Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) : I move, That the Appropriation (2006/07 Financial Review) Bill be now read a first time.

• Bill read a first time.

ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) : When the House rose last evening the Committee of the whole House was considering new Part 2B, on Chris Finlayson’s Supplementary Order Paper 166. This part is about the indexation of the amount allowable in the reconciliation of costs leading up to an election. I wish to speak in support of this provision, as it is a fundamental issue in the democratic process of the way this bill will impact on the election process.

The reason why it is important that the Committee considers and votes in favour of Mr Finlayson’s Supplementary Order Paper is the limitations that will occur in the democratic process if this provision is not put in place. As an example I will cite what actually happens. We have a $20,000 limit. When I first stood for Parliament in 1993 the limit was $20,000. What has happened since then? There have been some elements of inflation. It was generally reckoned in 1993 that it cost 50c to put out a letter. That is the cost of the paper, the envelope, the packaging, and the stamp. Today it is generally reckoned that that cannot be done for less than $1, so that limits by at least 50 percent a candidate’s ability to communicate with voters in an electorate.

The first issue is that we have had a significant increase in the cost of communication. The second thing that has occurred since 1993 is MMP. In 1993, when I first stood, there were some 16,500 houses in the electorate in which I stood. In the electorate I represent today, with the new boundaries that have just been locked in for 2008, there are 27,000 houses. Again, that diminishes by another 50 percent one’s ability to communicate today in comparison with 1993. So if candidates want to communicate, as they should do, they cannot send out even one letter. If the only single thing that candidates are to do is to post a copy of the party’s manifesto to every home, or to go to every home in the electorate, $20,000 is not enough. To do that would completely rule out any other form of advertising, be it billboards, radio advertising, newspaper advertising, or any other single thing. It is hugely important that this issue now be addressed.

I wish to make another point in connection with this. During the process of this bill the National Party has made several claims that the process was flawed in that we were excluded from the development of this policy. Therefore, one can assume that the promoters of this bill—the Government—actually have some reason for wanting to limit anybody other than Government members from being involved in the democratic process. That is why I say that this bill not only is flawed but also is tipping the playing field directly in favour of those who are elected. How can it be a fair and equitable democratic process if an already elected member, who has the profile and opportunity that surrounds all of that, is favoured? One need only make the comparison with buying advertising. We could compare the column inches that are available in an editorial in any newspaper or publication in an electorate with having to purchase that space in the paper. There would be a significant cost difference between buying that newspaper space and having editorial space generated from press releases or from any other means and put in daily newspapers.

There is a serious flaw in this whole process in terms of the democratic process. We are curtailing and limiting spending for anybody who is not currently an elected member who might be standing and challenging an elected member. I say that that is flawed and it tips the balance considerably in favour of those who are already elected.

NATHAN GUY (National) : I wish to take a call on this very important part, the new Part 2B, to acknowledge the hard work Mr Chris Finlayson has put into his amendments, including the new clause 117D. Mr Finlayson has done a great deal of work on this Supplementary Order Paper 166. It is interesting that the Government has decided to pick up a good portion of his hard work and try to adopt it, but we in the National Party do not think that that gesture has gone far enough, so I need to personally acknowledge Mr Finlayson today and his Supplementary Order Paper. In particular, I will talk about the new clause 117D. My learned colleague Eric Roy has made a very valuable contribution to this debate this afternoon, and we all know that this bill is a Draconian step away from the principle of freedom of speech.

The biggest part of this Part 2B, which Mr Finlayson has addressed, is the indexation of amounts of spending. These amounts have not changed since 1993, so we have seen a cap of $20,000 on spending by candidates. That has been at the same level since 1993. If we do the calculations on that, it would work out as being somewhere between $25,000 and $30,000—about $27,000, as the MP from Napier mentioned—or in present times that would buy us about $13,000. Mr Finlayson’s amendment covers this situation very, very well, and makes the situation similar to what it is in Australia. We all know that inflation never sleeps. It is a bit like rust, is it not? As Mr Roy mentioned, it takes a lot of money to buy advertising.

It is really important for MPs and candidates to be able to communicate with their constituents and their voters. In particular I want to focus now a little bit on clause 22 as part of this. It is really, really important that we take particular note that although the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper covers the contributions where the MPs can spend over $20,000, I think—and Mr Finlayson has covered it with his Supplementary Order Papers—that donations, as well, should be allowed to be increased over time. Because we all know, as I mentioned, that inflation never ever sleeps.

The model under new clause 117D in Mr Finlayson’s Supplementary Order Paper 166 is simple. It is a simple resolution that is not as cumbersome as the Government’s one where increases in levels have to go by an Order in Council on a triennial basis. Mr Finlayson’s model is a lot simpler. I believe fundamentally that Mr Finlayson has done a great job of covering this very, very important part of our democracy.

That is the really important part. When we look back at 1993, we see that there have been no movements in relation to the consumer price index in terms of what candidates and MPs are allowed to spend. There has been no movement since 1993. We on this side believe that increases in levels should be increased with the consumer price index, because, fundamentally, we all know that this big-spending Government has created a big inflation index. Levels should be adjusted with this very, very important new clause 117D that Mr Finlayson has proposed.

I do not think it is fair that the Government has just come in at this point. We have been through the select committee process. The Government members would not acknowledge Mr Finlayson’s contributions at that moment, but when the bill comes back we have 150 Supplementary Order Papers and other amendments dropped in the House from the Government, which shows that this process has not been done properly. The bill should have gone back out to the public for consultation. Instead, the Government is trying to ram through this process before Christmas, when the bill will severely affect the freedom of speech on 1 January 2008.

I need to acknowledge that one of the most important parts of this is the indexation that the National Party supports. It should be allowed to be moved up with the consumer price index, instead of being restricted back to where it was in 1993.

The other part I want to talk about is how Mr Finlayson’s proposal, compared with the Government’s, is very, very simple and should be supported.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) : I move, That the question be now put.

NATHAN GUY (Junior Whip—National) : I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I would like you to reflect on Standing Order 137(3). It is very, very important. This is a hugely contentious bill that is in front of Parliament this afternoon, and we have members seeking to take a call on this. As you have seen, many of our colleagues still want to make a contribution. We have been mindful not to be repetitive; we have been sticking to the clause by clause nature of the debate in focusing on clause 117D. This clause concerns one of the most important matters of this bill, and members on our side are still seeking to take a call. So I urge you, Madam Chairperson, to reflect in your ruling that we still have some valuable new points to make in consideration of clause 117D in Part 2B.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I thank the member. The National Party has had seven speeches on this matter and I consider that it is fair and proper to take the closure at this time.

JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) : I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. I will not take a point of order on the matter I have just ruled on. If the member is raising a point of order on the matter I have just ruled on—on the closure—he cannot do that. I have ruled.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) : This part contains the miscellaneous provisions of the Electoral Finance Bill. There are five subparts to it: “General provisions and penalties”, “Regulations and transitional provisions”, “Consequential amendments”, “Amendments to the Broadcasting Act 1989”, and “Amendments to the Electoral Act 1993”. It includes penalties for breaking electoral laws, including the time limits for penalties to be laid, and the liabilities of candidates, party secretaries, and third parties. The Justice and Electoral Committee recommended a substantial increase to the penalties for the most serious electoral offence: corrupt practice. A period of imprisonment is to be increased from 1 to 2 years. In addition, for party secretaries and financial agents, corrupt practice will carry a maximum fine of $100,000, which is up from the $4,000 in the Electoral Act. For all other persons, the maximum fine will be $40,000.

This part also contains amendments to existing electoral law, the Broadcasting Act 1989, and the Electoral Act 1993. The reason why these clauses are included in this bill is that a robust election law needs robust enforcement. We know that not all parties care about that. After all, we are still waiting for the National Party to pay its GST from the last election. These penalties will make sure that those who have no regard for democracy and for the rights of everyone to be heard will be accountable for their actions.

This bill also gives more tools to the referees who protect the system. I think that even the National Party agrees with us on this point. After all, in July this year, Bill English said: “National opposes covert campaigns and the law already requires transparency. However, the law doesn’t work because of the lack of sanctions.” So I look forward to the National Party’s support for the sanctions that have been put in Part 3.

There is also an opportunity to discuss the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of Christopher Finlayson. He wants to take out the words “third party” from the bill and replace them with “interest group”. I have to say, how PC is that? After all, his own leader and deputy leader have found nothing wrong with the use of the term “third party”. Mr English said in December 2006: “We are happy to outlaw third-party advertising that attacks political parties,”. Mr Key said in August this year: “National also thinks third parties should be cut some slack.”

Christopher Finlayson: I raise a point of order, Madam Chair. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but I just thought I should point out to her that this material is not relevant, because the question of nomenclature for “third party” or “interest group” was decided in the context of Part 1. So this discussion is redundant.

The CHAIRPERSON: There are some amendments, so the discussion is in order. Would the Minister please continue.

Hon ANNETTE KING: Just to conclude, in September—only a couple of months ago—Mr Key said he supported some controls on third parties. So it seems a good time to be able to debate Mr Finlayson’s amendments. I think this is a very important part of the bill, in terms of there being a need to have sanctions on those who would like to rort the system. I commend Part 3 to the Committee.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) : Part 3 of the Electoral Finance Bill outlines the liability of candidates, party secretaries, and third parties; describes issues about search warrants; and sets out the punishment for things like corrupt practice. One group of people who can be guilty of corrupt practice are MPs. They can be guilty of it. We have attempted in the last couple of weeks to find out from the Minister what MPs have to do to make sure they are not guilty of corrupt practice. Why would we worry about that? We worry about it because one bunch of MPs in the last election committed a corrupt practice and got away with it. The Labour Party broke the ceiling on election expenditure and escaped only because the police decided not to prosecute.

For the next election, I want to avoid committing a corrupt practice. We have spent a couple of weeks asking the Minister what constitutes acceptable activity for members of Parliament who are excluded from the coverage of this bill. She cannot tell us. She has tried three times now and got it wrong. Today she did not keep an undertaking to the House to give us her interpretation. The reason for that is that the last interpretation she gave was wrong. I would be guilty of corrupt practice if I exceeded the limit on candidate spending by going out and saying: “When we become the Government we will cut taxes.” I would be liable for prosecution and punishment of $40,000 or a term of imprisonment if I did that, because the Minister of Justice—the stupid, incompetent, and lazy Minister of Justice—

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Madam Chair. I think the public deserve to have a debate that is seemly and is not filled with personal abuse. That member is known for being personally abusive. The public have just heard it again today. You need to take action against a man who is angry and wants to throw around invective against people in this Committee. It is not seemly.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: What is your point of order?

Hon Annette King: That is my point of order. It is a point of order.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I say to the member that he should avoid using personal abuse. It brings disorder to the Committee and I ask him to desist.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Minister of Justice has shown her incompetence to the House. Members of Parliament, after 2 years of the Government making policy and after 6 months of the select committee looking at this bill, still have no idea what the law means as applied to MPs. And that is just us, let alone everybody else. Everybody else can face punishments for an illegal practice. It is $40,000 in the case of someone who is a financial agent, and $10,000 in the case of any member of the public. The member of the public who is reading this law still will not know what constitutes an election advertisement and still will feel very concerned at the breadth of the definition of what amounts to publishing an election advertisement. It still includes anything someone says that indicates a preference for a political party, said in any manner. If we get it wrong, there is a $10,000 fine.

The Minister has said that the way to deal with this stupid law is to ignore it and apply common sense. Well, the courts cannot. How is any member of the public able to predict what the court will decide is inconsequential? How can we tell? There is no precedent. There is no interpretation from the Minister, the incompetent Minister of Justice. People have no protection from the punishment in this law in making up their own idea, making up their own version, of what amounts to inconsequential.

I say to the Minister that there is no law of common sense; there is only the law. People deserve to know what the law means when they face such stiff penalties for breaking it. I will make this forecast now: hundreds, if not thousands, of people will break this law next year. That is certain. It is just that they will not know they are doing it. Well-intentioned people, law-abiding people, who are trying to comply with the law, will break it.

Of course, the effect of this is what Labour wants. Going out and telling people that if they have a political opinion that breaks the rules, they will incur a $10,000 fine, will of course have a freezing effect. As the Prime Minister has said, for the benefit of the Greens, if we want to have an opinion we had better consult a lawyer. I agree. If we want to have a political opinion next year that costs more than 10c, then we had better consult a lawyer.

The Minister of Justice, the incompetent Minister of Justice, does not know what it means. If we get it wrong, we can face a $10,000 fine.

David Benson-Pope: Nasty, angry, former leader.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That member can talk about incompetence. Look what happened to him. Has he not seen the display put on by the Minister of Justice in this Chamber? She came down to the Chamber to give an interpretation of the law, and had to come down 2 days later and say it was wrong. And it was wrong, because the interpretation she gave was stupid. It said that a member of the Opposition could not say what he or she was going to do after the election. What do we think elections are for? What do we think the public are listening to? Labour says that Opposition members could break the law if they tell the public what they will do if they are elected. Is that not stupid? What is the word for it? Well, among Labour members it is the paranoid, arrogant expression of their desire to clamp down on political opinion and fine someone $10,000 if he or she gets it wrong.

R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) : I hope that a lot of people were listening to that contribution, if I can call it that—intervention is probably a more appropriate word—from Bill English. They will have heard National’s view on the law; they will have heard National’s view on electoral law in particular, and they will have heard National’s view on common sense and morality. In this country most people obey laws, to the extent of common sense.

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

R DOUG WOOLERTON: Opposition members scoff, but that is how most New Zealanders run their lives—by common sense—and it is the correct way to live. But not in the National Party. That party runs the law to the absolute limit, and that is exactly what has caused this bill to come into the House. At the last election National members went beyond common sense, they went beyond what is reasonable, and they went beyond what is acceptable. In my view, and in the view of many New Zealanders, they also went beyond what is morally right and what is morally just in this country.

Bob Clarkson: Pay it back.

R DOUG WOOLERTON: New Zealand First will pay it back. [Interruption] The member will see when. Common sense is what rules most New Zealanders’ lives. It is an indictment on a party that presumes to take power, that it does not see law in the understanding of common sense and that it does not see moral right as having anything to do with the law. National members believe that the law is the preserve of lawyers, and they will run it to the very edge. That is not the way New Zealanders live. [] I am getting interventions from the National Party as I speak, but I think that at any other time in our history that would have been considered absolutely disgusting because in New Zealand we take great pride in doing what is right; not what is necessarily lawful to the letter of the law.

We believe in doing what is right, and the National Party does not believe it. Those members have said it time and time again throughout this debate. I think it is just terrible that they are doing that. I have to say that I am ashamed to have had anything to do with the National Party in the past. The National Party that I belonged to did believe in doing the common-sense thing, it did believe in doing the moral thing, and it did believe in doing the right thing by its fellow countrymen. I am ashamed to have had anything to do with this modern version of that party.

Bob Clarkson: Pay it back.

R DOUG WOOLERTON: We will pay it back. Part 3 does deal with consequences, it does deal with penalties, and it does deal with the liabilities of candidates, and we all know what they are. They are written there clearly, for everybody to see. I am sure that the National Party will take those to the absolute limit of the law. That saddens me, because in New Zealand First we are not afraid of any of these penalties or any of these sanctions. We do not see any single one of them as inhibiting our right to free speech, and we do not see any single one of them as inhibiting the rights of New Zealanders to participate in an election. That is why we are supporting this bill. We do things that are right, we do things that are moral, and we do things that are just. We believe that most New Zealanders understand that.

When it comes to National members hopping up continually and saying that there is huge concern about this bill in the country amongst the populace, I want to break this issue down, not for the people in this Chamber but for the record and for people who may be listening. In this country at the present time we basically have polls that say that Labour is on around 40 percent and National is approaching 40 percent also, and that adds up to 80 percent of the voting public if I am correct. The rest of it is distributed amongst other parties.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) : I will make a couple of comments about a very important clause in Part 3, namely clause 119, which deals with the liability of candidates, party secretaries, and third parties. Given the fate of Part 2A, the new part I put forward, I just want to say very briefly that I express my disappointment with the quality of the certificate provided by the Minister of Finance under Standing Order 319 when that part was ruled out. Members will recall that Part 2A was a proposal that there be appointed a chief electoral prosecutor. I remember the last time the late Justice Ellis, a fine judge of this land, appeared before the Justice and Electoral Committee in his capacity as the chair of the Electoral Commission. I asked him whether, given the problems that had occurred over the 2005 general election, it was more appropriate to have prosecutions pursued by an independent prosecutor rather than the police, and he said he thought that was indeed correct.

When I prepared Part 2A it was not for some silly, shallow, party-political purpose but to pick up on the recommendation of Justice Ellis, and I do not think that the certificate does justice to Part 2A as I drafted it. In the first instance it says that the operating balance impact would be $2 million to $3 million per annum, and then there are the weasel words at the bottom that “without knowing the exact numbers of staff,” and so on, the “costings are a very high-level estimate.” Indeed they are because the figures are based on the costs of the Police Complaints Authority—which is the wrong name for it, anyway—and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, which comprise around 15 and 30 fulltime-equivalents respectively. So what was contained in the certificate was rubbish and was a grossly inflated estimate of what it realistically would cost to have a chief electoral prosecutor, who would be a specialist in electoral law, unlike the police, and would be a far more effective operator than the police, who seem to read reports, interview a few people, and then do nothing. But there we have it. Once again the Government has missed an opportunity. It seems to be very adept at that—in fact, it never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

Now let me look at clause 119, which is a very important clause because it deals with the liability of candidates, party secretaries, and third parties. Members, of course, will have read it. What is National seeking to do in the amendment to clause 119? We want to ensure that parties themselves and not just their financial agents are in the gun for offences that may be committed. Indeed, there is no good reason why political parties should still retain an effective immunity from prosecution. It seems to me totally unfair for a single person, say Mr Mike Smith or his equivalent in other parties, to carry all the liability for a large organisation like a mainstream political party where decisions are made by groups of people, or, in the case of the Labour Party, by Heather Simpson. After the previous election, as we well know, the police found a prima facie case against Heather Simpson related to the failure to authorise the pledge card, but they declined to prosecute, on the basis that one person should not be liable for a group mistake. Labour has simply failed to reflect this in the bill.

What does my amendment to clause 119 do? It deals with interesting issues of execution—execution of process or enforcement of judgments or fines. It deals with the issue of who may be sued. It deals with what is to happen if a financial agent or party secretary dies, resigns, or is removed, and it deals with the difficult issue of service of process on a financial agent or party secretary. These provisions are very sensible in tying in a political party so that the individual financial agent or party secretary is not carrying the can. It deals with an interesting legal point in that, although parties are registered under the Electoral Act, both the National Party and the Labour Party are unincorporated. I can recall that many years ago I was involved in a case where we had to sue the Heretaunga branch, as it then was, of the Labour Party over Bill Jeffries’ selection. We had a great deal of difficulty working out exactly who to serve. We eventually found someone, and the challenge to Bill Jeffries’ nomination failed. But I think the only political party that in fact has been registered in recent times is the Social Credit Political League, which was an incorporated society. So the issue arises that if one is going to sue an unincorporated association like the National Party or the Labour Party, how exactly does one do it? What we have said in the proposed subclause (5) is that where legal proceedings are commenced under this Act, a party may also be sued as defendant in the name of the party secretary or financial agent “on behalf of the party”. So too there can be difficult questions about how one levies execution against an unincorporated association.

What we have provided for in proposed subclause (4) is that where a fine is imposed on a party secretary or financial agent then there can be enforcement of that fine in the same manner as if the party were a body corporate, and as if all the property that is vested in the party secretary or financial agent, were vested in the party. So assuming, for example, that the Labour Party is found guilty of corrupt activity, or the general secretary, Mr Smith, is found liable for corrupt behaviour, then the assets of the Labour Party, as the Labour Party, can be sequestered. That is what subclause (4) is about.

Proposed subclause (5) is very important, because what happens if a party secretary or financial agent dies after the commencement of proceedings and there is a prosecution against that person for an illegal or corrupt activity? Does the prosecution abate, or, in circumstances where the party secretary has been acting as the voice and the face of the Labour Party or the National Party, should the Labour Party or the National Party have to front up in court? That is what we are saying there—that no legal proceeding will be discontinued merely by the death, resignation, or removal from office of the party secretary or financial agent.

Then the next point is how exactly one serves? As I said in the case of my experience with the recalcitrants who wanted to have a go at the Heretaunga branch of the Labour Party, serving unincorporated associations can be difficult. What does one do if the party secretary or financial agent has gone to ground or gone to Bermuda? How exactly does one serve that person? Then proposed subclause (7) says, quite straightforwardly, one leaves a true copy of the summons or writ, or whatever other process one is talking about, at the place of business of the party. So that is what proposed subclause (7) is about. The Minister said that there were references in that subclause to interested parties and third parties. That is, in fact, wrong; there is nothing of the sort. It is a very narrow clause that seeks to build on the provisions of clause 119 dealing with the liability of candidates, party secretaries, and third parties, and it is to deal with the position of the party.

Again, in summary, it says that a political party has to bear some of the responsibility. It should not be left to the party secretary or the financial agent, and for that reason I say that it is a very sensible provision—that is clause 119, proposed subclauses (4) to (8)—in legislation where there is very little common sense, and I would commend to the Minister the excellent amendment, even though it is late in the day, when dealing with the Committee stage of the bill, because it is not too late to insert those.

METIRIA TUREI (Green) : I want to talk to the Committee about the Supplementary Order Paper the Greens have put forward on this part. It is the only Supplementary Order Paper we have on this bill, and it is a shame that Bill English is not able to address directly why he attacked the idea so fiercely—the idea that the citizens of our country should have a say in how our electoral campaign law should be determined.

Our Supplementary Order Paper establishes a Citizens’ Assembly that would begin its work before the next general election. It is a process similar to a jury whereby a number of citizens are randomly selected from each electorate, so the idea is not completely unusual in New Zealand. The assembly would include the Māori electorates, and in our Supplementary Order Paper we have left it open so that at least two people from every electorate—a man and a woman, we would expect—would be on the assembly. It could be opened up for possible Treaty implications that might be involved, as well.

Those people would be brought together by the panel that we have also established in our Supplementary Order Paper and that would do a great deal of work preparing information and support systems for the Citizens’ Assembly. [Interruption] National is not going to support it and I would really like to hear why it is so opposed to this idea.

Our citizens would then work with the secretariat. They would get the information about the different kinds of electoral campaign from across the globe, as well as here in New Zealand; look at all the issues; and determine what they believe would be the best kind of election campaign financing system that our country should have.

This is exactly what we need—a mechanism for our citizens to be the decision makers. The assembly would report back to the Minister on its findings, and the Minister and the Government would then be expected to enact those findings. I do not understand why the National Party could be so fiercely opposed, for no good reason, to citizens having a say. Could it please, please let us know. National Party members have said they would like greater public involvement, and then, at the first opportunity they get to allow that, they say no.

This assembly model was used in Canada. I will briefly read from—

R Doug Woolerton: A well-known Communist country!

METIRIA TUREI: That is right; Canada is a well-known Communist country! The chair of the Citizens’ Assembly, George Thomson, who worked on that electoral system, said: “The Assembly members constantly amazed me with their enthusiasm and deep commitment to the task they were given. Throughout the eight-month process, not one member withdrew from the Assembly. Members applied themselves to learning about electoral systems. They talked to people in their communities about the work of the Assembly and chaired public consultation meetings. Some members read hundreds of written submissions. Others participated on working groups to advise on the Assembly process or to do more research in specific areas. Many used an online forum to share information and discuss issues between meetings. By the time the Assembly began its deliberations in February, it had become a community of people who cared about one another and never lost sight of their common objective … Assembly members approached their deliberations with open minds, respect for different points of view, and in the spirit of the best kind of collective problem-solving. They inspired the members of the public who came to see them at work, and they inspired me.” That is from the chair of the assembly from Canada.

It just goes to show that we can have faith in the community to make these decisions. Canada is a great country—and clearly the Citizens’ Assembly worked brilliantly for them—but New Zealand is better. I believe that New Zealand is a much better country than Canada. I reckon it is the best country in the world, and if Canadians can do that kind of work and come up with the best kinds of options, then our citizens can, as well.

Why does National not trust New Zealanders? [Interruption] My colleague Nandor Tanczos is quite right; why do National members not trust New Zealanders to make these decisions? Why do they feel, despite everything they say about the public having a say, that they cannot trust New Zealanders to have a say about their own electoral system? Is it because the National Party has something to hide? I suspect that is the case.

The National Party has a lot to hide. It has a lot of fat back-pocket wallets to protect. National members do not want the public to have a say about how the National Party can raise money. They do not want the public to have a say about what the National Party can spend its campaigning money on or when it can spend it, because they are pretty frightened about what the public would say. The public would say they want transparency. The public would say they want a level playing field. The public would say they want controls on big money.

Nandor Tanczos: They want the Business Roundtable to make the rules.

METIRIA TUREI: That is exactly right; the National Party wants the Business Roundtable to make these decisions and to be able to provide it with all of that money. It does not want New Zealanders to make that decision. What is the National Party’s problem?

JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) : This is a great opportunity to speak on this bill. I would like to address the matter of moral authority from my colleague in the New Zealand First Party, who talked about this bill in such terms. He does not have any moral authority in a situation where his party has refused to pay back the public money it used at the last election. We have just heard two speakers from clip-on parties that are supporting this bill. Why are they doing it? They are supporting this bill to reduce the cost to them of an election. There is no other reason. There is no moral authority. There is no high ground. They are doing this to reduce the cost of this election. Why is Labour supporting them? Labour is supporting them simply to punish its opponents in National, ACT, and the Māori Party. It is using the legislative process and its numbers in this Parliament to deal to its political opponents.

We in National oppose Part 3. We oppose the bill in its entirety, because it will silence the views of civil society, it will silence the views of unions, it will silence the views of churches, and it will destroy independent newspapers and other elements of the media. This bill will create an unfair playing field. It works against the interests of new political candidates. Part 3 addresses the issue of fines but does not address the more important issue of enforcement. I draw to the attention of this Committee the police investigation into the 2005 election, which was incompetent, and I do not use that word lightly. The investigation was for the wrong offences. The police ignored the clear case. They ruined every element of their case because they failed to realise what strict liability meant. They confused their role under the Electoral Act with that of the Auditor-General under the Public Finance Act. This legislation is very distressing. It is poorly thought-through, which is why we stand here against it today.

In relation to clause 119(1), I think that the parties themselves, not just the financial agents, should be in the gun for offences. There are things that I will do as a candidate as part of a committee, and although I may be held accountable, or my financial agent or someone else in our structure will be held accountable, there is absolutely no holding the party accountable. I think it is patently unfair for a single person to carry all the liability for a large organisation like a mainstream political party. I am not talking about New Zealand First here or the Green Party. I am highlighting situations where decisions are made by groups of people in a democratic process.

After the last election the police found a prima facie case against the Prime Minister’s chief of staff. It related to authorising the pledge card. The police declined to prosecute, on the basis that one person should not be liable for a group mistake. It seems that the Labour promoters of this legislation have failed to reflect on that in any way in Part 3. I refer to clause 91, which requires the appointment of an auditor. If we look at the submissions from the Institute of Chartered Accountants, we see that it opposed that provision in total. It said that there is absolutely no way this process can be adequately audited, and that in the auditing process no useful value will accrue.

JILL PETTIS (Labour) : I want to start by giving a brief response to the comments made by Metiria Turei from the Greens about a review. The Government is not opposed to a review, but at this stage we cannot support the detailed review as outlined by the Greens. In fact, the Hon Mark Burton in his first reading speech announced that he intended to establish a review of electoral administration and political party funding. The Hon Mark Burton said that the panel would be appointed and would report back by December 2008. We are most certainly open to further discussion with the Greens and other support parties about a review and what form this dialogue might include.

I ask National Party members whether, instead of filibustering as they are, they will tell us what they actually think about a Citizens’ Assembly. It has gone very quiet. They have no answers; all they have are objections. They have no positive comments to make at all about being forward-looking and future-thinking. In fact all the filibustering by National members is because they were caught out—they were caught with their fingers in the till. The National Party, as Doug Woolerton said, used to play by the rules. It used to be an honourable party, but it is so no longer. That is what all the filibustering over there is about. National has been caught with its fingers in the till. Its members are trying to talk clause by clause, but their opposition has nothing to do with those clauses; it is about getting their filthy little hands on anonymous money, on money from covert, secret organisations that operate nefariously and illicitly in our community. The National Party used to be a fair party until “Desperate Don” and “Gerrymandering John” came along and tried to rort the system. “Gerrymandering John” is desperate to get his hands on the filthy moolah from those covert—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): No, no. When speaking about members of Parliament the member needs to speak of them by their proper name. I just caution the member. [Interruption] We have not had a warning, I guess, this afternoon, but when I am making a ruling on a point of order it is helpful to have silence. I just say to the member to watch the personal abuse. We have had a couple of cases of that this afternoon; we do not want any more.

JILL PETTIS: Thank you for your guidance, Madam Chair, because I would not want there to be any confusion. I am grateful for the opportunity to have some clarification.

John Key wants to get his hands on the money from the Exclusive Brethren and from those secret donors, such as the Waitemata Trust. John Key knows that the National Party has no hope of winning on policy, because National does not have any policy. So National wants to get its hands on tons of dough to spend on advertising, because it cannot win on policy. National members know that, and they are absolutely desperate to get their hands on those buckets of money—money beyond our personal wildest dreams—which they know they need to spend on the next election campaign. We know that these covert people are lurking out there as we speak, saying: “When can we deposit the cheque? When can we write it out?”. In the last election campaign the Exclusive Brethren said: “Here’s $1.2 million.” National took it and spent it, and it was caught out. It was a guilty secret its members hoped to keep, but they were caught out. We know that the Exclusive Brethren, who were very active in Australia with its election just last month and were caught bringing in suitcases of money, have got their bags packed already with all the money that they want to give to National next time.

So I say to National members not to tell us that their opposition to this bill is all about freedom of speech. It is not about freedom of speech; it is about National wanting to receive filthy lucre from anonymous, covert sources. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Freedom of speech and freedom to buy speech are not the same thing. National members need to remember that one cannot buy elections; New Zealanders do not like it.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) : I am very pleased to take a call, especially following that member. She can talk about filthy little hands and about getting caught out! It is the Labour Party that was caught with its filthy little hands in taxpayers’ funds—public money. It is that party that was caught out. The only reason the member can stand there and pretend that someone else was caught out is that that party made its illegal action legal through an Act of this Parliament. So it is absolutely laughable that that member is talking about filthy little hands, when the filthy little hands are on that side of the Chamber and when the party on that side of the Chamber was the party caught out.

I will briefly make some comments about clause 122 of the Electoral Finance Bill, which deals with time limits for prosecution. My colleague Chris Finlayson talked about the liability of candidates, party secretaries, and third parties. I commend Chris for his work in that area, because it is absolutely right that our financial agents should not be liable on their own. As I say, Chris has obviously done a lot of work to make sure that if financial agents are going to be liable, then they ought not to be liable on their own, and that is good. Clause 122 deals with the liability of financial agents in relation to the filing of returns.

There is a clause in this bill that deals with offences relating to the return of candidate donations. There are clauses about offences relating to the return of party donations, the return of third party donations, the return of a candidate’s election expenses, the return of a party’s election expenses, and the return of a third party’s election expenses.

It is a shame that the Minister has gone, because I am unsure whether the new young Minister in the chair, Darren Hughes, is able to take a call on clause 122. Our objection to the clause is that it states: “A prosecution against a financial agent under any of the … sections” I have just outlined “must be commenced within 6 months of the date on which the return was required to be filed.” If we think about it, we say that the time frame of 6 months is clearly not sufficient.

Serious offences are being dealt with in these provisions, and the penalties for these offences are very, very serious. When we are talking about our agents acting on behalf of parties, or acting on behalf of candidates, then we need to be very, very careful that they are not prosecuted unduly, or wrongly. We need to be very, very careful that the evidence being amassed, should anyone be unfortunate enough to fall within these provisions, is carefully brought together and carefully managed, and that people who have otherwise acted in good faith in the matter of the filing of these returns are not caught under this provision. So we say that a time frame of 6 months is just not sufficient and that a minimum of 2 years is a better time frame for this provision.

I wonder whether the Minister, at this late stage in the proceedings, would consider an amendment to this clause. I am sure my colleague Chris Finlayson has put in an amendment to it, but I ask the Minister to take a call. This may be an opportunity, anyway, for the Minister in the chair to take a call and consider whether 6 months provides a sufficient time frame, and whether the Government would be prepared to extend that to 2 years.

The reason is that these are serious offences. The penalties are huge, and it is our view that following the last election the police would have been, I think, unduly hampered in respect of the time frame set by the bill, and we do not want that to happen in the future. We want to make sure that people who have behaved in good faith and with the best of intentions are not caught under this provision. Perhaps on some preliminary investigation there may be a question as to whether an offence exists, in which case it is absolutely important that the police have the proper time to investigate such a case with care, and to manage it properly.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) : I want to take just a short call on Part 3. In particular, I want to say that I am very pleased that the Justice and Electoral Committee—and in referring to the select committee I actually mean the Labour members, the Green members, the New Zealand First members, and United Future members on the committee, who were the people who listened to submissions—wanted to see accountability and transparency in this bill. They were committed to increasing the terms of penalties, to bring about accountability and to punish those who do wrong—those who collaborate in and undertake corrupt practice. And, by hokey, there are people sitting opposite who know what that all is about!

Briefly, we have increased the maximum term of imprisonment from 1 year to 2 years. The majority of the select committee—the thinking people on the select committee—said very clearly that for corrupt practice a fine of $40,000 is not enough, and that amount has been increased so that any financial agent or party secretary who is found to be undertaking corrupt practice will be fined up to $100,000. That is a penalty fitting the crime. For individuals, the paltry $15,000 penalty is increased to $40,000. That sits alongside all the other good common-sense changes to this bill that bring back accountability, transparency, and honesty into our electoral system, and that is what we on this side of the Chamber believe is very important.

Hon DAVID CARTER (National) : About 12 minutes ago, amongst the hysterical screams from one member of the Labour Party, Jill Pettis, we were actually told what this bill is all about. She talked about New Zealanders wanting to write cheques for the National Party to support the National Party to get rid of this Government, and that is what is happening. There are people who used to support the Labour Party who no longer want to support the Labour Party, and the Government has realised that the only way the Labour Party will have any campaign at all, and any chance of winning the next election, is to shut National down and not give it the chance to get its message out. Jill Pettis let out today what the bill is all about. David Cunliffe is nodding his head. He is agreeing that this is all about rigging the next election. I say to him to mark my words: the public of New Zealand will not be fooled.

I want to refer to two particular clauses—clauses 119A and 119. But before I do that, I want to go back to the comments I heard from Doug Woolerton. He is a guy I have got on pretty well with, and I admired his contribution, because there he was in a deep hole, crawling his way out and fighting vigorously for something he knows is indefensible. The loyalty he now shows to his new political master, the Labour Party, is simply unbelievable. One cannot accuse Doug Woolerton of being disloyal. When he decides to saddle up with the Labour Party he does it with 100 percent commitment. Sadly, that will be the end of his political career. He does not have long to go.

I refer now to clause 119. I will read out what I found to be a staggering comment. The clause heading states that the “Electoral Commission may provide guidance on commercial value of advertising space”. That is what it says—that the Electoral Commission may provide guidance. Why would that need to be in the law? I would have thought that if members opposite wanted such a clause in here, then it should say that the Electoral Commission “must” provide guidance. Is this not the very issue on which Winston Peters challenged Bob Clarkson and again resoundingly lost? Winston Peters has a habit of losing cases, but he lost on this issue quite significantly. He lost on the issue of the value of advertising space.

Here we have a silly clause in this bill that says that the Electoral Commission “may” provide advice. But is not the head of the Electoral Commission one Helena Catt? Is she not the one who has been in the paper recently saying that she actually does not understand the legislation? The Government is asking the very organisation led by Helena Catt to give guidance, if it so chooses, yet its chief executive has publicly said the law is such a mess the organisation cannot understand it. This is a nonsense.

I want also to refer to clause 119(1). My colleague Chris Finlayson has put forward what I think is a very sensible amendment. The subclause relates to who is liable. In the case where clearly it is a decision made by a number of people involved in the political party, then, according to this legislation, the liability goes back to one person.

We had the case last election 2005 where the pledge card was put out. It should have been authorised; it was not authorised. The police investigated and said there was a prima facie case that could be taken against Helen Clark’s chief of staff, one Heather Simpson, but the police decided not to lay the charge, because they did not feel that Heather Simpson, as one person, should be responsible for a decision that was obviously made by Helen Clark, Heather Simpson, and a number of others on the strategy team. That was the police’s reason on that occasion for not pressing charges, because, according to the police, it should have been something that was a liability to be faced by the political party.

Now the Government completely ignores that decision. Probably it wants to because it knows it will be in the position of grabbing taxpayers’ funding to run its campaign. That is what this is all about; it is all about making sure those who are not in Government do not have fair rules on which to fight this campaign.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) : I want to reflect on the speeches given by New Zealand First and the Green Party, and the reason I want to do that is this: they are in the Chamber propping up legislation being proposed by the Government but that New Zealanders do not want. The reason that New Zealanders do not want it is that they see it as an assault on their democracy: their rights and freedom to participate. Yet both the parties that have been speaking in support of the bill are backing it on the basis that it is about fairness. I want to bring to the attention of the Green Party the point of view of, for instance, the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society. It often becomes involved in political debates like whether political parties should support Māui’s dolphin and protect them. In fact, I had a visit from those people about protecting Māui’s dolphin. I have to say to the Green Party that this bill will effectively stop the organisation doing that, unless it goes through a complicated and difficult procedure of registrations and then running the risks of committing offences and being prosecuted.

Metiria Turei: Untrue.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: That is the point of clauses 120 and 125. I need to explain, obviously, to the Green member why she does not understand the law she is supporting. The only way the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society could run a campaign to protect Māui’s dolphin, to engage the public interest, is to print pamphlets, hold public meetings, maybe have radio ads, put ads in the newspaper, and the like. If the organisation did that throughout New Zealand and held a dozen or so meetings, then straight away, on that one issue alone, it would have spent tens of thousands of dollars, which it would have had to gain from its members. Do members know why?

Chris Auchinvole: Why?

Dr WAYNE MAPP: That is an issue that particular political parties are identified with, and, indeed, they go so far as to say: “Support those parties that will protect Māui’s dolphin.” That is what the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society will do, and there are many, many other concerned citizens’ organisations just like that. The whole problem with this legislation is that it makes things much, much harder for those organisations to do that. I will admit that it does not make it impossible, but why put those organisations through the hoops? Why force them to register? Why get them to record all of their donations? Why put them at risk of being prosecuted?

Hon Annette King: They don’t have to.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: I hear the Minister saying no, but it would be hugely helpful if she read the bill and understood that Subpart 5 does precisely that, as soon as one gets involved in any discussion, which is about supporting a political party, or a group of parties, on a particular issue, and that leads one directly into Part 3 and the provisions around sanctions. The Green Party then said: “Well, we’re going to support this legislation.”, but this legislation is designed to restrict freedom, designed to limit debate, and actually designed to help Labour get elected, as was quite clearly revealed by Jill Pettis.

Hon Darren Hughes: Citizens’ Assembly.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: So their excuse is: “Well, we will pass the legislation to chill freedom, to stop debate, but our fix-up, our ‘solution’ is to have a Citizens’ Assembly.” They seem to think that that will somehow make whole their deficiency. They are totally wrong. It will be seen as the facile trick and device that it is. I just want to tell the member of the Green Party what a Citizens’ Assembly actually is. Everyone in this Chamber is a citizen. Every person here has been elected. It is an assembly. This is the place where we debate the legislation, and I just wish that the Green Party, in particular, and the New Zealand First Party understood their obligation to New Zealanders, and that is about freedom. These parties come into the House specifically to represent the citizens—they would say the minorities. Yet they are supporting legislation that will do the very opposite of that; it will prevent those citizens’ groups from participating easily in the election. They have constructed a whole apparatus of registration, donations regimes, and so forth, and then on top of that they say that the financial agent, under clause 119, of the third party then is going to be liable to be prosecuted. How does that defend freedom?

HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) : I rise to speak to Part 3, and I too will focus on clause 119, “Liability of candidates, party secretaries, and third parties”. But before I move on to that I will make a comment on the Green member who throughout Dr Mapp’s very excellent speech, I have to say, called out repeatedly: “Why don’t you trust the people?”. This whole bill is about the fact that Labour, New Zealand First, and the Greens do not trust the people. Heavy-handed law and regulations are being put in place because they have no trust in the people. Those members do not trust people to have freedom of speech or to spend their own money in the way that they see fit. Trust seems to be a commodity that is in very short order in this House, and that is a terrible, terrible statement on the state of our democracy.

With regard to the liability of candidates, party secretaries, and third parties, who in their right mind would put a hand up to be a party secretary? Certainly I would not. Let us look at these liabilities. They were bad enough before this bill, but they are even worse now. [Interruption] I do not think they do.

Chris Auchinvole: They’ll be dragged off to prison.

HEATHER ROY: That is quite right.

Who in their right mind will put a hand up to be a financial agent for a candidate or for a party? Those people will be fined and thrown in prison too—for 3 years, thank you very much—for doing their best for democracy in this country, where there is no trust except from members on this side of the Chamber.

Dr Mapp made some other very pertinent points, which were also cried down by the Green Party members. People’s freedom of speech will be taken away under this bill. They will not be able to make statements. We have had some appalling revelations about Wellington Hospital in the House this week. What if somebody who has been subject to some of those misadventures at Wellington Hospital wants to say that he or she does not trust this Government because it has not handled an issue particularly well, but has sat on its hands for 7 years, done nothing, and is not even prepared to take the bull by the horns, take a brave and innovative step, and put a commissioner in place?

What if one of the people affected by these issues wants to speak out and say that he or she does not like what Labour has done to the health system and that people should vote for another party? If that person has not registered as a third party to say those things, then under this law that person will be affected. The Minister has been saying during question time just about every day for the last few weeks that we should not worry and that New Zealanders will be safe because the Government will put in place the law of common sense. Well, is that not reassuring? Where is the law of common sense? I have not seen it. Maybe it is on the Order Paper for next year, because this Government has run out of other things to talk about. Where is the law of common sense and how are the police supposed to administer it?

All I am hearing in relation to this bill, up and down this country, is people saying: “How dare Labour try to stamp on our freedom of speech? How dare Labour try to stop us from saying what we want to?”. We have heard a lot of flak about the marches up and down the country. That is a right in a democracy—people are allowed to march if they want to, and, I say to the Minister, they are allowed to have their say on any matter they choose. This might have escaped the notice of the members opposite, but we live in a free society, and we are proud of that.

So if people do not like the situation at Wellington Hospital, just as one example of what they might like to speak out about because they are not happy, they are not allowed to do so, and they are not allowed to make anything that might be construed as a political comment without registering as a third party. If they do not follow the letter of the law, then they or their financial agents will be liable for up to 3 years in prison. The law of common sense, apparently, is part of all this, and quite how that will be administered, we do not know.

It is no wonder that Helena Catt is confused, because the whole country is confused. I sat through most of the discussions with the officials and through the submissions at the Justice and Electoral Committee. I have to say that I was not the only person who was confused in that committee. Every single person, including the chairperson, was extraordinarily confused at times. Sometimes the officials seemed confused. Certainly, Helena Catt has made very public her view about the confusion around this law, including around the liability of candidates, party secretaries, third parties, and a number of others. Where that leaves New Zealanders is in a state of total confusion.

KATE WILKINSON (National) : I will confine my address to clause 120, “Providing money for illegal purposes”. It is another example of the legal minefield being created by this hasty and ill-considered legislation, because this clause provides: “Where any person knowingly provides money for any purpose which is contrary to the provisions of this Act, … that person is guilty of an illegal practice.” The consequence of being found guilty of an illegal practice is a fine of up to $40,000 for a person who is a financial agent or a party secretary, or $10,000 for any other person.

However, the difficulty with this clause, which was pointed out by the Law Society—whose advice was again ignored, because this Government thinks it knows best—is that the person will always knowingly provide money if he or she is providing money. The clause, as drafted, has as the offence to knowingly provide money, but surely the whole point of the clause is whether the money is provided by a person who knew it was for an illegal purpose. It is knowing the money is to be used for a purpose contrary to the legislation that is the important point here, not that the person knowingly provides the money.

As the Law Society quite clearly stated, the person will always know that he or she provided the money. What needs to be provided, presumably, is that that person knew that it was for a purpose contrary to the provisions of the legislation. Accordingly, the word “knowingly” is misplaced. It is simply sloppy, sloppy, incompetent drafting. The provision should read: “Where a person provides money for any purpose that the person knows is contrary to the provisions of this Act, …”. However, even that will not catch a large number of people who will not read this legislation in detail. If the Minister cannot understand the legislation, if the Electoral Commission cannot understand the legislation, and if Parliament cannot understand the legislation, then how can a layperson be expected to read the legislation, to understand it, and to know whether what he or she is doing is actually for an illegal purpose?

A further problem I would like to highlight is that where a person incurs an election expense in excess of the cap, then he or she is unlikely to have any idea whatsoever whether or when that cap has been exceeded. So this Government puts forward a sneaky wee amendment and removes the word “knowingly” completely. National has an amendment that puts “knowingly” in the right spot, but this Government has an amendment that takes out “knowingly” completely. So under this Government’s sneaky little amendment, there is now absolutely no intent whatsoever—no mens rea is required. If a person provides money, and it turns out that it is used for a purpose contrary to the Act, which the person did not even know about, then that person risks committing an illegal practice.

We know that the word “knowingly” was in the wrong place, but to take it out completely and not put it back in the right place makes the clause more meaningless. It also makes it unfair, and it also makes it unworkable. It is just a sneaky little amendment, the likes of which this Government is known for putting forward at the last minute.

Effectively, this clause will prevent any person from providing any money whatsoever, because if a person provides money, makes a donation, then he or she has no control over what is done with that money. He or she has no control over the use of that money, and he or she has no knowledge that other moneys have been donated, and this donation could suddenly tip the cap and therefore make the donor guilty of an illegal practice. This is a ban on all donations, yet this Government has the arrogance to say the bill is not an infringement of human rights or freedom of speech.

Christopher Finlayson has put forward an amendment to put the word “knowingly” back in the clause where it should be, so that the issue is whether the person knew of an illegal purpose rather than whether the person knowingly made the payment. I trust that the Government will vote in favour of this amendment. Then, at least, if the person actually knows that the purpose for which his or her donation will be used is illegal, that person may be caught. That, however, still does not get over the issue that this assumes that the person will actually be able to understand the bill. We have heard that the Minister does not understand the bill. As I have said, we have heard that the Law Society does not understand the bill. The Law Society says the bill is unduly complex and that it is more complex than the original one. We know that the Electoral Commissioner does not understand the bill. So even if Christopher Finlayson’s amendment is passed, the person involved must still read the bill, understand the bill, and know that the purpose will be unlawful. What a test that will be.

METIRIA TUREI (Green) : I want to deal with a couple of other matters on Part 3 that the Greens were very pleased to see changes made to in the Justice and Electoral Committee. In particular, I refer to the removal of a statutory declaration for spending less than the threshold amount for third parties. This is an issue that all the minor parties were keen to see changed. It means that people or groups do not have to sign a statutory declaration if they want to spend money under the threshold for listing as a third party. It did seem like an unnecessary bureaucratic measure, so it was great that it was removed.

We are also very pleased with our advocacy for strengthening the enforcement provisions for a corrupt practice—which has already been talked about, to some extent—from a fine of $40,000 to a fine of $100,000. This is very important to us because, of course, it means that the police will take prosecutions and treat them seriously when the consequence of the criminal or corrupt activity is very high. So increasing those fines was a very important thing to do, and the Electoral Commission supported us doing it.

I also refer again to the very good Supplementary Order Paper 170, which establishes a Citizens’ Assembly, a form of citizens’ jury, for our country. I take note of Mr Mapp’s very poor analysis of the importance of having the public engaged in such a process. I understand that he has been many years away from the legal profession, and perhaps has lost a bit of his edge on that matter, but it is very important to the Greens that the public have a say. We have campaigned on this issue for a very long time—since the early stages of this year.

Anne Tolley: So why not send the bill back?

METIRIA TUREI: Anne Tolley is interjecting on me. I emailed Anne Tolley a copy of my Supplementary Order Paper that had provision for a citizens’ jury incorporated into it. It took Anne Tolley only 56 minutes to email me back. Do members know what she said? Did she say that National would like to look at the Supplementary Order Paper and consider the issues, or that she had read it and it was very interesting but National had principled reasons for not agreeing to it? No. Did she send me anything of use about why she thought that perhaps it was not a good idea? No. There was no analysis, no description—nothing. All she did, after 56 minutes of very poor consideration, was to send me back an email that said “No”. “No” is what Anne Tolley said. It took her 56 minutes to come to the conclusion that, no, citizens should not have a say in how their campaign reform should look.

Anne Tolley says that citizens should not have a say about campaign finance reform. It took her 56 minutes to dismiss the public of New Zealand. It took her 56 minutes to decide that New Zealanders could not be trusted to make decisions about campaign finance reform. Why is that? Why did it take her only 56 minutes to decide? Hmm, let me see. Perhaps it had something to do with the fact that the National Party is opposing anybody who is trying to make sure that we have a transparent system in this country where the use of money is clearly defined, where it is clearly understood to be part of the corrupting process, and where there are clear caps on the way that money is spent and on the massive amounts of secret trust money that the National Party gets.

I feel very sad that National could be so dismissive of the rights of citizens to make decisions about the nature of their campaign finance. People have a right to make a decision that political parties should not get anonymous donations from wealthy organisations and people like those in the Business Roundtable, people like David Richwhite—all of those people who have long reputations for certain kinds of behaviour in New Zealand. National wants to be able to keep the money coming from all of those kinds of people and from organisations like the Business Roundtable, and it does not want New Zealanders to have a say about it. I just find that so tragic. [Interruption] Well, Wayne Mapp has no analysis.

I would like to hear from Anne Tolley why it is she would take only 56 minutes to decide that New Zealanders should have no say in electoral campaign finance reform. Is it because she knows that if New Zealanders did have a say, they would say they want more transparency, they want more control, and they want to know where the secret money comes from? They would want National to tell them who funds the party, who gave National $1.2 million from the Waitemata Trust, and who gave National hundreds of thousands of dollars in secret funds. The public want to know, but Anne Tolley does not want the public to know. Anne Tolley said no to citizens having a say and no to the community having an input into campaign finance reform. What is Anne Tolley’s problem?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) : I move, That the question be now put.

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) : Is it not an amazing outcome that the parliamentary process has been so degraded that we are reduced to having a discussion about whether the governing law is the law of common sense, when our role is to frame language that is precise in its terms and will regulate and control rights processes?

Common sense is what every individual thinks he or she has. It is a notoriously difficult concept to pin down. One person’s view of common sense is sometimes seen by another person as utter foolishness. We are talking about an idea—a concept, if you like—that in respect of every issue, the argument must be that there can be only one truth. Clearly, that is patently foolish. Common sense can characterise opposing arguments. If there is one huge disservice that the Minister sitting in the chair has done in the context of this much extended debate on this particular legislation, it has been to offer a view that common sense will triumph and that common sense somehow underlies all that is in this legislation.

I will confine my comments, though, to clause 122(1), which sets some time limits for prosecutions. It sets them in respect of a number of sections, which are listed in the body of the subclause. I will not read out the sections, but the areas of activity are the return of candidates’ donations, the return of party donations, the return of third-party donations, the return of candidates’ election expenses, the return of party election expenses, and the return of third-party election expenses. To add to the complexity of it all, differing time frames are set for when these returns are to be filed. One needs to dig into the legislation to find out what those time periods are. In the case of candidates, under clause 72, there are 70 working days after polling day. In the case of party donations, under clause 91, there is a different time limit of 50 working days after the date the relevant declaration is filed under the Electoral Act.

My complaint—National’s complaint—is that a time limit set by this legislation of 6 months for the laying of charges is clearly insufficient. In order to deal with that issue we have put up a Supplementary Order Paper. Criminal law has a number of time limits set for different processes. Six months is a time limit traditionally set for laying charges in respect of minor offences. So if one is speeding in a motor car, 6 months is a period fixed for laying the charge. If one is involved in an assault case, 6 months is a period for laying the charge. As one sees instantly, those offences are instantly recognisable, involve objective assessments—was he or she speeding; did he or she hit the other—and instantly measurable.

But this is not of that world, at all. This involves specific judgments in respect of a number of offence-creating provisions that require assessment, balancing of interests, and a look—some would say—at common sense. More accurately, they require a look at what the statutory framework is in respect of the particular offence-creating provision. If we are seeking workable legislation, it is foolish to set time frames of the period of 6 months.

In the context of looking at clause 122, I urge the Government to look at these matters in a more careful and cautious way. If charges are to be brought, then that needs to be done on the basis of a hugely careful scrutiny of the particular activities that have occurred. The consequences of conviction on any of these provisions and on charges under sections 32, 40, 50, 75, 94, and 114 are extraordinarily grave for the person who is embroiled in the process and later convicted. It is not too late in the piece for the Minister to reflect on what National proposes.

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

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): We have been on this part for quite some time. We have had 18 speakers. Mr Carter has not spoken yet.

JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) : Mr Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to make a contribution. First of all, I will address a matter that was raised by Metiria Turei in regard to the issue of anonymous donations. She said that the National Party did not want to make any progress on that matter, at all.

The Committee needs to know that the National Party offered to sit down and discuss the issue with the other parties in this Parliament so that the matter could be addressed. We were very happy to sit down and discuss it. What we did not want to end up with was something like this, which tramples over rights and democracy in this country. That is what we have ended up with. We say to the member that we understand her passion, we understand her concerns, and we hear her worries. We would, very simply, have sat down with the other parties and said: “OK, let’s discuss the issues and come to some satisfactory position.” Unfortunately, the other parties were not prepared to sit down with us to develop something that would have been satisfactory and useful to the whole country without cutting across the rights of the rest of this country and the voters of this country. [Interruption] I say to the member over there—there is another one. That member, Doug Woolerton, needs to understand that the people of this country will take his views into consideration and will vote against him as a consequence.

I want to draw the Committee’s attention to two provisions that I think are important. I draw the Committee’s attention to clause 120 and the words “Where any person knowingly provides money for any purpose which is contrary to the provisions of this Act … that person is guilty of an illegal practice.” The issue is the word “knowingly”. What does the word “knowingly” mean? It is another example of the way this bill is so badly put together. Somebody could go out there and deliberately do something against this Act, then say “But I didn’t know. I didn’t know that I wasn’t allowed to do that.” A person could deliberately do something, then use this provision as a defence—as a reason not to be prosecuted. How can someone prove whether someone knowingly did or did not do something? One would have to be dopey to think that one could.

Maybe that is where this issue of common sense comes in. Is that what it is—the Minister’s common sense? [Interruption] We know that that party over there ain’t got any common sense, because Doug Woolerton is in it, for a start, and it is led by Winston.

The other issue that I want to draw to the Committee’s attention, and the one that I think is seriously important, is that the Electoral Commission may provide guidance on the commercial value of advertising space. How do we interpret “may”? How does the Committee interpret “may”? The Minister has not been able to give an interpretation of what “may” means. The chief executive of the Electoral Commission, Helena Catt, has said she does not know, and she is the one who is responsible for interpreting it. But she cannot tell us what the word “may” means. The Law Society has brought it to the Committee’s attention; it does not know what the word “may” means, in this context. I have not heard anybody in this Chamber explain, in the context of clause 119A, what “may” means.

Hon David Carter: Ask the Minister.

JOHN CARTER: I have asked the Minister, but her response has been “We’ll just apply a bit of common sense.” That is all very well, but I want to draw members’ attention to someone innocent, like my mother, who may say: “I’m going to get out there and I may do this.”, and she will not know whether she has offended, because no one will be able to tell her. Poor old mum will worry about that, and, Mr Chairman, you know that that is the sort of person whom this is going to trip up—people like my dear old mum. Our mums and dads and our brothers and sisters are all going to end up being guilty because they do not know what “may” means.

I have to say that in my 20 years in this House I have never seen such an ambiguous bill. It is going to end up getting so many New Zealanders into so much trouble.

Chris Auchinvole: How long have you been here?

JOHN CARTER: I have been here for 20 years, and I have never seen a word “may” that nobody can interpret, and never heard a Minister say: “We’ll just apply a bit of common sense.”

Hon David Carter: Get Doug Woolerton to comment on it.

JOHN CARTER: No, because he may not. That is the trouble. He may not know what he is talking about, even if he did. That is the problem. He has been part of the drafting of this, along with Annette King and along with the Greens. They are guilty. They are responsible for this bill. I say it is going to cause confusion, and it will trample on democracy.

TIM GROSER (National) : I take the floor in the first instance to talk about Supplementary Order Paper 170 and the proposal of the Green Party, put forward in the name of Metiria Turei, on a Citizens’ Assembly. Let me make this clear. Our assumption is that the Government is not going to go there. But so great is the political pressure on the Labour-led Government and so great is the confusion around this bill, that we are simply not going to take that risk. So let us start by looking at the purposes of the Citizens’ Assembly. The functions of this—and I will focus just on the key operational point—are to review the levels of transparency and accountability of candidates and parties, and other persons engaged in elections. Who will the members of the Citizens’ Assembly be? There will be at least two registered voters, randomly selected from each of the Māori and general electorates. Imagine this. This is a bill of such complexity that the Minister herself has admitted she does not understand it. It is a bill of such complexity that Helena Catt, the chief executive of the Electoral Commission, says she does not understand it. But at least these two persons drawn from each of the electorate lists—at random, I repeat—will be able to clarify it.

We have to understand the political origins of the author of this proposal. I did a bit of research on Wikipedia because I was wondering about the place of the McGillicuddy Serious Party in this whole process. I found out, to my surprise, that the author of this proposal was a member, originally, of the McGillicuddy Serious Party. We have to understand that the criterion of policies for the McGillicuddy Serious Party was that it “selected its policies on the basis of their absurdity and their impracticality.” Let me make this clear. First of all, I regard this party as having made a unique and important contribution to New Zealand’s politics. If we have lost our sense of humour, we have lost everything. Secondly, in no way do I in any way hold Metiria Turei responsible for moving her political views. After all, Dr Mapp and I were momentarily members of the Labour Party. But, in line with basic evolutionary theory, we expect evolution to move up the food chain to higher levels of sophistication. I seriously have to ask whether the author of this paper is a little confused and still thinks that she should be applying that criterion for policy now that she has moved into the New Zealand Parliament. This amendment would be an absolute disaster, and we implore—my favourite word this afternoon—the Labour Party not to go there.

I now wish to move to clause 119, and the matter of the financial agent. My own feeling is that the person who is selected as the financial agent has to be either a person of unsurpassed naivety or one with a heroic sense of martyrdom.

John Carter: Or both.

TIM GROSER: Or both. I mean, I would personally recommend anybody contemplating the role of financial agent to seek out a job in Zimbabwe as the person responsible for reporting on CPI movements. That would be a much safer job than being a financial agent under this bill if it should be passed by this Parliament. It is not just a question of the fines and the terms of imprisonment. In a sense, one could say that isolated serious breaches of our electoral law, the foundation of our democracy, should be met with severe sanctions. It is when we look at the sanctions in relation to the responsibilities set out in the rest of this bill that we realise we will be looking for a martyr or an idiot. By the way, in no way will I hold to account the person who will eventually take this position in the National Party. Just consider, for example, financial agents’ responsibilities. If we start to look through the network of information they will be responsible for, we see that they will have to take account of all the activities not only in all the branches of their parties but in all the sub-branches of their parties. I know that one National Party safe seat has 27 different branches in its electorate. This financial agent will have to take personal responsibility for ensuring that all the electoral returns on each of these issues is in conformity with the totally vague and imprecise obligations of this bill. It will require a martyr.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) : I have sat in my office for a large part of the time and listened to the debate on the Electoral Finance Bill. I am waiting for the National Party to say something positive, not necessarily about this bill, but about controls on election expenditure and the way elections are administered. If we listen to those members, as many of the general public do, we get the impression that they want no rules whatsoever. National proved that the rules that applied in 2005 were inadequate. They did not do the job. The rules that are currently in vogue, which applied in 2005, did not do the job. They allowed the Exclusive Brethren to spend $1.2 million on pushing the National Party’s cause, and that is not only unethical, but also downright dishonest.

Those members over there have confused the public big time. The public think that as individual members of the public they will not be able to criticise anything. They think they will not be able to play a part. They think they will not be able to talk on talkback radio or write letters to the editor. That is absolutely ridiculous. The public will still have all the freedom to do what they want and say what they want in the electoral process, and so will any organisation. But once that organisation gets into promoting a political party, it has to be registered. If that organisation wants to put one foot in the water and get into the political process, it has to be registered. Then it can spend up to $120,000 promoting whatever it wants. That is not enough for that crowd over there. They want the crown jewels and everything. Let me say to those members over there that New Zealand First is determined to make politics honest and we are determined to make the process honest. The process we have now, the process we had in 2005, is not honest. The National Party proved that. The National Party took advantage of the process, and this bill will rectify that.

What the public has been fed by the National Party is an outright disgrace. It is a total distortion of the truth, and I cannot see any merit in the National members doing that. I honestly cannot see what they can gain by going out and telling members of the public that their freedom of expression will be curtailed. In fact, they are saying more than that; they are saying they will lose it totally. What absolute rubbish!

Let me make this quite clear. The part we are now dealing with, deals with the penalties. We have heard at length National members speaking about the penalties and all that goes with that. But most of the offences the public think are offences—which the National Party has fed them—are not offences at all. This bill will give people more freedom, and it will restrict the ability for organisations and political parties to control the vote by investing huge amounts of money. That is the underlying purpose of this bill—to put some financial controls on the political process so that a fair vote is a true vote.

It is a sad day in this Parliament when we cannot recognise that there are problems and loopholes and work together collectively to address them.

Chris Auchinvole: We weren’t asked!

PETER BROWN: I know for a fact that several members of the National Party were on the Justice and Electoral Committee that addressed this bill.

Chris Auchinvole: I was one of them.

PETER BROWN: He was one of them. He sat there and made no contribution whatsoever, and then he comes here and says he was not asked.

Chris Auchinvole: That’s right. We were excluded at every opportunity.

PETER BROWN: This is beyond belief. He sits on a select committee and makes no input whatsoever? Is that what the member is trying to tell us? That is absolute poppycock. Let me just read from the select committee report—the select committee that that member was not asked to participate in, yet he sat there, full-time, addressing issues. It states in the explanatory note of 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.”

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) : I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I think we have been adequately informed in the debate on Part 3. The question is that the question be now put.

ANNE TOLLEY (Senior Whip—National) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I would like to point out that I have not taken a call on this part, and the Green member, in particular, has spoken at length about my actions in regard to her Supplementary Order Paper 170, and I ask you for the opportunity to reply to her questions of me in this part.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): That is an interesting twist.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) : The member raises a very fair point, and I suggest perhaps that we might take leave for the member, since you had started putting the motion, to have one speech and then for the closure motion be put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I do not need any more help on this. I will take it upon myself to call Anne Tolley.

ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) : Thank you, Mr Chairman. I would like to speak to Supplementary Order Paper 170 presented by the Green member, Metiria Turei, who was a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee. Yesterday she sent me an email in my capacity as the senior whip for the National Party. I think she made much in her speech of the fact that it had taken me 56 minutes to send her a one-word reply of “No”—that we would not support that amendment. Well, I would actually like to let that member know, and the Committee, that, in fact, it took much less than that. I did not see the email for 55½ minutes, so it really took me only 30 seconds to consult and decide that we would not support that amendment. Members might ask why.

Well, I am prepared to tell the Committee why the National Party will not support that Supplementary Order Paper. I refer to a letter that the select committee received from the Chief Human Rights Commissioner, Rosslyn Noonan. I would just like to read what she said in point 30: “Many of the substantial concerns of submitters are likely to be addressed in redrafting.” So this was during the select committee process. We had heard submissions, we had had some discussion about some changes, and a whole lot of issues had been raised by various members of the select committee, and some changes had been suggested. She said: “The committee now faces the challenge of how the rationale for recommended changes, and the opportunity for further improvement, is incorporated into its processes. The commission considers that public concerns would be best addressed by a further round of public consultation on a redrafted version of the bill.” That is the position of the National Party. We argued that matter during the select committee and I stand in the Committee to reply to the Green member in relation to her Supplementary Order Paper that that is not the way to address the public having an opportunity to have a say on this bill.

The Human Rights Commissioner has said the commission believes that having substantially redrafted that bill it should go back for public debate. It should go back for another round of submissions. During the select committee hearing the Green member was loud and vociferous in denying that opportunity to the public of New Zealand. For her then to come to the Committee with a Supplementary Order Paper that sets up a quasi-public process of redebating this bill 2 months after it comes into effect is an absolutely calculated act to manipulate the process—

Chris Auchinvole: Gerrymandering

ANNE TOLLEY: Absolutely, and the word has been used here earlier tonight by someone trying to make fun of one of the members on this side. But I would say that Supplementary Order Paper 170 represents gerrymandering of the public democratic system more than anything else I have heard from that member.

I thank you, Mr Chairperson, for the opportunity to reply to the Green member, and I would just like to reiterate that it is the National Party’s position that we follow the recommendation of the Human Rights Commission, which is to put this bill out for another round of public submissions. It is not too late for the Committee to decide to do that.

We can make sure that the public have the opportunity to have another say on a bill that is almost entirely different from what it was when over 600 members of the public made submissions on it. It is an entirely different bill. The most reasonable thing that this Committee could do at this time of the year would be to send this bill back out for another round of public submissions and stick with the Auditor-General’s rules. They are quite clear. We all understand them this time round. We could quite easily go through the 2008 election under those rules that have been so very clearly spelt out in this House and through the Speaker’s’ directions for all parties.

Thank you, Mr Chairperson, for the opportunity to reply to the Greens member. The National Party’s position is that we do not support the Supplementary Order Paper from the Greens. We support the Human Rights Commission in relation to sending this out for a further round of public submissions. We support democracy.

Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) : I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): The question is that the question be now put.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I would like the opportunity to speak to clause 121 on the basis that nobody else has addressed this particular clause relating to search warrants. I have not spoken on this bill. Last night, while seeking a call, I was savagely thrust aside by a recalcitrant member Paula Bennett, and so I have chosen to stand alongside Kate Wilkinson at this opportunity, in the hope that it will not happen again.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) : Mr Chairperson, I think it might be time for you to draw the attention of members to the fact that the acceptance of the closure motion is not a debatable matter. It is entirely within your discretion. It is actually disorderly to keep questioning the Chair’s accepting a closure motion.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) : I do not wish to be disorderly but I would like to back up my colleague Chester Borrows. Clause 121, which he talked about, is a pivotal clause in that it breaks a long tradition in New Zealand whereby normally a search warrant would not be issued for an illegal matter that is associated with only a fine, not imprisonment. Mr Chairperson, if you were not prepared to give my colleague Chester Borrows the call, I would be very happy to back him up.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the member who raised the point of order and those who have contributed. Members will be aware that I was about to put the closure motion before the point of order was raised, and I am going to do it now. Those who wish to speak have wide scope to do so in the debate on clauses 1 and 2. They know that it is a summary of everything we have covered. Perhaps Mr Borrows could use that opportunity when it comes up. I am going to put the closure motion.

Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. There is confusion as to whether we had a division on the preceding amendment, so I would ask whether we could we record our division on that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Yes. There is some confusion, and it is possible I did not hear a response to the call for the “Noes”, but leave should be sought to revisit that to put that vote again.

Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) : I seek leave on that basis.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Leave has been sought for the previous vote to be recommitted. That amendment is to section 8(1D) in clause 134 in the name of Judith Collins. It was to omit the number “20” and substitute the number “15”. There was some confusion on that, and the response did not come from over here. We should have gone to a party vote. Leave has been sought.

Anne Tolley: Is that subsection (1D) or (1C)?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): It is to subsection (1D). Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Hon DAVID CARTER (National) : In the debate around clause 1, “Title”, and clause 2, “Commencement”, of the Electoral Finance Bill, we see Labour doing its final move to steamroll this legislation through Parliament. It is steamrolling it through with the support of New Zealand First and the Greens, and that will be noted by the voters. I will come back to that point shortly.

I was in the Chamber earlier and Jill Pettis told us the true reason why this legislation is being pushed through the House and steamrolled by the Labour-led Government. Jill Pettis said—and people can go back and look at the Hansard—that lots of people out there at the moment want to write cheques for the National Party, because those people want to see a change of Government. Helen Clark knows that. She knows that lots of people out there want to see a change of Government. The people who want to write cheques for the National Party are the mums and dads in New Zealand, many of whom used to vote for the Labour Party. Many of them used to vote for the Labour Party because the Labour Party used to represent those people.

People are fed up with being told what to do. They are fed up with it. They have enough of Labour telling everybody how they are to live their lives and that is what the bill does. The bill tells us how little we can campaign when using our own money, but it does not stop the Government using taxpayers’ money to campaign at the next election. That is what it is about. Lesley Soper nods her head in agreement, because she knows that at the last election Labour was caught with its sticky, dirty little fingers in the till, with $850,000 stolen from the taxpayer. It was paid back, although reluctantly, but I will give Labour that one little credit. But the money was not paid back by New Zealand First; $50,000-odd was nicked from the taxpayer by New Zealand First. Originally, the New Zealand First members said that they would not pay it back, but now they say that they will pay it back. The cheque is in the mail—yeah, right!

That is what this legislation is about. Sue Moroney knows that, Lesley Soper knows that, and the former Minister who is now to be a vice-chancellor knows that. He was probably part of the team that devised the strategy to rig the system, after Labour members decided they did not have a hope of winning the election if they stuck with the old financial rules. This is an attempt to rig the election result, but, mark my words, it will fail. It will fail.

• Progress reported.

• Report adopted.