches, the two in Auckland and the one in Wellington, and I can assure the Committee that the people in the marches were very concerned about the implications of this bill. There were many banners. There was a big banner saying “Democracy under threat”. Other banners said things like “I live in New Zealand, not Zimbabwe”, “New Zealanders should not be gagged”, and “Labour—thieves of democracy”. Banners were held by war veterans that said “Our soldiers did not die for this”.

I read the Hansard record where the Rt Hon Winston Peters had made belittling remarks about members who stood up and affirmed those banners that said “Our soldiers did not die for this”. He has no regard for our soldiers and what they fought for. I say he insults their memory, quite frankly. I am wearing my father’s medals from World War II, during which he fought in the Middle East. I am really proud to wear them today. He was the first person to sign up in the South Island town he grew up in. He did not hesitate to fight for his country and for human rights. He would be insulted by and appalled at this bill if he were alive today.

The Prime Minister and the small parties who support this bill have badly underestimated the depth of feeling out there in New Zealand. I say to those parties they have got it wrong—they have read the people wrongly. They have been blind, and they cannot see how the bill has impacted on people. This bill has gone beyond the Wellington beltway; it is an issue all over New Zealand. With regard to the first march in Auckland, when there were 2,000 people, the Prime Minister said that they were just ACT and National supporters. Two weeks later there was a march of 5,000 people. What did the Prime Minister say about that? She said it was a relatively small number of troops. That was a patronising, arrogant comment from the Prime Minister. Those 5,000 people were not dragged out of their homes to come to the march. They were not coerced in any way; they got there under their own steam. There were children, mums, and dads. There were ordinary New Zealanders from all walks of life. Those people had never marched before. At the end of the protest involving 5,000 people, the marchers were asked to put up their hands if they had never protested before. Members should have seen the hands go up; they shot up in the air. Those people were not protesters; they were ordinary New Zealanders.

This Government has been arrogant and dismissive of ordinary New Zealanders, and it will pay the price for that at the election in 2008, mark my words. I say shame on Helen Clark and this arrogant Government, which is so desperate to get a fourth term that it has come to this. The Government has spurned the advice of such organisations as the Law Society and the Human Rights Commission. It is ignoring the sentiment, feeling, and passion of New Zealanders. It is arrogant and dismissive of the depth of feeling against this bill. I will give Government members one piece of advice: this issue is registering way beyond the beltway. Those members will get the message loud and clear come election day in 2008.

This is an anti-democratic bill. In a democracy people should be free to voice their opinions. They should be free to criticise the Government, they should be free to criticise the Opposition, and they should be free to put their point of view—that is a sign of a healthy democracy. This legislation will not allow them to do that. The media, which is the traditional watchdog of public opinion, distilling information and reporting it, has come out in an unprecedented move. Editorials up and down the country are slamming this bill for what it is. If that does not give members on the other side a clear message, I do not know what will. The people, the press—everyone is against this bill. And all that the Prime Minister can do is to criticise the media—as she did recently at a journalism conference. There was a particular editorial in the New Zealand Herald that said that if this bill is passed, it will become Labour’s epitaph. That is true; come 2008 that will be the epitaph on Labour’s coffin. The Government will be out on its ear. The people will vote—they will vote with their feet, their minds, and their hearts, and the Labour Government will be out.

It is crazy that nobody understands this bill. Even the Minister of Justice does not understand it. She says the law of common sense will prevail.

Jacqui Dean: What?

Dr JACKIE BLUE: The law of common sense. We are told we need to talk to lawyers, but I tell members that the only winners will be the lawyers. The loser will be democracy in New Zealand, which will die. National has had very grave concerns right from day one about the process.

ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) : I am compelled to take a call in what will be the final debate in the Committee stage on the Electoral Finance Bill, on its title and commencement. I wish to make some comments on both. In regard to whether the title is appropriate, my suggestion to the Committee would be that the title of the bill would more appropriately be the “We Will Find Another Way Bill”.

The Labour members of this House—and to some extent the New Zealand First members—have been standing up and saying this is a principled argument, and that they do not believe in having, for example, anonymous donations. But as one of my colleagues—I think it was Chester Borrows—pointed out, significant amounts of anonymous donations were going into the Labour coffers, going back over the various elections as far as we can see. Government members think the issue is not that we have anonymous donations; it is that National got more than they got. So therefore they said we needed to move to a State-funding model. Having not been able to get agreement to a State-funding model, they then changed the rules so that Government expenditure kind of counts in an indirect way.

A example from a little story may illustrate the point. You see, George Bernard Shaw, the playwright of Irish descent, was dining with a notable lady of his time. During the course of the meal he said to her: “Will you sleep with me for ₤10,000?”. The lady thought for some time and then said: “Yes.” Later on during the course of the evening, he said to her: “Will you sleep with me for ₤5?”. Her response was: “Goodness me! What do you think I am?”. He said: “We’ve already established what you are, and we are now bargaining.”

I say there is a parallel, exactly, with what Labour has done here. It does not believe in anonymous donations, but it has found another way and it will use the Parliamentary Service money to endorse its members as candidates. I say there is no principle in that for which those members can hold up their hands. Labour at the last election—and we have had plenty of examples of this—broke the rules, and it continued to break the rules even after the Auditor-General warned it that what was happening was indeed outside the spectrum of what was allowed. What did we get after that? We got some kind of retrospective fix-it-up. So, again, we have the “We Will Find Another Way Bill”. If Labour could not change the rules retrospectively, it is to change them right now so that Government members can find another way to use resources in order to endorse themselves.

I now make a comment about the commencement date. A number of submitters have said that this bill is not easily understood and that they do not know what its implications are. If we move on from the Committee stage without changing that commencement date and pass this bill, we are locking ourselves into a starting date after the bill gets the Royal assent, and that will be pretty close to immediately in the new year—maybe on 1 January. If we do that, we will be starting with a set of rules at a time when Parliament is not sitting, and when it is impossible to discern exactly what some of the provisions actually mean. We have given examples of those provisions, asking what this clause or that clause means, and we still do not know what those clauses mean. Yet we will be starting to work with legislation that is seriously flawed in interpretation and flawed in clarifying exactly what the rules are.

So there needs to be a shift in terms of the commencement date. If we do nothing else, we need to set the date back, so that we have time to get some discernment and clarification. It is all very fine for the Minister to say we will come up with an explanation later, determine matters later, or do whatever else he may say. But we are actually entering an election year, and we need to know whether our behaviour, our expenditure, and the way that we conduct ourselves are captured—we need to know what is inside or outside the rules. To start the commencement of this bill immediately on 1 January 2008, because that is an election year, would bring a great deal of litigation, I suggest, throughout the whole process of the election. It can have no other outcome, because there is such a lack of understanding of this legislation. Parts of it are completely incomprehensible.

ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) : I was particularly anxious, after days of trying, to get a call on the Committee stage of the Electoral Finance Bill, because I want it recorded for all time in the annals of this House that I am one of those members who spoke against and voted against this attack on the democratic tradition of this country—and that is what this bill is. I ask the members opposite—the Labour members and the members of Labour’s coalition partners—to lift up their heads and listen to what is being said in this House and in this country.

I will focus just for a moment on the commencement date of the bill. What is the rush? No sound democracy rushes this sort of change through its legislative process. If the Government is determined to pass this bill, then what does it matter if it is delayed a little while, in order to give New Zealanders a little bit more time to pause and reflect on it?

Goodness, gracious me! The United States Constitution—that brilliant document of democracy—was not rushed through almost in the quiet of the night by a desperate Government and its coalition partners. I have a message for those coalition partners. I say to those members of New Zealand First, the Greens, and United Future that they should understand very, very clearly. This bill is progressing through this Parliament only because those members are voting for it. If it were not for the minor parties voting for this legislation, then it would not be passing through this Committee at the moment.

We know that it is part of the New Zealand tradition that on major matters of such significance the big parties talk and thrash it out. The reason the Government is not being required to thrash it out with the National Party is that the Government is calling on the votes of minor parties—[Interruption] There he goes: the list member from New Zealand First. What is his name? Mr Woolerton is screeching and shouting, and screeching and shouting, instead of just stepping back and thinking about the harm he is doing to the electoral future of his party by supporting this socialist Government on legislation that undermines the democratic traditions of this country.

In rushing the commencement date of this legislation, what does the Labour Government, and the screeching member from New Zealand First, not understand? Let me tell members what Government members’ problem is. Their problem is that they are control freaks. They want to get control of every aspect of New Zealand life, and they could never do that more effectively than by taking control of a nation’s democratic processes and using them in a way that brings them absolutely no credit at all. It brings no credit at all to the Government, no credit at all to New Zealand First, and no credit at all to the Green Party. It staggers me that representatives of small parties have been prepared to stand up in this Chamber and advance arguments that do no credit to them at all.

New Zealand is paying a high price for the Labour Government’s need to control and dominate every aspect of New Zealand life. When will Labour members understand that just because things in a democratic process do not go their way, and just because New Zealanders stand up and demand to be heard, it need not be the case that it somehow becomes legitimate in their minds for them to use their majority—slim as it is—in this Chamber to undermine the democratic traditions of this country?

R Doug Woolerton: What a load of hokum!

ALLAN PEACHEY: Oh, there he goes again—the boring member from New Zealand First.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) : What we have here is desperate attempt to litigate the last election, not the next election. It is a desperate attempt to re-litigate the last election, in 2005. We could almost call this the “Look Back in Anger Bill”, because that is what Labour is doing. Those members are looking back in anger. Let us see the constructs of this bill. What was it that inspired it? Well, there were technicalities that needed correction. I do not think that anybody has disputed that. Doing that is a good idea. It is a good idea, but there is a mind in Labour—and I do not think that mind is present in the House—that thought: “Let us use this to some advantage. Let us leverage on it.” What was it that really hurt those members in the last election? Let us think about that. It was the early demonstration of National’s hoardings. “We are not having those again.”, said the mind. “How can we stop it?”, asked the others. The mind said: “Bring the date forward. They have that in England. Bring it to the beginning of the year. That will stop National’s hoardings, which did us so much harm.” So we have an early programme and an early date. It is borrowed legislation. The trouble with borrowed legislation is that it fits only where it hits.

If we look at the English situation, with due respect to Labour, it does not seem to be working over there because, I believe, there have been fingers in the till in spite of that Government’s having policy that Labour thinks is so suitable for us. I would suggest that it was not the genesis of the parliamentary wing of Labour that developed this.

R Doug Woolerton: Who did it?

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Well, the mind is somewhere in there, but also it started to get clever. Again, we look at the constructs. The mind said: “Let us ask the Greens to help us. If we have enough of a majority, then we do not have to involve bipartisan discussion.” What position were the Greens in after the last election? Someone, a dogma-driven, idealist-structured, and single-minded group of people, had produced a pamphlet—a pamphlet; how dreadful! So that must be stopped and these groups must be stopped. The Greens were happy fodder for the clever, clever constructs. One could say that they were sucked in. What inspired them to do that? I guess it is a case of recognising in others that which one sees in oneself, because if we were to ask which party in Parliament was principally dogma-driven, idealist-structured, and single-minded, then I think the Green Party would qualify for those meritorious points. Those members saw in others that which must be stopped, because they know it works against them.

New Zealand First, with its vociferous spokesman on this issue—

Hon Member: Squawking.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: No, I would not call him squawking; he is vociferous. I am put in mind of some of those geographic films on television about the animals, where the main contestants are fighting away and there is always someone lurking around the edges, waiting for some advantage. That is what I am reminded of with New Zealand First members. And United Future members will simply wait and see, although I understand they said that they would not support this legislation in the event of urgency being used.

Let us spend a minute looking at the process. I sat through, I think, the majority of the Justice and Electoral Committee meetings and I would suggest the process could be described as a shameful sham. Lynne Pillay, who is in every other respect a pleasant person, was the same every day—she had nothing intelligent or constructive to say. She used to say: “It has been decided. The Greens have agreed.”, and when we considered discussion, she said we had no need. I have heard her say in this Chamber in response to one of the remarks made by my colleague Mr Finlayson that there was very little considered discussion on this bill. She said that Labour had the majority—in other words, ipso facto, there was no need for discussion. I thought this was supposed to be a Parliament. That is what I came here for: a discussion for consideration.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) : I want to speak to clause 1, “Title”, and I suggest that a better name for the Electoral Finance Bill would be the “Let’s Shoot Ourselves in the Foot Bill”. I was talking to a lefty friend of mine—not being tribal like members of the Labour Party, I have lots of lefty friends; poor, misguided souls that they are—and this person was telling me about all the campaigns in which he was involved in past years. He was involved in Save Manapōuri. He was involved in anti - Viet Nam War campaigns. He was involved in anti - Springbok Tour campaigns. He was involved in antinuclear campaigns.

Chris Auchinvole: He was a serial protester.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: He was a good friend of Mr Hughes. The point made by him, and I think a very good point, was that this could not happen in 2008—a person could not run a campaign like Save Manapōuri in 2008.

I ask Mr Duynhoven to take a good look at clause 5(1)(a)(ii), because it does not talk explicitly about political parties but it talks about “a type of party or … type of candidate that is described or indicated by reference to views, positions, or policies that are or are not held, … (whether or not the name of a party or the name of a candidate is stated);”. This is one of the big misconceptions on the part of the Labour Party and its support parties when dealing with this legislation. Indeed, there was a very interesting answer given by Mr Dunne, the member for Ohariu-Belmont, to a person who posted something on a United Future website a few days ago. This person said: “If the opinion can be seen as encouraging or persuading people to support or not support a party or candidate or class of party or candidate it will be limited. If you want to run a campaign which says ‘Support parties which support Kyoto’ then that is captured.” Mr Dunne responded by saying that was wrong. He said to this fellow, who was called Dave: “To be caught, a group has to be spending more than $120,000 in support of a particular party,”. Mr Dunne, like the Labour Party members, and like Mr Woolerton, has not taken a good, close look at clause 5(1)(a)(ii). If those people had, they would have seen that my lefty friend was right and that it would not be possible to run a “Save Manapōuri” or anti - Viet Nam War campaign in 2008 under the Electoral Finance Act 2007 because it will prevent that kind of argument.

The second point I make is a very interesting point, which has been raised by MetiriaTurei—and I think she is too concerned and I do not think it is a problem—relating to the amendment to clause 2, which states that the Act shall come into force on 1 April. I listened very carefully to what that member said, because obviously there are implications for the definition of “regulated period”—and I particularly refer to subparagraph (a)(i) of that term in clause 4 because there are a number of periods that are specified in that clause. It seems to me that if the Act comes into force on 1 April, there are a number of options. Either the regulated period is going to be the period that commences 3 months before polling day and ends with the close of polling day—a proposition that would not please MetiriaTurei one little bit—or one would give a purposive interpretation to subparagraph (a)(i) and say that if the Act comes into force on 1 April, in order to make sense of the definition of “regulated period” the regulated period shall be the longer of the following periods: either the period that commences on 1 April or the 3-month period. The other option, if one wanted to be clear beyond peradventure, would be to seek leave so that the House could debate the definition of “regulated period” again. But I do not believe that any judge would have a problem with that particular definition and I think MetiriaTurei makes a mountain out of a molehill.

Finally, let me say I am delighted that Mr Hughes is so strongly in favour of some controls on anonymity, because I have just checked the amount of anonymous donations he received in the 2005 general election.

Chris Auchinvole: How much?

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: $13,821.78.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) : I move, That the question be now put.

NATHAN GUY (Junior Whip—National) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am prepared to take a point of order only if it is to do with the reason why the motion should not be put.

NATHAN GUY: I was calling just before you put the vote. We are talking specifically about the title and we have members here who have been seeking a call over the last week. I ask you to consider Standing Order 137(3) on whether you consider it reasonable for the closure motion to be put. This is an important bill. We know it is very contentious and members on this side of the Chamber wish to raise some very important points around the specifics of the title.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable member for the contribution that he has made. I have listened considerably to this debate. I suggest that the member look at Speakers’ rulings 73/1-3, and Speaker’s ruling 73/3, by the Hon Doug Kidd in 1998, in particular. I therefore put the question.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) : I move, That the Committee divide the bill into the Electoral Finance Bill, the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 3), and the Electoral Amendment Bill, divided into Electoral Finance Bill, Broadcasting Amendment Bill, Electoral Amendment Bill, pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 164.