In Committee
Part 1 Preliminary provisions
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice)
: The Government welcomes the Committee of the whole House debate on the Electoral Finance Bill, and makes the observation that there has been a lengthy period of consultation and discussion on it. There have been many changes, and the bill has been worked through very thoroughly. The Justice and Electoral Committee received 575 submissions. It heard 101 submissions, and it heard many of those submissions over a period of 6 weeks. On the basis of that, the committee has made some significant changes, and this legislation will be all the better for it.
The second comment I would like to make as a preliminary to this debate, which I think will be quite extensive, is that I welcomed the comments made by the Hon Bill English this morning on radio that the National Party would not be looking to filibuster in this debate, and would be looking to move constructive amendments. The Government side of the Chamber has taken the amendments proposed by Chris Finlayson and worked thoroughly through them. We will go through each of those amendments constructively, and we will consider them. Where we feel there is merit for them we will support them, and where we feel there is no merit for them we will not support them.
The third point I would like to make about this bill—and let us not forget the issue here—is that the genesis of this bill is in the 2005 general election. To make just one point about it, I say that, interestingly, someone in the Hastings area whom I know quite well collects pamphlets from elections. He has collected pamphlets from 1972 all the way through to 2005. He observed to me that he had a pile of pamphlets from the 2005
election that was twice as high as it was for every other election cumulatively. All the pamphlets that went into his letterbox from the 1972, 1975, 1978, 1981, 1984, 1987, 1990, 1993, 1996, 1999, and 2002 elections were half the size of the number of pamphlets that came into his letterbox in 2005. He wondered why that was. The reason for that became very clear with the publication of
The Hollow Men. That book made it very clear what was going on: the Exclusive Brethren was funding the National Party’s campaign, and it was doing so covertly.
The essence of this bill is to identify those weaknesses in our electoral law that have been exploited. Even John Key admits that the law is deficient. The Electoral Act does not have any restrictions in the actions of third parties. As a candidate I was restricted to a certain amount of money that I could spend. My party was restricted to spending a certain amount of money, but third parties had none of those restrictions. The National Party knew that and exploited that loophole. It secretively—
Christopher Finlayson: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. The Minister really does need to show how this immature diatribe is related to Part 1, which deals with preliminary provisions. I know he is not the smartest person in the Chamber, but he needs to be told that we are dealing with preliminary provisions that deal with definitions, appointments, and the listing of third parties, not Nicky Hager’s book.
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Before I rule on that point, I remind members that there will be silence during points of order. The Minister is speaking to Part 1.
Hon RICK BARKER: I want to make the point quite clear, and I thought the connection would have been made for the National Party, that this is about publishing. If members look at clause 4, they will find that it talks about publishing and broadcasting, and so on. I was trying to make the point very clearly that the National Party’s opposition to this legislation stems from the 2005 election, when it colluded with the Exclusive Brethren to have substantial amounts of third-party literature put out.
The Hollow Men
makes it very clear that the Exclusive Brethren went to the Chief Electoral Officer, David Henry, and said it was planning to spend $1.2 million on an election programme with the goal of getting votes for National. That information comes from an email that is quoted on page 26 of the book—it is very, very clear. The National Party knew about that, and Richard Long, who writes—supposedly independently—for the
was colluding in this process with the Exclusive Brethren. When Richard Long wrote to Mr Brash and Mr Brownlee, he told them, in answer to questions about “whether they consulted us”—they being the Exclusive Brethren—that they had agreed to say that “they have advised all political parties.” This was a conspiracy; of that there is no doubt.
This bill does two things. First, it reflects the desire by all New Zealanders to see that the election campaign is fair. If people are going to give money to a political party, they want to know who the party is and how much it got—not through the Waitemata Trust, and so on. So if the National Party opposes this bill, it is saying that it wants to continue the secret slush fund of money into its coffers. That is what it is saying.
The second thing about this bill is that it says that people who want to get involved in politics can do so, but they have to say who they are and what they are going to do. A very good example of that can be found in respect of the campaign for MMP. Peter Shirtcliffe said he opposed MMP. He raised lots of money and said: “This is me, I’ve got my friends around here, and we’re going to campaign against it.” New Zealanders understood that and accepted it. The last election in 2005 was the first time that we did not see that, and this bill represents a change in our electoral law that is necessary to ensure that elections are fair.
The Government has put down two Supplementary Order Papers. Supplementary Order Paper 162 contains some substantive amendments and Supplementary Order Paper 163 contains some technical amendments. I will turn, firstly, to Supplementary Order Paper 162. Members will find that in Part 1 we are changing the definition of “broadcast” in order to narrow that definition. We are proposing to delete clause 4(1)(i) relating to the definition of “publish”. That will make quite a significant difference, because that was the catch-all provision that was to bring to the notice of the public any other matter. There has been severe criticism of that provision. We have recognised that, and we are making the change so that the definition will be tighter. We are proposing to roll back the select committee’s definition, which would have broadened the reach of this bill more than it should have been.
The second significant amendment in this part is to omit in clause 17(a)(i) the term “writ day” and substitute the words “the 21st day before polling day”. There was criticism of this particular date from the Electoral Commission and the Human Rights Commission, and for good reason: it was far too far out. We have now rolled it back to 21 days before polling day, which is 3 weeks before election day. If anybody wants to get involved in the political process, he or she has to register 3 weeks before the election day, say who he or she is, and say what he or she is going to do, so as to be open and honest. [Interruption] Tony Ryall is opposed to transparency, obviously, because he was the beneficiary of that.
The purpose of this bill, to come back to it, is to ensure that New Zealanders have free and fair elections. As a candidate for an election, there is a cap on my spending. My party’s spending for the election has a cap on it, as well. It is unrealistic to expect that third parties can run campaigns with limitless amounts of money, and to go and campaign for political parties as they did in the last election. There is no doubt about that, at all. I saw the pamphlets from the Exclusive Brethren, and I saw that they were in collusion with the National Party. Members should look at those pamphlets: “Change the Government”, they said. It was all done in collusion with the National Party. It was done to increase the National Party vote, and they were going to spend limitless amounts of money—a minimum of $1.2 million—to change the Government, without actually having to put anything on the National Party’s vote.
The unions have advertised in the elections. There is no question about that. But the unions have always put their name on their pamphlets, and said who they were and what their purpose was. The National Party’s friends did not do that at all, and they attempted to steal the last election by stealth and deception. This bill is going to say that that is not going to be the case. This bill is going to say: “If you’re going to give money to any political party, you’re going to have to say who you are, over a certain amount, so the public can identify who is giving the money and for what purpose.” This bill is going to say: “If you’re going to advertise in this election campaign, you’re going to have to say who you are and identify yourself.” New Zealanders feel that that is entirely fair and as it should be. This bill protects New Zealanders’ rights to free and fair elections. This bill is going to regulate advertising, not speech, and it is going to control donations. Who can argue with that?
Freedom of speech is not necessarily the freedom to buy as much advertising as one can. I do not think there is any argument for putting a cap on candidates’ spending, putting a cap on party spending, and leaving third parties completely unregulated when they behave as badly as they did in the last election. There were secret donations, secret addresses, and secret agendas, and it was all done in collusion with the National Party. That is the truth of it, and this Parliament will determine what will be fair rules for New Zealand at the next election.
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition)
: I am going to do something that the Hon Rick Barker did not do, and that is address Part 1 of the Electoral Finance Bill. But before I do that, all I can say is that if Rick Barker is the standard of what it takes to be a Cabinet Minister in a Labour Government, it is no wonder its members need to change the Electoral Finance Bill to stop people competing with them. Rick Barker told us that this is a Government that is going to steamroller over 100 years of democracy in this country, on the back of a two-bit book written by Nicky Hager. This is the same Government that, when Nicky Hager wrote
Seeds of Mistrust, nothing changed; absolutely nothing changed.
This is what we know about the Electoral Finance Bill. It is a shambles. The Minister does not understand it. Labour MPs do not understand it. The Electoral Commission cannot understand it. Nobody understands this legislation. It is such a mess that the Labour Minister responsible for it has had to drop 150 adjustments in the Supplementary Order Paper before we even talk about the debate—150 amendments have had to be tabled.
Let us talk about Part 1, which addresses the purpose of the bill. Any New Zealander who picks up the legislation will understand in a heartbeat that the purpose of the bill is what Rick Barker said before—all of the partisan stuff we heard. The purpose of the bill is not to do what is written down. The purpose of the bill is as simple as this. It is to pass self-serving legislation that is designed to keep Labour in office. That is what the bill is about. It is not about democracy, freedom, and New Zealanders; it is about passing self-serving legislation to keep Labour in place.
The second thing the bill is about is to funnel the largest amount of taxpayer money possible into the coffers of the Labour Party so its members can spend taxpayers’ funds trying to buy an election. This is from people who come down to the Chamber and have the audacity to lecture the National Party about elections, when in election 2005 they spent $1.5 million in the last week, when their secretary wrote to the Electoral Commission and said they would include the spending of the pledge card in their electoral cap, even though they knew it was way over their cap. Not only did they steal the money from the taxpayers, but they broke the law, and now they are coming down here trying to lecture the National Party.
What they are doing today is setting up a gigantic slush fund of taxpayers’ money so that they can use their accompanying legislation that they passed last week to make the equivalent of the pledge card a legal activity. What they will be doing in election 2008 is spending taxpayers’ money, at the same time that they are telling taxpayers they cannot spend their own money. They wonder why they are so far down in the polls. Well, they have given up on ordinary New Zealanders, and ordinary New Zealanders know about it.
The third purpose of the bill is to use the gigantic spending budget of Government departments somehow to try to curry favour with New Zealanders. They know that, and that is why there is such politicisation of the public sector. Labour needs its stooges in the communications departments of those ministries so they can sign off on political advertising.
Lynne Pillay: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. The speaker did say that he was going to talk about Part 1.
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I have given one warning, and I will give another one. When points of order are being heard, they will be heard in silence. Secondly, when the Committee Chair is trying to deal with points of order, they will be heard in silence, too. It just makes for proper order.
JOHN KEY: It is no wonder it is a shambles. We are talking about the purpose of the bill, which is in Part 1, and the chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee
does not even know what we are talking about. It is no wonder this legislation is a shambles.
The third purpose of the bill is to screw the scrum in favour of the Labour Party, because those members know that they lost 10 electorate seats in the last election. Rick Barker likes this legislation because it hurts him that Craig Foss cleaned his clock last time, in 2005, and he knows that his mate Russell Fairbrother might have won the selection in Napier for a seat he lost for the first time in 50 years and he might know that Nash had the signatory of Michael Cullen on his selection, but he is laughing because he is sitting over there, getting another opportunity to get dealt to in election 2008.
I will give members a very interesting twist on that. This is what some people do not know. In 2002 the person who put up Russell Fairbrother was none other than Michael Cullen’s wife, Anne Collins. In 2002 Anne Collins, Mrs Cullen, wanted him in office and in 2008 the Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand, Michael Cullen, wants him out of office. That is what that is all about.
Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. The member said he was going to speak to Part 1. The content that he was just talking about had absolutely nothing to do with Part 1. I ask for relevance to this part of the bill.
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member needs to come back to Part 1. The member is correct. I will give a third warning.
JOHN KEY: The purpose of this bill is quite clear; it is to suppress ordinary New Zealanders’ freedom in democracy and in our elections. But that is the bit that cuts the Labour Party to the quick, because its members know that we are right. They know that the campaign the
New Zealand Herald has been running is right. You see, even in the bill they refer to third parties, as if somehow they do not belong in elections in New Zealand. That is what this is about. The purpose of this bill is to attack democracy—a democracy that has survived for over 100 years in New Zealand. We know that after this legislation New Zealanders will no longer be free. They are used to operating in a democracy in New Zealand where they are free to express themselves on political issues, they are free to criticise the Government, they are free to criticise the Opposition, they are free to promote policies they like and to protest against policies they do not like, and they are free to be part of a country whose core foundation is backed up by an open and transparent democracy.
Our healthy democracy does not just tolerate that sort of behaviour; it requires it. But under Labour that is all changing. The rights of ordinary New Zealanders no longer count. The rights of hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders who want to participate no longer count. Well, I have a message for the very out-of-touch Prime Minister of New Zealand: this bill cost her Minister his job. That is what happened; he is no longer here. And I will tell members this for nothing: this legislation will cost the Prime Minister of New Zealand her job in 2008. You see, she has gone—she has gone. She lacks so much confidence now about winning this election on a fair and even basis that she does not care about toughing out, day after day, the front pages of the
New Zealand Herald
and every editorial around the country. The Labour caucus lacks so much confidence that Labour will win, without screwing the scrum, that it is closing its eyes and doing it.
If any—any—part of the Labour Party thinks that this is going away in 2008, I tell them that it is not. New Zealanders are sick of being told what to do, they are sick of having Labour control every part of their lives, and they are sick of being told whether they can participate in an election. I say to Labour members that they should pick up the
New Zealand Herald, read the editorial, and for once in their lives recognise that they are not bigger than the people of New Zealand. Those members have a chance to vote
this legislation down; they have a chance to preserve their reputations, albeit they are badly tarnished and badly in tatters. But I will make the prediction that they will not do that, because they lack the confidence to win an election when it is run under the old basis and when electoral law was debated evenly across Parliament.
I make this promise to New Zealanders: when Labour is gone at the end of 2008, the first thing National will do is repeal this legislation. It is gone—it is gone. And we will not indulge ourselves in the kind of behaviour we have seen from the Labour Party where we write self-serving legislation. We will consult, we will actually act in the best interests of New Zealand, and we will not use Nicky Hager and his second-rate book as some sort of compass for the way in which New Zealand’s democracy should be run. That is a disgrace, and we all know it.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First)
: Nicky Hager did not write any book; he compiled a list of emails and correspondence, all handwritten by the National Party, and then he assembled it in a book—and none of those members can deny that. I understand the National Party’s position. It is that there is no more democracy in New Zealand, no more freedom in New Zealand—
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the member, but I remind the members on my left that they may like to look at Speakers’ ruling 57/3. Interjections are to be “rare and reasonable”, “relevant” and restrained. If members wish to make a contribution to the debate, they can do so with a 5-minute speech.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: According to the National Party there is no more freedom in New Zealand, and no more democracy. People cannot exercise their right to speak, and they cannot vote. That is what National has argued, alongside the
New Zealand Herald, that brilliant bastion of democracy and freedom, that tremendous watchdog of the people, which every now and again, every two decades, finds an issue and surfaces.
The truth is that National claims that the bill prevents free speech, except that those members cannot tell us which person in New Zealand is not free to speak now. I ask them please to tell me which New Zealander is denied free speech right now. Of course, they cannot tell us that, because no New Zealander has been denied free speech by this legislation.
The second thing is—
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: The bill’s not through yet.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: OK, OK! Let us imagine it is 1 January and the bill is through—because it will be through—so can members tell me now which New Zealander on that date will be denied free speech? You see, they cannot name one person, yet they talk about the
New Zealand Herald’s coverage of the bill and about a campaign when 5,000 people marched up Queen Street. For goodness’ sake! I have had more people in one of my audiences than that—
Hon Tau Henare: When was that?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —and I did not get carried away as a result of that. But there are 5,000 people, and all of a sudden we have the difference between the free world and the Iron Curtain. It is extraordinary! Tau wants to know when that audience was. It was when we took him, hopeless though he was, and put him in Parliament. It was when he was hopeless and we put him in Parliament.
You know, which New Zealander, on 1 January 2008—[Interruption]; no, members should answer the question—or in this coming election, will not be able to have his or her say? I ask members to name one. Well, they cannot.
John Carter: Garth McVicar.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Garth McVicar can campaign, and we will campaign alongside him, unlike the “soft on law and order” boys and unlike the convenient “we’re
your friend tomorrow” boys. Ron Mark of New Zealand First and Winston Peters will be campaigning with Garth McVicar, because what we say, we mean. And will Garth be able to vote? Of course he will. Will he be able to advertise? Of course he will.
The next question is this—[Interruption] With that member it is “Sir”, OK? It is not “Winston” to him; it is “Sir”—OK? He has been here only 5 minutes, so he should learn some respect. You see, this bill ensures that we will know who is campaigning and participating at the next election—not some shadowy figures like the Exclusive Brethren, and not some group that does not want anyone to know about its registered office, its place of domicile, its name, or, above all, what it paid over to the National Party and why it did so. No one pays a million dollars to a political party without asking for something. Members should ask Michael Fay about that. He paid the National Party a million dollars, did he not? And this was the deal: “You bail me out from the BNZ and you get me into State asset sales, and I will get a return of three to one. I will put on that million dollars for you, and I will get, by the freedom of policies, $300 for every dollar I put down.” That is National; that is its record.
Those ignoramuses can scream and shout, but I know about that. I was there, and I saw what was done. I saw how National was prepared to compromise some hard-working lady down in Gore or some poor guy in Kaitāia, who were making cakes, organising hoedowns, and picking up membership for the National Party. But National was prepared to put all those people aside for the sake of the few or the very few—or, as Roosevelt put it, those over-mighty subjects. That is why the National Party—no, no, Mr Chairman; I am speaking to clause 3(d) of this bill.
Rodney Hide: Mr Chairman—
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I gave him 10 minutes—
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member’s time has expired.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First)
: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. With regard to Mr Hide, I gave the National Party guy 10 minutes. Surely he could have the courtesy to give me the same? That is what fairness looks like in my book. Otherwise, if he does it there, that is fine; it will never happen again for those guys. They will never extend that—
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Will the member please be seated. I have not called anybody yet. Mr Peters, are you seeking another call?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes.
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I then call the Rt Hon Winston Peters.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Do members see what happened there? Even though we gave the National Party guy a fair go, his cohort was not prepared to give us one. How do members like that?
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but a number of members are out of their regular seats. Members cannot move in order to facilitate interjection. I have noted that several members who are interjecting are out of their regular seats, and I have nodded to them.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: They are delicate little flowers. They are delicate little flowers when the truth comes out.
But how many people are actually being affected by this legislation? Let me tell members that 56 individuals or trusts, according to the 2005 election figures, will be affected by this legislation—not millions or thousands. Going on the 2005 figures, 56 individuals or trusts will be affected by this legislation. And the National members want us to read the
New Zealand Herald
editorial—
Hon Tau Henare: Pay it back, mate!
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The member should not worry; it is organised. What about the GST? Is that paid back? Is the GST firmly paid back? Is the GST offence acknowledged?
The
New Zealand Herald
wants us to follow its view of a fair go in democracy. Do members recall the election campaign in 1993, when one political party was shut out from advertising on radio or television on pain of paying $100,000 on each and every occasion that it did so? Who organised that? The National Government did that. Did the
run a campaign about that? Did it write one word about it? No! That is the kind of hypocrite it is, because it is foreign-owned. And it had better get one thing straight: its foreign ownership will not run the 2008 campaign.
Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This is a robust debate, but I do not think it is acceptable that a member accuse another party first of all of being a hypocrite, but then more particularly of being foreign-owned.
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I did not take it as being that. I understood that Mr Peters was referring to the
New Zealand Herald
when he made that remark.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Nothing could be more apt. It is true. Back in 1993 the
New Zealand Herald
would not waste a muscle or raise a finger; it said nothing about it. But that is all OK, because, you see, the
—a foreign-owned media company—thinks it is going to organise the 2008 election from abroad. It thought so in 2005. The reason it was so mad post-election night was that it had just blown it, again. The people who sit in the boardroom of the
office think that because they are from a newspaper, they will run the 2008 election. Well, I have news for them. It is all bad, and it is also based on the past. Members should look at clause 3(d) of the bill, which is about transparency. They do not need to show me the bill; I know what I am talking about. The point here is about the number of New Zealanders who are affected by this legislation. Only 56 trusts or private individuals are affected by it.
I have the National Party gifting list here. It is total deceit, of course; it is not true. The National Party’s problem is that it finds it very hard—as every kid in primary school will tell us—to fit $10 million into $2.4 million. It finds it very hard to fit $10 million into $2.4 million, which is the campaign cap.
The
New Zealand Herald
did not tell the public this, but in the 2005 election campaign the National Party had spent all its money before the 3-month period. National Party members are screaming now, because apparently they cannot run an 11-month campaign. I do not know about Mr Key’s predecessors, but if he wants to lead a political party he has to have stamina. He cannot go out like a show pony for 1, 2, or 3 months; he has to go out for the whole 2008 period. On 1 January the campaign starts. Mr Key is either up to it or he is not. Either he has the energy, the drive, and the stamina or he does not, but he should not ask the rest of us to stay home for 9 months and then turn up. The campaign period we are asked to have is no different from that in the UK.
Those members’ arguments are humbug arguments, and I ask them please not to tell me again that people died for what they are talking about. Men and women died in the wars. Men and women from New Zealand died in the world wars so that their country would not be run from outside, so that it would not be governed from outside, and so that elections would not be organised from outside. That is why they died, so let us not hear the hypocrisy from the National Party members one more time that somehow calling on the sacrifice of the dead gives some colour of right to their spurious arguments.
Every New Zealander who wants to vote in 2008 can vote. Every New Zealander who wants to campaign in 2008 can campaign. Every New Zealander who wants to take
out advertising in 2008 can do so, except that there will be some rules against those people who think—and this has been demonstrated abroad—that money can buy elections. There used to be a party once that believed in that. Sadly, it no longer does.
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Surely the kind of barrage that came from Mr Henare, who yelled out things like “Sit down!”—which, although it has no point to the argument, is probably the most intellectual thing he has said all day—is not really the standard of intervention that we should have in this Chamber. If members want to interject, their interjections should be rare and reasonable. But a barrage about paying the money back, when, frankly, I actually spent more money on the National Party than all of its members put together—
Hon Members: Aw!
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, yes, I did. Those members are just takers. Doug and I were givers. I am saying that if that is the best they can do, then they should be asked to leave the Chamber, because the debate should be conducted in such a way that people can actually hear it.
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I just say that sometimes directing a series of questions across the Chamber actually invites interjection, as well.
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT)
: Mr Peters and Mr Barker have shown us, very clearly, what is wrong with this bill and what is wrong with the process by which we are passing it. First of all, elections, and the rules that govern our democracy, are not something that we in Parliament own. They do not belong to us; nor should they be something that we control and direct. Sadly, this is what is happening with this Electoral Finance Bill.
Second, to the extent that we are to have these rules, we would expect not only that the public of New Zealand would be involved in their formation, with an independent body of wise people, away from the hurly-burly of politics, giving us advice, but also that there would be multiparty involvement and concurrence with the broad structure of the way the rules of an election should be run. Mr Barker and Mr Peters showed us that the genesis of this bill, the process by which it has been developed, and now the process by which it is to be passed, are mired deeply in partisan politics. What we heard from Mr Barker, the Minister in the chair, was just a long diatribe against the National Party, which leads everyone to the conclusion—which is obvious from the bill—that this bill is not about a fair election but about an attack by one political party on another.
Why would the Minister in the chair not stand up and defend this bill on its merits, rather than attack a particular party? It is the people of New Zealand who will judge the political parties; it should not be the Minister in the chair passing an Electoral Finance Bill.
All Mr Peters could do was to reinforce that view. It was not about how to conduct a fair and proper election in a modern democracy; it was all about how bad the National Party is, and that this bill is somehow designed to put down the National Party. That is not the point of what we should be doing in this House with an Electoral Finance Bill.
We have also seen from Mr Barker what else is wrong with this bill. We are in the last 2 weeks of this sitting of Parliament, before an election year, debating a bill that has been hastily cobbled together, a bill that the public do not want and on which they have not had a say. This bill has been radically changed from the bill as it first appeared, because it was such a dog. It is still a dog, and now the Minister is bringing in a raft of further amendments. Is that any way to run a democracy in an open and free society?
I say to the Minister, to the Prime Minister with respect, to Mr Peters, and to the Green Party, that that cannot be the case. I say to the Minister and to the Prime Minister that if they will not listen to the ACT party or particularly the National Party, then they should listen to what the people are saying about this bill. I know that Mr Peters thinks
that all the news media of New Zealand are somehow part of a foreign-owned conspiracy against himself, and that all around the world they sit conspiring to stop Mr Peters, and that somehow Audrey Young is a puppet of the corporate boardrooms around the world.
We should listen to what the media are saying. We have had not just the
New Zealand Herald
stating that this bill is a dog. We have had every newspaper in the country say that the bill is a dog. We have had the
state: “It fails to promote participation in parliamentary democracy … it is so defective and incoherent as to be irredeemable and should be withdrawn.”
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Who owns them?
RODNEY HIDE: Mr Peters has had his chance. We know that everything and everyone who disagrees with him is a conspiracy against the world. He can have that view, and I am happy that he is entitled to it, but that sort of paranoia is more fitting to a psychiatrist’s couch than this Chamber in debating an important bill like this.
We had the Christchurch
Press stating that the bill “remains a botched and misconceived proposal that should be scrapped and started again.” We had the
stating that Labour must “scrap the bill”. We had the
stating that it is “a Byzantine contraption to kneecap political opponents.” We had the
stating that “a cobbled-together, self-serving compilation giving Big Brother control of all private political funding in an election year is not the means to achieve fairness.” Then we had the
stating that it is “a flawed bill steeped in controversy. Preferably, they should scrap it and start again.” I say “amen” to that.
If we look at the purpose clause, not one of the purposes is advanced by this bill. Demonstrably this bill puts us further away from achieving each and every one of these purposes. I would have thought that every one of us in this Parliament, as New Zealanders and as elected parliamentarians, would have an interest in elections that are fair and democratic, but, more particularly, that give all Zealanders a right to have their say, even when we disagree with them. Is that not the point? We do not have to agree with the Brethren, but do we not defend their right to have their say? Do we not in this Parliament defend their right to spend their own money to have their say? Is it any wonder, in the climate of fear that is developing in New Zealand, that private citizens who do want to have a say think twice before putting their name out there when they express their political view, for fear of attack and reprisal? Can one not do that in a free society?
I say to Mr Peters that all citizens who want to spend some of their hard-earned money expressing their political view, one year in three, will be affected by this bill, then every New Zealander is affected. He asked who was affected, and that is the answer. All citizens who want to have a political say and spend some of their hard-earned money to have that say will be affected by this bill.
That is why the ACT party opposes this bill. I have to say we were very pleased to hear John Key say that one of the first things a National Government would do on assuming office would be to repeal this legislation, because it is a dog. I say that also to Mr Peters. This bill has to be defeated, it has to go, and I am afraid to say that Prime Minister Helen Clark, who has been a Prime Minister who has been in touch with New Zealanders on many, many issues and has been a Prime Minister able to turn the ship of State around when she gets offside with public opinion, is out of touch with what people are saying on this bill.
I say to Mr Peters: “Stand up for some principles that New Zealand First said that it was founded on.” I say to the Greens: “Please support the right of all New Zealanders to express their political views and to spend their resources expressing those views.” How
can the great Green Party be opposed to that? Do we not live in a democracy where we rejoice that people differ on the political issues of the day, and that we do have disagreements? Why cannot people express that view, or will we all have to register with the Government and declare what we are doing, when we might not agree with the Government or support it? How ironic it is that we will be taxed to pay for Government propaganda but cannot spend the pittance that we are left with to express our own political views. This bill is a dog, it should go, and it will go; if it is passed by this Parliament, I am with John Key when he said he would repeal this bill, on taking office.
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon)
: When we look at the purpose of the Electoral Finance Bill we need to look no further than at young 16-year-old Simeon Brown of Manurewa, who took the time to email Chris Carter, Minister for Ethnic Affairs, to say that he thought the bill would stop people having their democratic say. And what did Chris Carter do? He emailed back: “Are you an Exclusive Brethren?”. Simeon Brown is not an Exclusive Brethren; the Exclusive Brethren apparently do not use email.
What would have happened if, in fact, Chris Carter had emailed back: “Are you a Muslim?”, “Are you a member of al-Qaeda?”, “Are you a member of the Buddhist religion?”, or “Are you a member of New Zealand First?” If he had said anything like that—[Interruption] I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The Minister in the chair, the Hon Rick Barker, should know that he should not be interrupting me from the chair.
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I might say that I reminded him of that.
JUDITH COLLINS: Simeon Brown, aged 16, wrote back a very detailed email to Chris Carter. He came to my electorate office yesterday and gave me a copy of it. That email explained why he thought this bill was very bad, and he asked Mr Carter to explain his behaviour.
Mr Carter, the Minister for Ethnic Affairs, who would be the first to jump down anyone’s throat for saying anything about any group that he might wish to associate himself with, said: “Well, that is what I always say.”, or words to that effect. He always asks whether someone is a member of the Exclusive Brethren. Now we have a Labour Minister of the Crown vilifying people because of their religion.
Jill Pettis: It’s not a religion; it’s a cult.
JUDITH COLLINS: It has become an issue only because those people want there to be a change of Government. The previous member for Whanganui, Jill Pettis, says the Exclusive Brethren are not a religion; they are a cult. Let us just ask ourselves whether, if we used the words “Jew” or “Muslim”, there would be a problem. Yes, there would.
When we look at the purpose clause, we find we need to look no further than that to see this bill is about closing down dissent that does not agree with the Labour Party and its poodles. That is what the bill is all about.
I was one of the 5,000 members of the public who marched in Auckland on Saturday. I can tell the Labour members, who dismiss such marches, that it was not a march full of National Party people; they were people from completely across the board. It was not the “rent a mob” that the Labour Party normally turns up with for anything. They were good people who wanted to express their view. About 70 percent of them said that they had never marched for anything before.
R Doug Woolerton: Grow up, for God’s sake!
JUDITH COLLINS: We hear from the member Doug Woolerton. He used to be a National Party member. He would once have thought that democracy was important—and he has still not paid his bill, by the way—and we would once have heard from him that that is actually what this issue is all about.
We need to look no further than the bill itself and particularly Part 1 of it, because that part is so riddled with errors that the Minister has lodged Supplementary Order Paper 163 with about 150 changes in it. One of the changes that my colleague Chris Finlayson is promoting is to clause 14. Clause 14(2) states—and I read this directly from the bill—“The following are ineligible to be a third party: (a) a party other than a non-contesting party: …”. What does that mean—a party is not to be a third party other than a non-contesting party? It is absolute drivel!
Then I thought that perhaps the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 163 might have some clarification of that. Supplementary Order Paper 163, which the Minister has put forward, states with regard to clause 14: “To omit ‘non-contesting party’ … and substitute”—members guessed it—“ ‘non-contesting party’.” So now we are to omit the words “non-contesting party” and substitute the words “non-contesting party”? I ask the members of the Committee who can read well to look at that amendment. They will see it states that the words “non-contesting party” are to be substituted for the words “non-contesting party”. I would ask what the Minister of Justice is supposed to be saying there. That is the same Minister who said we do not need to worry about what is in the law, because we can just use some common sense and, apparently, that will rule.
Well, I support the submission of my colleague Chris Finlayson that we should omit the words “other than a non-contesting party”, because quite clearly a third party will not be a political party that is involved in the whole process, and we should not have to say that it is a non-contesting party.
We can go further on into the bill, and we would suggest that we omit clause 14(3), because that is all about non-contesting parties that are listed as third parties. Either they are political parties or they are not.
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour)
: The main criticism of this part of the Electoral Finance Bill has clearly been that the definition of “election advertisement” could have been interpreted to include issues-based advocacy, and would thus have regulated and effectively limited public participation in political life, which is the opposite of the goal of this bill.
I remind members that this Labour Government is the heir to the party in Government that enacted the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, and that the party of members opposite voted against that legislation. We are the party that upholds and values freedom of expression and this legislation gives real effect to that value, not just effect in form but also effect in substance. Accordingly, the Justice and Electoral Committee has recommended that the definition of “election advertisement” be amended. It has been reviewed carefully in the committee, and the majority of the select committee—that majority comprising Labour, Green, New Zealand First, and United Future members—has recommended that it be changed. So clause 5(1)(a)(iii) is to be omitted, as was suggested by the Human Rights Commission amongst other bodies, including many non-governmental organisations that came before the committee. It is now abundantly clear that taking a stand on the issues will not fall under the definition of “election advertisement” for the purpose of the legislation.
Let us make this point perfectly clear: the bill does not limit anyone’s right to comment on the issues. It is only where people seek to advocate for a vote for or against a candidate or a party or a combination that the law will intervene, and when it does so, it does so lightly. The requirements are simply that those who seek to participate in that way should do so openly rather than covertly, they should do so transparently, and they should do so subject to the very high expenditure cap of $120,000. That is an important point to have cleared up right from the start.
The original clause 10 has also been omitted. This related to the need for a candidate to appoint an auditor. This was seen to be a burden with no practical value. So here
again we have proof of the select committee process working as it should. The submissions were heard on this point and the majority of the select committee agreed that there ought to be a recommendation to omit that provision. Accountability and transparency are still ensured for candidates, because they are required—as they are now—to file a return as to election expenses.
Another point that I draw the attention of the Committee of the whole House to is the eligibility criteria for membership of third parties. These have been revised. As long as a majority of the members are registered electors in respect of an unincorporated society, then third party registration is open, and no minimum age limit will apply. So any person who wishes to be involved in a third party and satisfies those eligibility criteria, which essentially include that there should be a majority of people onshore, can participate freely in the affairs of a third party. Any person involved in the administration of the affairs of a party or a candidate may not be listed as a third party. Again, this excludes the possibility of covert, undeclared conflicting interests or collusion between primary and third parties.
Another significant change that appears in this part is that the Electoral Commission will administer third party listing under clause 15 of the bill, and under clause 16 it will be empowered to prescribe an application form for the registration of third parties. I am very confident that this change will require all the necessary information for that process to be provided transparently so that people can know the true identity of third parties seeking to involve themselves directly in advocacy for political parties, candidates, or a combination of these.
This part of the bill is greatly improved as a result of the select committee process. Once again, freedom of expression is protected and preserved, as is the principle of one person, one vote, rather than one dollar, one vote.
METIRIA TUREI (Green)
: Tēnā koe, Mr Chairman. So much hysteria about this bill has been propagated by National and the ACT party, and it is unfortunate because it is misleading members of the community. It is driving up the level of fear and concern amongst them unnecessarily, and it is propagating the view that somehow the right to spend money is the most important and crucial human right in our democracy. That is false, that is not the principle on which this country has been built, and it is a disgrace that those political parties are undertaking that kind of action.
It is quite interesting to note that the hysteria is being propagated by political parties with powerful financial backers, particularly ACT and National. You know, National benefited enormously from the loopholes in the law, as was evidenced at the last election. National ruthlessly and purposefully exploited those loopholes. One example, of course, was its active assistance with the Exclusive Brethren’s campaign. It is neither here nor there that it was the Exclusive Brethren, as opposed to somebody else, but the National Party’s campaign people talked to this other group and said: “Use these kinds of words in your campaign and so will we, and we will then be able to run these two parallel campaigns together, but yours will not be caught under our spending cap. Ours will be, and we will be able to double the bang for our buck. We can double the use of our money by running this dodgy system with another group outside the political realm.”
That was the loophole that was exposed, and that was the loophole that National exploited. Now it is being closed and we are hearing the hysteria from National members—the hysteria—as they say that they do not want that loophole closed. I am concerned about ACT’s involvement in this, but I guess it comes from that side of the House. John Boscawen—I think that is how one says his name; I am not quite sure—is an ACT member and a member of the Business Roundtable. Clearly he is also an organiser of the marches in Auckland. Clearly, what is really important here is that he is
using money as a campaign tool because that is the only way to try to drive up the fear in the community in order to get support.
This is not a community campaign; this is a money campaign, which this member of the Business Roundtable is using to try to get support to oppose this bill. There have been vast and very expensive ads in the newspaper. It is a classic example of the problems that we are trying to deal with here—the fact that money can be used to mislead and frighten the community and drive it into a fury, when really what is needed is accurate information and a clear understanding of what the legislation does and what it is designed to protect. Frankly, this legislation is designed to protect our electoral system—to protect it from the use of big money, to protect it from the cancer of corruption that is infecting our electoral system and can continue to infect our electoral system if we do not do something about it. It is a manipulation by National and by ACT of the communities and their very real concerns about human rights.
It is fantastic that our community is so concerned about human rights. We want them to be concerned about human rights; it is very, very important. But human rights are not to be relegated to the right to buy; that is not a fundamental human right. A fundamental human right is the right to express ourselves, to have the freedom of association; to be able to do the things we need to do to make good lives for ourselves, our families, and our communities. It is not a human right to buy. This is the whole focus of the National Party and the ACT party campaigns against this bill, and what John and all his work outside with the marchers is designed to do. It is using money to try to manipulate the community members’ views and feelings so that they begin to see and attach the idea that one can use money, and that money and the right to buy is a fundamental human right. It is a pro-money campaign designed, in the end, to enable the buying of votes—because that is what would happen if we end up not being able to get this bill through. They will then be able to use their vast resources to buy votes. This is what it comes down to. We must protect our electoral system from their doing that. It is part of the cancer of that corruption around buying votes that the right to spend money to gain influence is seen as somehow being honourable. That is what their campaign is doing, and what John Boscawen’s campaign is doing—it is saying to the public that the right to spend money to gain influence is an honourable thing to do. It is not honourable; it is a disgrace.
Our whole democracy is built on the principle that people have the right to have a say, that they have the right to bring issues forward. It is part of the basic inheritance of our future generations and of the people who are here today that we are able to bring forward issues in our elections; democratically vote for representatives in this House based on the programme, the policies, and the principles that they bring here; and that this House is a representative place based on the needs of the community. It is not a place where influence should be bought. Those are not the principles for which all of those people have fought in past wars. All of those people are concerned about protecting their rights to freedom of speech and to be free New Zealanders. But that is not the same thing as saying that it is right to be able to buy influence.
The National Party campaign, the ACT party campaign, and the marches are all exact examples of the purchase of influence, and they are examples of why we need to control advertising, in particular. We have to remember that this bill deals only with the purchase of advertising; it does not deal with what one says or what one does. This bill deals with the purchase of advertising, and we see from the campaign against the bill how easy it is to use advertising to purchase influence over the community, and how easy it is to mislead and to frighten. We saw that at the last election actually. If we look at the “Iwi/Kiwi” billboards, we see that they were a direct attempt to frighten Pākehā New Zealanders into thinking that Māori would steal their beaches. The National Party
put out those billboards at 90 sites across the country. It cost over $1 million to run that billboard campaign, which was all designed to frighten people. National used money to do it, because it had the money to buy those billboards and to pay for the sites, and therefore it could influence people into thinking that Māori was somehow a threat to Pākehā society. It was a direct, manipulative attack, and National used money to do it. That is what we are trying to stop. We are trying to make sure that when people go to the ballot, they go there because they have real information about the real policies that the political parties and the candidates are putting forward, and they know the truth around the issues. That truth will be disrupted and misled if we allow unfettered money to be the determinant of what those issues are, and if other people’s voices are lost in the process.
Here we go with the National Party and the ACT party wanting to be able to use unlimited money in the campaign. But what about those small groups like Plunket? What about the small community groups? What about all of those little community organisations that have real issues that they want to bring to the table? They just do not have the money to compete with a million-dollar campaign, which is being proposed by National members or by friends of National members—like we have seen with the Business Roundtable, the Sensible Sentencing Trust, or some of these other organisations, which have hundreds of thousands of dollars to spend. What about those smaller groups? What about the ordinary New Zealanders who are trying to get their voices heard? They will be lost in the noise and the fury of the misleading, manipulative, and deceptive campaigns that are run because National has enough money to run them. That is the disgraceful situation that we are trying to stop here—and we will stop it, despite all of the money that has been thrown against this bill, and despite the hysteria from the National members, who can see their loopholes fading before their eyes.
I can understand their worry. I can understand why they are upset about it; they will have to fight the rest of the election on a level playing field. They will not have a special advantage just because they have very big financial backers—for example, from the Business Roundtable. I can see that it is a worry for National members. But it will be good for them, because every election should be fought on a level playing field, every election should be fought transparently, and every election should be fought on the basis of real policies and real principles that candidates and parties put forward to the electorate, so the electorate knows exactly what will happen with their vote. That is an absolutely crucial part of our democracy, which National is trying to fight against.
I feel sorry for National members—I think it is because their backers come from the old, neo-liberal, big-money kind of environment. I would like to see National go back to its traditional, conservative roots, where the people who had those kinds of values understand the importance of democracy, understand the importance of a level playing field, and understand the importance of equality and equity, because that is what this country was built on. Those are the values held by those people, and they have been deserted by the National Party. Those people have been deserted by National, and instead the big-money backers have come in and taken over.
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty)
: That was a most interesting speech from the Greens’ expert on electoral law, who says that this bill is only about the purchase of advertising. Well, that is such a load of rubbish. Let me just tell the Committee about that Green Party member. This is the woman who sat in the select committee and said that if a German tourist attends a meeting, or walks past a Green Party collector shaking a bucket and puts $20 in there, then that Green Party collector should ring the Green Party headquarters in Wellington to check whether the tourist is on the electoral roll. If he or she is not on the electoral roll, then the $20 should be given
back or returned to the Electoral Commission. That is exactly what the member said—that the Green Party would ring up and check whether anyone giving 20 bucks was on the electoral roll.
So, frankly, she is a member who has no understanding of democracy. If she did have any understanding she would have told us what the English organisation JMG Foundation got from the Greens for the $15,000 that it gave them at the last election. The member says that money buys influence. Well, what did Mr and Mrs Goldsmith from England get for the $25,000 they gave to the Green Party in 2002? What did the Greens offer the JMG Foundation for the $15,000 that it paid in 2005? The member’s argument is nonsense.
National is strongly opposed to this bill. How ridiculous it is that the Labour Party dumped 150 amendments to this bill less than 90 minutes before this debate started. Less than 90 minutes before this debate started, Labour dumped 150 amendments to this bill. Does anyone recall a time when such important legislation—legislation that is part of the constitutional and electoral framework of this country—was subject to 150 amendments that were dumped only moments before the debate began? Absolutely never. Never in the history of this country has someone sought to table 150 amendments only moments before the debate on a bill began.
Let us look at the purpose of this bill and see whether the jackboot approach of this Government towards electoral law matches the purpose of the bill. Its first purpose is to “maintain public and political confidence in the administration of elections;”. Does anyone think that the public believe that this Labour Party will run the electoral system of this country with any fairness or repute? Not at all. The legislation has failed its basic first purpose, which is to maintain public confidence. Public confidence in this country is best summed up by the headline “Democracy under attack”. New Zealanders say that democracy is under attack from this legislation. It is full of anti-democratic values. It is an attack on our democratic values. There is no way that it meets even the first purpose that the Government is proposing, which is to maintain public confidence in the administration of elections.
Let us look at the second purpose of the bill, which is to “promote participation by the public in parliamentary democracy;”. How does the bill promote public participation when ordinary people are referred to sneeringly as “third parties”? I have news for the Labour Party: we, the people of New Zealand, are not third parties to our electoral system. We, the people of New Zealand, are the core of the electoral system. We are not third parties. So this bill fails even its second purpose, which is to promote the participation of the public in parliamentary democracy.
Let us look at the next purpose, which is to “prevent the undue influence of wealth on electoral outcomes;”. Let me tell members about that. Not only is there preservation in this legislation of money from big unions, which can spend as much as they like, but the bill was specifically amended to allow Owen Glenn to give another half a million dollars to the Labour Party. I will tell the Committee what happened. The members opposite proposed an amendment that stated that anybody who was not on the New Zealand electoral roll and who lived overseas could not make a donation. They said that would be illegal. It was the party opposite that brought an amendment to the select committee and said that no one who lives overseas and is not on the electoral roll should be allowed to vote. Then we asked about Owen Glenn.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I sought your intervention, in the case of John Key, on the question of the principle of allowing someone to speak for 10 minutes. I was talking about someone who is a party leader; I was not talking about fly-by-nighters who turn up and decide they will indulge
themselves and get 10 minutes, as well. The member can have a go later on, but not two calls in a row.
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The decision is that of the Chair.
Hon TONY RYALL: I am here today representing more people in Tauranga than that member ever will. More people in Tauranga voted for me than for that member.
But let us get back to the third subclause, which is to “prevent the undue influence of wealth on electoral outcomes;”. The Labour Party brought forward an amendment to state that someone could not donate money if he or she was overseas and not on the electoral roll. We made a comment about Owen Glenn. A very hasty coffee break was organised and within about 15 minutes down came Lynne Pillay, who said that they wanted to change the rules so that someone can donate from overseas if he or she is a New Zealand citizen. That is the Owen Glenn subclause. Owen Glenn can now give another half a million dollars to the Labour Party. So much for preventing the undue influence of wealth on electoral outcomes!
What about the bit that states that the purpose of the bill is to “ensure that the controls on the conduct of the election campaigns—(i) are effective; and (ii) are clear; and (iii) can be efficiently administered, …”? Does anyone think that a bill that is now subject to 150 amendments could be described as being effective, clear, and efficient? No way! This bill fails every single purpose before the Committee. This bill does not maintain public confidence in the electoral system; it does not promote public participation—in fact, it sneeringly refers to us, the people of New Zealand, as “third parties”—it does nothing about wealth and the electoral system; it does nothing about transparency or accountability; and it does nothing about the effective, clear enforcement legislation that one would expect. One hundred and fifty amendments were tabled only moments before the bill was debated.
Frankly, I have to say to the Committee that although this Government thinks New Zealanders will forget about this legislation over the next year, I have news for the Government. Right now, up and down the country, New Zealanders know that this bill is all about Helen Clark’s paranoia. Helen Clark knows that she is in the dying days of her Government. The Government is lurching from crisis to crisis. Time after time we have seen what a dying Government looks like. It is skewing the playing field in favour of itself. It is making it harder and harder for ordinary New Zealanders to have a say, and easier and easier for big Government money, big union money, and big-spending Government department advertising to influence the election of this country.
New Zealanders are appalled by what this Government is proposing. We strongly oppose this legislation. New Zealanders will not forget what this Government is doing, because it is an affront to the democratic values of this country.
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere)
: What a story! What a good story Tony Ryall tells. If anyone takes the time to read National’s minority view in the select committee report they will see again what a story the National Party tells.
The Electoral Finance Bill is not an attack on free speech; it is an attack—and quite unashamedly—on big-buck speech. We want to see—as I heard my good friend Charles Chauvel saying before—the principle of one person, one vote. That is what the Labour Party—and in fact the majority of people in this Parliament—wants to see. I saw the huge advertisement in the
New Zealand Herald—which was paid for by an ACT member—and I saw Rodney Hide, who had popped a bit of sticky tape across his mouth to prove a point, which is probably the only way we would see Rodney not being able to talk—
Hon Member: That’s the best part about that ad. I liked it.
LYNNE PILLAY: That is right. The
New Zealand Herald
states that free speech is going to be stifled. We know that is not the case. The illusion that it is creating in its
paid advertisement with its cronies is that ordinary people will not be able to speak freely. It talks about people not being able to speak with megaphones, and all that sort of thing.
People do not even have to be listed as a third party unless they spend more than $12,000. I know that to the National Party, whose mates spent $1.2 million on its parallel campaigns, $12,000 seems like chicken feed. But to the majority of New Zealanders, $12,000 is a lot of money. The majority of New Zealanders—and the majority of people who came to the select committee in support of the bill—want to see transparency and accountability. What is wrong with that? I am pleased the select committee listened very, very carefully to what submitters said. Again, the illusion is that no one supports the bill. That is absolute rubbish. The whole non-governmental sector supports the bill. It had concerns, which we fixed, that it would be caught by the definition of advertising.
I want to stop there just for a moment. Do members remember the huge fuss Opposition members made about the fact that non-governmental organisations, which receive Government money for the good work that they do, were advocating about things like smoke-free legislation? One would ask “Why?”, because where does the National Party get its big money from? Where were the National Party members then, talking about freedom of speech? Where were they then, talking about advocacy? No, they did not want to hear it, not when those things interfered with their fund-raising, and with their money.
There is no question that the National Party’s opposition to this bill is absolute naked self-interest, and it is appalling. It is absolutely appalling. We heard from members of the Human Rights Commission who came to the select committee and talked about the third party cap. I had to congratulate Rodney Hide, who had a good idea. He said: “Let’s consult the Human Rights Commission about the proposed changes.” So we got the Human Rights Commission members to come back. They said—and this is what we do not see in the advertisements—that they absolutely supported the purpose to provide for transparency and accountability in the democratic process and to prevent the undue influence of wealth, and to promote participation in the parliamentary democracy. I quote from its report back to the select committee on 31 October, which members will never see in the
New Zealand Herald
or anywhere else: “The commission strongly supports the following recommended changes which it believes better enhance freedom of expression and the right to participate in electoral processes.” Why do we not see that, Mr Chairman?
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First)
: I do not like to say this with my leader in the Chamber, but I talked to John Boscawen—Rodney’s mate—this morning. We were talking about this bill. He called me to ask whether there was any chance New Zealand First would change its stance on it. He has never called me before. He has never talked to me, right through the last 5 months, but he called me this morning. National Party members are busy saying that people are doing things at the last minute. I asked him what the problem was and he said to me that he did not like the way this bill was being done behind closed doors. I said: “Excuse me?”. He said: “You’re doing this thing behind closed doors.” I said: “How so? There were 600 submissions to a public select committee, and over 100 were heard verbally at a public select committee meeting.” They say there were 5,000 people—and I do not believe that—in Auckland, at a meeting—
Dr Wayne Mapp: The police said that.
R DOUG WOOLERTON: The police said that, did they? I do not believe that figure but the police said it, so there you go.
Dr Wayne Mapp: You weren’t there!
R DOUG WOOLERTON: No, I was not there. I do not march in the street; I come to this place and speak my mind here. I do not march up the street like those other guys do.
John Boscawen was telling me that this legislation was being done behind closed doors. I said to him: “Mate, they would be the biggest closed doors I have ever seen in my life.” This legislation is not being done behind closed doors. There has never been a bill that I have seen before this House that has come under so much public scrutiny, and so much scrutiny within this Parliament, as this one. So it is absolutely rubbish to say it is being done behind closed doors.
Do members know what he then said to me? He said: “Oh, but there are some amendments coming up today that I do not know about.” Well, one could have said to him: “Well, excuse me, who the hell are you?”. But I did not do that.
Dr Wayne Mapp: Arrogance from New Zealand First!
R DOUG WOOLERTON: No, there is no arrogance involved in this—no arrogance whatsoever. If that member talked to me he would soon find that out, but because he does not know me he would not have a clue. But the fact is—
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!
R DOUG WOOLERTON: Yes, I am coming back to Part 1, Mr Chairman. I asked him what was behind closed doors and he said: “The changes, the SOPs coming up today.” I said that that always happens. There is a dotting of i’s and crossing of t’s, and the changing of mistakes. This guy does not know about parliamentary democracy.
Hon Darren Hughes: What’s his name?
R DOUG WOOLERTON: It is John Boscawen. He does not know about politics, and he does not know about parliamentary democracy. He has been put up to the job by people on the opposite side of the Chamber—that is what the deal is. He spent half of that conversation telling me how he made his money. I said: “Good luck to you. I hope you go on and make a hell of a lot more.” The other thing I said was that this legislation does not disbar the Brethren from involving themselves in election campaigns. It does not disbar them at all, but at least it makes sure that we know who is doing the job out there. Nor does it stop private citizens, at all, from involving themselves in elections, but members would never know that from reading the
New Zealand Herald.
If the
New Zealand Herald
was going to do things straight, would it not say that it is time for these third parties, which are lobby groups—not individuals—called third parties when they spend second only to the two big parties in election time, to come under the Electoral Act and the electoral law of this country? We on this side of the Chamber say “Yes, it is.” It is time we had some law surrounding the election process in this country that is actually meaningful and does not let a party run two campaigns—one by another third party or lobby group, and the other by the proper party itself, which is called the National Party. Those days are over. That method did not elect them, it did not work at the last election, and it is not going to work in the future because it had to stop. The people who made that happen, who brought this bill about, were the people who made the mistakes in the National Party. By and large the public should know this—[] No, no, the public should know this. They were not people like David Bennett, who is a backbencher; it was the people at headquarters who did this.
GORDON COPELAND (Independent)
: I want to speak to the purpose of the Electoral Finance Bill, and particularly to clause 3(b), which states that the purpose of the bill is to “promote participation by the public in parliamentary democracy;”. This bill does not achieve that purpose; rather, it introduces new and—in my view—totally unnecessary restrictions and roadblocks that inhibit New Zealanders from maintaining even their present ability to participate in our democracy.
It is a deeply flawed and dishonest bill. I say “dishonest” because the only need for such a bill, which the Government has consistently appealed to as a justification for this Draconian, complex, bureaucratic, interventionist bill coming into a perfectly satisfactory electoral finance situation, comes from the involvement of the businessmen who spent, from their own pockets, money in the last election and who happened to be members of the Exclusive Brethren. As Doug Woolerton has just informed the Committee, their involvement did not work. It did not actually have much effect on the final outcome of the last election, so this whole bill is based on a foundation that is shaky and that does not stand up to any analysis whatever. I know for sure that people actually turned off voting for National when it became clear who was behind the leaflets that came through letterboxes telling people to bring the Labour Government’s reign to an end. In fact, Labour was re-elected, and therefore the argument is surely self-fulfilling.
There was no problem, and there was no mischief that needed to be fixed. This whole bill is really predicated on ensuring that in the future any advantage that parties other than National might have enjoyed in terms of financial support is actually removed. I think that this is the action of a Government that is desperate to stay in office.
- Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
GORDON COPELAND: In the 1990s Bob Jones spent a considerable sum of money in Nelson trying to unseat Nick Smith, but, in fact, Nick Smith was re-elected with an increased majority. I think that just goes to show that once New Zealanders know who is behind leaflets and other material, they are quite capable of making up their own minds, and they do not need to be treated like children.
This bill is badly drafted. The Minister in charge of the bill, Annette King, tries to reassure the nation that that does not matter, because the law of common sense will apply. In the 2002 election the Hon Peter Dunne gained quite some traction around the notion of common sense, but I would say that Annette King has single-handedly given common sense a bad name. If we want to promote public participation in a parliamentary democracy, common sense says that we should make it easier, not harder, for that to happen. Common sense means that we write a bill that is comprehensible, clear, and user-friendly if we genuinely want to promote greater participation in democracy and not write gobbledegook. Common sense would mean that we give third party trusts a ceiling above $120,000 for advertising, when it costs much more than that simply to make a single national letterbox drop.
The whole way in which this bill has been put together is nothing but a complete breach of common sense. Common sense would conclude that an extension of the 3-month electoral period right back to 1 January in election year restricts rather than promotes participation in New Zealand’s democracy. That is completely obvious. Would not common sense conclude that this bill should be ditched? It is unnecessary and, more important, it has a negative impact on the likely participation of New Zealanders in our democracy, which is the best democracy, and the oldest, I would say, in the world. Our democracy has been robust. It is tested and it is tried. There is no justification or necessity for this bill. It is a solution seeking a problem that does not actually exist in the real world—a world, sadly, that this Government has become more and more out of touch with as the years have gone by.
Let me say that it is time to bin this bill. It is time to assign it permanently to the rubbish bin. I will be voting against this bill, and I urge other members of the House to do likewise.
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National)
: I want to focus tonight on a number of key terms in clause 4, which is the interpretation clause. Clause 4 is a very important
clause, and over the past couple of weeks my deputy leader, Mr English, has been asking various Ministers of Justice a couple of questions in the House focusing on the particular words. I have done the same, and for our efforts the Prime Minister last week called us nitpickers—a phrase that is reminiscent of Sir Robert Muldoon and Simon Walker. Then, today she said there was a slight change and that what we need to do—that is, members of the public and members of Parliament—is read the provisions carefully and consult lawyers. Then, later this afternoon we heard a press release from the Prime Minister saying that in fact the Government was willing to talk to the National Party about various provisions we have proposed in our Supplementary Order Papers, because they seemed to make a lot of sense. Well, that is kind, but more about that later.
Let us focus for a moment on the word “publish” in clause 4. Even though the Minister has proposed a number of amendments, the situation with that word is still hopeless. We can deal with paragraph (i) of the definition very briefly. This paragraph was inserted by majority. It states that one is publishing an advertisement if one brings it to the notice of the public in any other manner. That phrase was clearly an extravagant phrase. It was clearly hopeless, and, indeed, the National Party members on the select committee pointed that out to the Labour members time and time again. But it was inserted by the hopeless majority, because they would not listen. Mr Benson-Pope was too busy trying to save his career from the Claire Curran challenge, and Mr Chauvel was too busy writing press releases announcing his appointment as Dr Cullen’s private secretary. Of course, as we have seen—and it has been very well exemplified by her performance tonight—the chair was incompetent.
So paragraph (i) of the definition of “publish” is going, and, of course, it should go, because it is absolutely and utterly nonsensical. The other amendments that the Minister has included in Supplementary Order Paper 162 are unsatisfactory and National cannot support them. Paragraphs (b), (e), and (g) are amended, but those amendments are minor and trifling and do not deal with the essential concerns of the National Party. I ask the Labour members to take these hypothetical situations: if a person is carrying a placard at a demonstration, for example, and that placard praises a particular party or candidate, or, conversely, criticises them, then that will be deemed to be the publication of an advertisement. I refer, in clause 4 to paragraph (b) of the definition of “publish”, which refers to someone displaying an advertisement.
Another example I ask members to reflect on is the situation whereby someone sends an email to anyone saying that he or she thinks Labour is hopeless or the National Party is fantastic. Apart from that being a self-evident statement of the truth, it would also be publication of an advertisement in accordance with paragraph (c) of that definition. So this definition of publishing is far too broad. It is an unsatisfactory clause. It should be amended, as the National Party has proposed. We have suggested in the first of my Supplementary Order Papers that we amend the definition of “publish” so that it is consistent with section 214B of the Electoral Act 1993. In other words, the activity comprises advertising in any way: broadcasting on radio or television; publishing, issuing, distributing or displaying addresses, notices, or posters; and so on. It is consistent with the Electoral Act 1993, and it is not expressed in the very broad terms that the Electoral Finance Bill has.
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga)
: I say from the outset that I really want to concentrate on only one very specific clause in Part 1, and that is clause 5(2)(g). I say that because I want to alert members of this Committee to what technology will do in this area. I see that this bill is concerned with something that is “commonly known as a blog”, and that it tries to include that in the area of “Meaning of election advertisement”.
I want to say to this Committee tonight very clearly that I have worked in Eastern Europe. I worked with LOT airlines in Poland and I worked with Aeroflot in Moscow in the early 1980s, and I found that the most frightening thing about those societies was that their citizens could get no information about the outside world other than what their Governments would let them have. That statement has nothing to do with National, Labour, or anything else. Let me tell members that in the Eastern European regimes of the early 1980s we had Ceausescu running Romania and Egon Krenz running the Eastern Germany operation, and when I was in Moscow in 1981 Brezhnev was running the place. Those citizens could not get advice from anywhere else in the world.
A decade later something happened that took my breath away: the Berlin Wall came crashing down. I got in touch with some of my colleagues and friends from Aeroflot and from other airlines and asked: “How did that happen? That came out of left field. I cannot believe it happened.” Members should listen to what they said; I thought it was amazing. I was told that the thing that brought down the Berlin Wall more than anything else was the fax machine. I said: “You’ve got to be dreaming! What are you talking about?”. They said that up until about 1986 the fax machine was illegal in Eastern Europe. Do members hear that clearly? The fax machine was illegal. If one was caught with a fax machine in one of those Eastern European bloc countries one could be jailed, but companies and businesses, in order to try to be internationally competitive, had to communicate with the outside world.
Members should listen to this, because I thought this was a cracker. In 1987—the year that John Carter and I got elected to this place—the Soviet Government licensed the fax machine. People were allowed to have a fax machine, but they had to report to the Government each year on what they had done with it. They had to show a copy of every incoming and every outgoing fax. What happened in Eastern Europe was that within the next 3 years the Government lost total and absolute control, because the people just rode roughshod over such rules. Finally, faxes between people and the
New York Times or the
were flying in and out of Eastern Europe. By 1990 down came the Berlin Wall and with it the entire oppression of a nation and regimes that had stopped their citizens from hearing the facts.
I will repeat to members again: the fax machine brought down the Berlin Wall, and the fall of the Berlin Wall is probably the greatest change that has occurred in the history of this planet. If members think that the fax machine was stunning, I tell them that I simply do not even use one any more. The Internet has about 10,000 times the power of the fax machine. The Internet will democratise information. One will not be able to stop people from having their say. One will not be able to stop groups from saying what they believe. The “Nazi Party of New Zealand”, even if it has the most disgraceful and outrageous beliefs, may be able to have its own website.
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast)
: I would like to speak to a particular clause here tonight, too. I would like to talk about clause 17, which is the clause that prohibits third parties from being registered in the lead-up to an election. The original bill that came before this House proposed 42 days—that is, from writ day the listing of third parties would be prohibited. I want to refer to the information that was provided during the Justice and Electoral Committee hearing, because submissions from a whole range of people, including Associate Professor Andrew Geddis, Family First New Zealand, Libertarianz, the Employers and Manufacturers Association, the Human Rights Commission, David Farrar, the New Zealand Law Society, Mr Graeme Edgeler, and about 13 other submissions, focused on this clause. Of course, their concern was that the effect of this was particularly unfair if an issue arose late in an election campaign—that is, in the 6 weeks leading up to an election, when the election campaign proper is going. If a third party, or an interest group, had not formally registered it could
not take part, even if it was forming part of an intense electoral debate. Let us say that a party came out with a proposition in that 6 weeks, in the election campaign proper—for instance, someone said they were going to ban the SPCA. If the SPCA had not registered as a third party prior to that, it would not be able to take part in the debate and it could have its future debated amongst political parties and candidates without it being able to put its side of the case. A large number of organisations made representations to the select committee.
I have to say that the New Zealand Labour Party supported the provision that was in the bill originally—that is, banning unregistered people from taking part in that last 6 weeks of an election campaign—because apparently it wanted to ensure that there were no surprises late in a campaign. Well, actually, nobody has told political parties about the “no surprises” clause because that is when political parties spring their surprises, and that is the very time when organisations and individuals out in the community should be able to get involved in an election campaign. That is, in fact, the very time that the public are listening to an election campaign.
So this Labour-led Government wants to ban unregistered people from taking part in that 6-week lead-up, and we heard that in the select committee from the members opposite. Interestingly enough, of course, groups like the Human Rights Commission said, and I quote from its original submission: “It is difficult to conceive of a greater limitation on freedom of speech than this, and it cannot be imagined that the degree of restriction was intended. The effect of the bill is to muzzle a person or group which finds itself in this situation.”
Jill Pettis: Quote from the second one!
ANNE TOLLEY: I hear some raucous talk from across the way, saying “Read the second one.” Well, I will, actually, because the commission, having had a look at the changes to the bill—and let us remember that in the bill that has come back we still have the words “on writ day”—said in its follow-up after the bill was reported back to the House: “The commission requests further consideration of clause 17.” In its original submission it proposed its deletion. In fact, the Human Rights Commission said that that clause should be deleted, and, in fact, it is continuing to say that it should be deleted. It accepts that there may well be legitimate administrative reasons for a close-off date, but it should be as close as administratively practical to polling day. So the commission is rejecting this proposal from the Labour Government and its lackeys.
The other organisation that commented on this clause was of course the Electoral Commission. It said, in its comments to the select committee, that it also recommended removing this clause. The commission said that that would effectively prevent individuals and groups from making a contribution to debate during the critical campaign period if they had not listed as a third party. So did anyone listen either to the Human Rights Commission or to the Electoral Commission? Only National listened.
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice)
: I will take just a brief call to reassure the member Anne Tolley that if she looks at Supplementary Order Paper 162, at the proposed amendment to clause 17(a)(i) of the Electoral Finance Bill, she will see that the words there state: “To omit ‘writ day’ and substitute ‘the 21st day before polling day’.”
Anne Tolley: It’s 3 weeks.
Hon RICK BARKER: It is 3 weeks—a significant improvement and a significant advancement—and it meets the requirements of the Electoral Commission and the Human Rights Commission to be as close as administrably possible to polling day.
I am pleased to be able to advise the member that both the Human Rights Commission and the Electoral Commission say they endorse the amendment. That is
my advice. They have said the amendment is fine. I just want the member to get up to date.
The next point I want to bring up is the point raised by the member Chris Finlayson, who talked about a placard. I am pleased to be able to advise the member that the placard is currently provided for under the current Electoral Act. If people are carrying a placard then it should be authorised by the party they are promoting.
The next point I want to raise was raised by Judith Collins, who noted that a substantial number of amendments to this bill had been raised. I say to that member—and this is her point of criticism—that if we had not raised a substantial number of amendments she would have criticised that too. Some of the amendments here are very important, and some are drafting amendments. The one she highlighted is in Supplementary Order Paper 163. The proposed amendment to clause 14(3) states, in ordinary type, “To omit ‘non-contesting party’ and substitute”, then in bold type, “ ‘non-contesting party’ ”. She said it is a ridiculous amendment.
The point about this amendment is that the convention is to put things in bold type to highlight to people reading the legislation that there is a definition somewhere else in the bill. This is a drafting error. It should have been done at the time. There are many other drafting technical errors that should be corrected. I am pleased to see the National Party is echoing support for making sure the bill is well drafted.
The last point I make to members is simply that in all of the discussions they have had so far, they have not identified the main point. I come back to what Rodney Hide said. This is not an issue about the National Party or about the Labour Party; this is an issue about all parties. The issue for all parties here, I say to Mr Hide, is to make sure that the public has an assurance that when people give money to a political party they know where it comes from.
The threshold in New Zealand is reasonably high. In other countries there are lower thresholds. The public have a right to know who is putting money into which political parties and what are the consequential changes in policy. I think it is a fundamental right of transparency for the general public.
The second very sensible thing about the bill is that if we put a cap on candidates—like we have currently—and a cap on political parties, then we need to have a cap on third parties. As we saw at the last election, some people, because the rules are slack, are prepared to play the rules to the nth degree and have other people campaigning on their behalf so that it does not touch their budgets at all.
This bill is about fairness to everybody. It is about transparency, openness, and making sure that all people in the electoral system are treated the same. Candidates are capped, parties are capped, and third parties are capped. That is it. When the money moves, people need to know who is paying it and where it is going to.
NICKY WAGNER (National)
: We have already heard from my colleagues that National considers election time to be the time of people power, not political control. It is the one time in the election cycle when politicians can be held to account by the people. At election time politicians should be listening to the people. It should not be the people being dictated to by the politicians.
But here, in clause 18 of the Electoral Finance Bill, is a set of rules that determine when the listing of a third party must be refused. These third parties must be refused by the Electoral Commission, the very commission whose chief executive officer has already expressed concerns that it will not be able to understand the Electoral Finance Bill’s rules and that it may have to refer cases to the courts for judgment.
The whole principle, that this Government is creating legislation that must refuse to allow individuals or organisations to be involved in political debate, is repugnant. Labour constantly pays lip-service to encouraging public participation and consultation
in political discussion, but shuts down debate when it really matters—in election year. This bill and its regulations make a mockery of democracy, showing up this Government’s arrogance and its refusal to accept any sort of accountability during election year. That is almost a third of the election cycle.
National is not the only organisation to believe these provisions are unacceptable to the public. The Law Society has made it very clear that the third party regime unduly restricts participation in elections. Clause 18 states that unless individuals or organisations are prepared to fill forms, make statutory declarations, and appoint financial agents who must sign consent forms, they must be refused the opportunity to have their say. Clause 18(1)(c) focuses on the names of third parties. Unlike Shakespeare’s declaration, “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet.”, it seems that for this Government it is all in the name. The right of free speech is prohibited if the Electoral Commission finds the name offensive, if it could lead to confusion, or if it could mislead members of the public. I see plenty of problems here. What say the third party was called “The Tax is Too High Party”? Would that be offensive to Labour? Probably it would. Could it be challenged by the Labour Party, for instance, with the argument that tax is not too high? Possibly it could. Could Labour declare it misleading to the public by even considering such a thing? Well, maybe.
This all goes to highlight the concerns of Helena Catt, the chief executive officer of the Electoral Commission, who fears having to interpret the law. She says that everywhere that we have areas where interpretation is not clear, parties will start using that as part of their attack on each other, and that will not do anything to encourage public interest in politics or trust in the electoral programme.
I am concerned about an existing lobby group in my city, Noise Off. They are passionate about changing the legislation around noisy vehicles. They are angry with Labour, because Harry Duynhoven promised at the last election to fix the noise laws within 6 months, but has done nothing since to solve the problem. No doubt this group will want to campaign in 2008, but will its name Noise Off be considered offensive? Could it be refused the opportunity, because of its name, to tell this Government just how unsatisfactory it has been?
Shakespeare figured that a name mattered little. Not this Government! Someone might be refused the right to have his or her say if the Electoral Commission does not like that person’s name. Could it be that this rose has the sweet smell of incumbency arrogance, or the sickly scent of nanny knows best—political interference?
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland)
: First, I have to give one little bit of advice. The best thing the Minister can do, if he wants to make a contribution, is not make one. That is the best contribution, because I am certain that if all of us around here took a bet as to what he said, none of us would know. I am certain there are people outside who are listening who would not know, either. I will concentrate on clause 5(2)(da) of the Electoral Finance Bill, which is about editorial material. I will read out part of a very fine editorial that appeared in the
Northland Age written by the very good editor, one Peter Jackson who—
Hon Maurice Williamson: I’ve seen his movies.
JOHN CARTER: Yes, exactly. He is a very talented guy. Peter writes this: “Whatever becomes of the government’s attempt to re-write this country’s electoral laws, it has demonstrated that it is interested only in its self-preservation. There is nothing, apart from moves to limit the ability of political parties to accept anonymous contributions to their election spending, that offers any benefit to anyone in New Zealand apart from those parties that are currently in power, and those that will assume power in the future. That is the most alarming aspect of all, that Helen Clark’s
government and its allies,”—that is, the Greens and New Zealand First—“care nothing for the future of the people they supposedly serve, or indeed the future of their own parties. Whatever else she might be, Helen Clark is not stupid. She knows, obviously, that proposals to severely limit the extent to which third parties, and even opposition parties already in Parliament, can campaign will give the incumbent administration a massive advantage. She knows, too that one day, perhaps as soon as next year, Labour will lose a general election, and that the rules she now seeks to put in place will favour the party that replaces it. And she doesn’t care. The entire thrust of what is now proposed is aimed at perpetuating her prime ministership, end of story. There can simply be no other interpretation.” Mr Jackson goes on: “The minor parties that support this legislation have attempted to defend their position by decrying the past funding of ‘right wing’ parties by big business, much of it covert, but miss the point, deliberately, one suspects. They are present in Parliament courtesy of MMP, an electoral system which was foisted upon this country on the basis that it represented a more democratic process than that which it replaced. And now those minor parties are using their electoral success to shut the gate on those who might aspire to follow them into Parliament. It hasn’t taken long for the often disproportionate power that has fallen into their hands via a ridiculous electoral system to corrupt them, and to persuade them that their continued presence is more important than any genuine expression of the people’s will.” So writes the editor of the
Northland Age.
Peter Jackson also makes a number of other points. I raise that—and Mr Jackson can continue, under this law, writing that—because who else will be able to make those sorts of comments once this bill becomes law on 1 January? No one else will be able to make those comments. People will not even be able to write a letter to the editor on behalf of someone who may be standing, or on behalf of some political party. They will not be entitled to do that. They will be breaking the law and it will be interpreted as somebody out there deliberately supporting a political party, which means that these people here tonight listening should be afraid. If they want to express a view in their local paper, they will be breaking the law.
I want to let the people of this country know how serious this bill is. This is an absolute restriction on the freedom of speech in this country, and if people ever thought that one day we would have to be here defending the democratic right of people in this country to express their views, well, I say to them that we have got to that stage. The problem is that the Labour Government, and its allies in New Zealand First and the Green Party, has got to the stage where it thinks it does not matter. But it is just a start; we should be afraid.
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First)
: I say to the member who has just resumed his seat that either he is being deliberately mischievous or he clearly does not understand the bill. I will give him the benefit of the doubt. He clearly has not read the bill and does not know why we need it. The question that should be answered is, why do we need this bill? Why do we need this purpose clause, as we are dealing with Part 1? The answer is in the
New Zealand Herald
that National members displayed some time ago. It was in that paper. Let me read from the article in the
oh, they will love this. It is written by Audrey Young, and she is talking about the email sent to the former Chief Electoral Officer, David Henry, by the Exclusive Brethren.
In case members over on the Opposition benches have not read this article, or heard of it, let me read the email: “We represent a group of Christian businessmen concerned as to the course and direction of the current Labour-led Government. Accordingly, we have put together an election programme with a budget of $1.2 million, with the goal of getting party votes for National as this is the only way that change will come about.” It goes on to say: “Our programme involves extensive publications throughout the
country, with a theme showing and demonstrating mistrust in the current Government and building trust in a Brash-led National Government. We write, seeking clarification and direction re the election funding issue, specifically that anything we do does not compromise National’s funding position.”
Then typically it asks a few questions. Firstly: “Does it compromise National’s position if we communicate to MPs and candidates our strategy?”. Secondly: “Does it compromise National’s position if we show them draft publications before they are published?”. Thirdly: “Is there any legality prohibiting us from printing ‘vote National, vote Brash’ and including a photo of Dr Brash on the advertising? Can this be done without compromising National’s funding position?”. Fourthly: “To what extent can we legally advise, direct, assist, communicate, or other, with National MPs and candidates?”. That is why we need this bill. But what did the
New Zealand Herald
say? It did not pull this email apart. Can members imagine what it would have said if New Zealand First had sent that email? What would that paper have said then if Winston Peters had been the author? We can imagine it.
I ask those members over there whether they honestly believe that this is an honourable tactic. National had $1.8 million in donations from sums over $10,000, plus funds raised from membership and fund-raising activities, plus the $1.2 million it was getting from the Exclusive Brethren. That made over $3 million or $4 million. National was trying to buy the election; I have no doubt about it. What did the royal commission state? It is in the report of the select committee, in the commentary on the bill: “As the Royal Commission on the Electoral System wrote: ‘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 is what the royal commission stated. This is why we need this bill.
The National Party had one attempt at the last election to buy itself into power. I guess its members thought they could get away with it. Bill English and John Key knew all about this—I have no doubts about it. [Interruption] Those people on the backbenches did not have a clue. I know that they did not have a clue, but Dr Brash and John Key knew all about it.
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central)
: I move,
That the question be now put.
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am going to call the honourable member Chris Auchinvole, because he was on the Justice and Electoral Committee.
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National)
: Expressing a view on a critical opinion is not immoral, any more than it is a crime to have created and earned wealth. Yet this Government treats both as obnoxious. It does not want views, and although it fleeces the wealth generators for tax, it holds them in disdain. It is frustrated by the reality that private enterprise is a more positive force for progress than is big Government bureaucracy, so it despises private enterprise as a consequence.
New Zealand is a liberal, centrist community, best arrived at by mature observation of real life and human nature. This bill reflects a completely immature lack of observation, maturity, and real-life consideration, and embodies the worst aspects of human nature.
I am speaking in the Committee stage of Part 1, with particular reference to the interpretation of “third party” in clause 4. Few clauses emphasise more the Labour Party’s apprehension, fear, and phobia that others might exercise an influence on the public beyond its own. I reflect on the comments of the first true speaker during the
Committee stage—those of the leader of the National Party, John Key—who emphasised that the whole purpose of this legislation is to screw the scrum to set favourable conditions on a partisan basis, and to hang with the view of the general public and to hang with democracy.
What is it that gives Labour and the cling-on parties such a strong sense of apprehension? I think I know what it is. I think Rick Barker got it right—it is the only thing he got right—when he introduced the Committee stage and inadvertently said it all. He said that the genesis of this bill—and I think he was actually quoting from Mr Benson-Pope—was the 2005 election. I recall during my maiden speech, when I became a member in September 2005, saying that I was at a loss to understand why Labour members looked so miserable—and they still do look miserable. They had won the election and they had formed a Government, of sorts. They should have been magnanimous in victory. Were they? No, they were defiant. National on the other hand was magnanimous, because in many ways, when we consider how close it got to being the elected Government, it had had a tremendous victory. It had had a tremendous reversal of previous misfortune. This was in spite of Labour having a very favourable economic circumstance to campaign in. The sweet scent of National’s success quickly became a stench in Labour’s nostrils. The sweet scent of others success becomes a stench in Labour’s nostrils.
And so we look at this particular definition of “third party”. What do third parties say about it? What does the New Zealand Law Society—a relatively prestigious body, I would have thought—feel about it? It considers that the bill fails in almost every respect. It states that “accountability rules are so complex that volunteers in political parties face a discouraging degree of complexity and prospects of prosecution” in terms of trying to promote participation by the public in democracy. The third party registration limits the public role, and some cannot even register.
Clearly, the Government thinks that members of the public are only observers to a process where candidates and political parties are the principal parties. Indeed, they are treated like interlopers who must be controlled. The public interest is in transparency, not in shutting down the free range of ideas that may be the effect of a third party regime as it has been written.
Let us look at the chiller effect of this bill. I have heard the present Minister of Justice say that it will be just a matter of common sense. I think she said that in response to one of Mr English’s questions, when he asked how people would feel free to discuss politics with this sort of legislation and penalty hanging over them. The response from the Minister of Justice, the Hon Annette King, was that it was perfectly easy to follow. All they had to do was to read the Act from one end to the other. This is a whole new scenario that is totally foreign to New Zealand politics.
As the Law Society says, the third party regime unduly restricts participation in elections. If participation of those not directly standing for election is to be regulated, it should be done carefully and to the least degree practicable to achieve the desired outcomes. Let us reflect on that: the third party regime unduly restricts participation in elections.
JILL PETTIS (Labour)
: I move,
That the question be now put.
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I think I will hear one more.
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National)
: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, for the opportunity to contribute on a narrow, but, I think, important aspect of this bill. It focuses on clause 5(1)(a). The clause is headed “Meaning of election advertisement”, and it is clearly one of the central definitions in the bill. It is also the subject, incidentally, of a National Party amendment. I would like to start by asking why this
particular clause is a central definition. The reason is that Subpart 5 of Part 2, which has eight clauses in it, contains the general rules governing election advertisements.
I will take one example to show the linkage. Clause 53 is headed “Election advertisements not to be published in regulated period unless certain conditions met”. I would like for a moment to take the time of the Committee to look at clause 5(1)(a), because three points arise that I think are deserving of further consideration. The first issue is the meaning of the phrase “any form of words”. I ask what “any form of words” means. It seems to me that “any form of words” can mean only two things: either orally or in writing. So in this use of the words “any form of words” are we talking about the possibility of oral-type statements? I think that needs to be made clear.
The second issue that is tucked away in clause 5(1)(a) is the phrase “can reasonably be regarded”. I would say to the Minister in the chair, Rick Barker, that that is an unusual form of drafting in this particular context. It poses a possibly objective test, but who is the judge, the determiner, of the phrase “can reasonably be regarded”? If we look at the body of the legislation, we see that the possibilities are the Chief Electoral Officer, the Electoral Commission, the police, and the courts. There needs to be greater certainty around that. This is not, as another Minister has said, all to be judged by the law of common sense—whatever that phrase of gibberish actually means. There needs to be clarity around both those issues.
There is a third issue that I think is critical to be decided in the context of clause 5(1)(a), and that relates to subparagraph (ii). There we are talking about comments that attract scrutiny that can extend to three classes of case defined in the legislation. Those three classes of case are “view, positions, or policies”, and presumably the draftsman has very deliberately chosen those three categories of activity. But what this bill is supposed to be all about is capturing policy advertisement that should be caught by “election advertisement”.
I give the example of a radio interview being given by a politician, or a politician making comments at a public meeting, and he or she says: “In my view what the National Party should do if it comes into Government is”, then says whatever that might be. Is it intended that that type of comment would be picked up by this extended definition of election advertisement? I do not think so. I think it is intended to attract proselytising for votes—statements that are more related to policy. What if these aspects of politics do not have any aspect of policy in them? That, I believe, is a significant shortfall. I invite the Minister to respond to that point, because it seems to me that in a setting where what we are looking for on ballot box day and the days that follow—certainty—may well be denied us.
The Minister started off a few moments ago by offering the view—and I noted the words—that this legislation was substantially about some people who give money to a party and want to know where it came from. That is an amazing test, when we think about it, because those who presumably gave the money know exactly where it came from. It came from precisely their pockets. It is an example of very loose wording in a statutory setting, which causes concern.
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour—Dunedin South)
: I move,
That the question be now put.
ANNE TOLLEY (Senior Whip—National)
: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Prior to the call being given to my colleague Dr Worth, you indicated that you would take only one more call. Could I point out that this bill has two substantive parts: the one we are debating, and the next part. This bill is not huge in terms of the number of parts, and the substantive issues are confined to Parts 1 and 2. National has tabled two Supplementary Order Papers with 17 amendments. Members on this side are
addressing individual amendments to clauses, and I crave your indulgence to allow a bit more debate on this substantive part of the bill.
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): We have had a considerable number of speeches. Parts 2 and 3 are substantial, and I assure members that they will be given every opportunity to have their say.
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam)
: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I appreciate that your ruling is consistent with what the Chair may rule in these circumstances, but you must take account of the considerable public interest in this bill. In fact, the prospect of this bill passing has caused considerable public odium. If presiding officers are prepared to shut down the debate after just a short period, what do you think that does for Parliament? I have been able to get to the Chamber only in the last few moments, because of other duties.
David Benson-Pope: Ha, ha!
GERRY BROWNLEE: There is the laughing Benson-Pope on the other side of the Chamber. Everybody knows how valuable his contribution is around this place! Therefore, it should not be taken into account, at all. I would be disappointed if, Mr Chairperson, you fell for the pressure that he clearly is trying to bring upon you.
I think it would not hurt if the Committee spent the rest of the evening debating this part. There is no hurry to get out of this place. There is a very limited amount of work that the Government proposes for us, before the House rises sometime around 21 or 22 December. I would ask you to consider the public attitude towards this bill, the requirement that it is properly debated, and the fact that members come and go from the Chamber according to other duties they have.
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour—Dunedin South)
: I welcome the member’s contribution. I think it is good that people have been able to get to the Chamber to debate the bill. This part has not been discussed for only a short period of time—contrary to the comment that was made. We have been discussing this part for 2 hours and 20 minutes. That is more time than would be given to a lot of other issues in Committee to be dealt with. Mr Chairperson, your ruling was quite clear. I think it is entirely appropriate that you make it—and you are able to, of course. I would welcome members on the opposite side of the Chamber focusing on the issues rather than personalities as Mr Brownlee has done.
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you. I have not made a decision yet.
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga)
: Mr Chairperson, I think you and I are the only two people in the Chamber who have been here the length of time we have, and I have to say that in my time I have not seen debate on a bill of this magnitude, which is a constitutional issue and which changes the very fundamentals under which Parliament is elected, be truncated. Let me tell you that I have watched with great interest tonight and I have listened clearly to the various contributors, and all of them, including myself, have chosen a specific aspect of the bill, have addressed their speeches to a specific clause—every member on this side. I have listened very carefully, trying to see whether there was even one sentence of either repetition or irrelevant debate, and, Mr Chairperson, you cannot say that that has occurred tonight. So I ask you to think about this. We are making a fundamental, constitutional change to the way this democracy of New Zealand works. I will support your putting the question to close down the debate, if anybody’s speech is either repetitious or irrelevant, but that has not yet happened. I would ask you to give those members—be they from our side or from any other party—who have a very heartfelt view to express the opportunity to do so.
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam)
: There are 19 clauses in this part, and they are very, very substantial clauses. There are 17 amendments to those clauses. Mr
Chairperson, if you think about anybody trying to deal with each clause and each amendment, then you will see that, so far, about 4 minutes and 10 seconds has been allowed for each one. On a bill that is of constitutional importance for New Zealand, it would be difficult for the Chair to mount an argument that adequate time has been given to each one.
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable members for all of their contributions, and I assure members that they will be given a fair opportunity. I have noted down the number of members seeking the call. I consider that we have had sufficient time on this part, and I am going to put the question. The question is that the question be now put. As many as are of that opinion will please say “Aye”, of the contrary opinion will say “No”—
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam)
: Point of order, Mr Chairperson—
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 9/6. Once I have accepted a closure motion and commenced to put the question, all progress is deferred until the closure is considered.
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam)
: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You referred earlier to the Standing Orders, and presumably you will back those up with a Speaker’s ruling, and no doubt you would be proved right. But there is one thing where you have failed, and that is to recognise that prior to your accepting Mr Benson-Pope’s plea, there were calls for a point of order. Your responsibility is to look to the floor of the Chamber to see what comments are arising as a result of proceedings. Points of order are legitimate comments. I seek leave to recall the Speaker.
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I want the member to reconsider his seeking leave to recall the Speaker. We have had a considerable length of time to debate this issue. I am happy to consider the will of the Committee—if that is the wish of members.
GERRY BROWNLEE: You have given 4 minutes and 10 seconds to each of the substantial points that people on this side of the Chamber wish to speak to. Actually, that is wrong, because peppered throughout that time have been comments from the Minister in the chair, and comments offered in 5-minute slots from members on the other side of the Chamber. Mr Woolerton, for example, made a contribution earlier in the day.
Judith Collins: And Mr Brown.
GERRY BROWNLEE: I am told that Peter Brown also did. These are people who support this bill. The argument opposing this bill has been severely shut down to well below the 4 minutes and 10 seconds that might have been allocated, in the total debate, to every substantive point of view here. Although, Mr Chairperson, you know that this side of the Chamber has enormous respect for you personally, I think it is a matter that the Speaker should rule on.
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The reality is that a motion may be moved that the Chairperson obtain the Speaker’s ruling on a matter of procedure. There is no debate on the question. The member is perfectly entitled to recall the Speaker, if the member wishes to do so. It is under Standing Order 179. I would just say to members that there will be ample opportunity, and I will allow ample opportunity, to speak in the rest of the debate. There are still Parts 2 and 3 to debate. They are significant parts—I believe, more so than Part 1 is.
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam)
: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It is unseemly for the Committee to get into a debate with you in the Chair—quite unseemly—but it is equally unacceptable for the Chair to suggest to members of the Committee that their personal view of what is most important in this bill should be what guides the Committee’s will and wish to speak on the bill. Core to this particular part is
the purpose of the bill, and we know that the entire purpose is driven by the paranoia that Labour has, for fear that it might be driven out of office by honest voters in this country; but to simply say: “This is not such a relevant part, and therefore I will curtail the debate.”, after the entire Committee, those for and those against, have been restricted to just 4 minutes on each of the substantive issues, is a disgrace.
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member. Can I just say that I am the sole judge of relevancy on this matter, and I have judged that the speeches have been relevant to date, but I am happy to put the question. However, if the member wishes to recall the Speaker, then the member can put that motion.
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam)
: I move,
That the Speaker be recalled to give a ruling on the matter.
- Motion agreed to.
- House resumed.
