Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) : That was a most interesting speech from the Greens’ expert on electoral law, who says that this bill is only about the purchase of advertising. Well, that is such a load of rubbish. Let me just tell the Committee about that Green Party member. This is the woman who sat in the select committee and said that if a German tourist attends a meeting, or walks past a Green Party collector shaking a bucket and puts $20 in there, then that Green Party collector should ring the Green Party headquarters in Wellington to check whether the tourist is on the electoral roll. If he or she is not on the electoral roll, then the $20 should be given back or returned to the Electoral Commission. That is exactly what the member said—that the Green Party would ring up and check whether anyone giving 20 bucks was on the electoral roll.

So, frankly, she is a member who has no understanding of democracy. If she did have any understanding she would have told us what the English organisation JMG Foundation got from the Greens for the $15,000 that it gave them at the last election. The member says that money buys influence. Well, what did Mr and Mrs Goldsmith from England get for the $25,000 they gave to the Green Party in 2002? What did the Greens offer the JMG Foundation for the $15,000 that it paid in 2005? The member’s argument is nonsense.

National is strongly opposed to this bill. How ridiculous it is that the Labour Party dumped 150 amendments to this bill less than 90 minutes before this debate started. Less than 90 minutes before this debate started, Labour dumped 150 amendments to this bill. Does anyone recall a time when such important legislation—legislation that is part of the constitutional and electoral framework of this country—was subject to 150 amendments that were dumped only moments before the debate began? Absolutely never. Never in the history of this country has someone sought to table 150 amendments only moments before the debate on a bill began.

Let us look at the purpose of this bill and see whether the jackboot approach of this Government towards electoral law matches the purpose of the bill. Its first purpose is to “maintain public and political confidence in the administration of elections;”. Does anyone think that the public believe that this Labour Party will run the electoral system of this country with any fairness or repute? Not at all. The legislation has failed its basic first purpose, which is to maintain public confidence. Public confidence in this country is best summed up by the headline “Democracy under attack”. New Zealanders say that democracy is under attack from this legislation. It is full of anti-democratic values. It is an attack on our democratic values. There is no way that it meets even the first purpose that the Government is proposing, which is to maintain public confidence in the administration of elections.

Let us look at the second purpose of the bill, which is to “promote participation by the public in parliamentary democracy;”. How does the bill promote public participation when ordinary people are referred to sneeringly as “third parties”? I have news for the Labour Party: we, the people of New Zealand, are not third parties to our electoral system. We, the people of New Zealand, are the core of the electoral system. We are not third parties. So this bill fails even its second purpose, which is to promote the participation of the public in parliamentary democracy.

Let us look at the next purpose, which is to “prevent the undue influence of wealth on electoral outcomes;”. Let me tell members about that. Not only is there preservation in this legislation of money from big unions, which can spend as much as they like, but the bill was specifically amended to allow Owen Glenn to give another half a million dollars to the Labour Party. I will tell the Committee what happened. The members opposite proposed an amendment that stated that anybody who was not on the New Zealand electoral roll and who lived overseas could not make a donation. They said that would be illegal. It was the party opposite that brought an amendment to the select committee and said that no one who lives overseas and is not on the electoral roll should be allowed to vote. Then we asked about Owen Glenn.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I sought your intervention, in the case of John Key, on the question of the principle of allowing someone to speak for 10 minutes. I was talking about someone who is a party leader; I was not talking about fly-by-nighters who turn up and decide they will indulge themselves and get 10 minutes, as well. The member can have a go later on, but not two calls in a row.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The decision is that of the Chair.

Hon TONY RYALL: I am here today representing more people in Tauranga than that member ever will. More people in Tauranga voted for me than for that member.

But let us get back to the third subclause, which is to “prevent the undue influence of wealth on electoral outcomes;”. The Labour Party brought forward an amendment to state that someone could not donate money if he or she was overseas and not on the electoral roll. We made a comment about Owen Glenn. A very hasty coffee break was organised and within about 15 minutes down came Lynne Pillay, who said that they wanted to change the rules so that someone can donate from overseas if he or she is a New Zealand citizen. That is the Owen Glenn subclause. Owen Glenn can now give another half a million dollars to the Labour Party. So much for preventing the undue influence of wealth on electoral outcomes!

What about the bit that states that the purpose of the bill is to “ensure that the controls on the conduct of the election campaigns—(i) are effective; and (ii) are clear; and (iii) can be efficiently administered, …”? Does anyone think that a bill that is now subject to 150 amendments could be described as being effective, clear, and efficient? No way! This bill fails every single purpose before the Committee. This bill does not maintain public confidence in the electoral system; it does not promote public participation—in fact, it sneeringly refers to us, the people of New Zealand, as “third parties”—it does nothing about wealth and the electoral system; it does nothing about transparency or accountability; and it does nothing about the effective, clear enforcement legislation that one would expect. One hundred and fifty amendments were tabled only moments before the bill was debated.

Frankly, I have to say to the Committee that although this Government thinks New Zealanders will forget about this legislation over the next year, I have news for the Government. Right now, up and down the country, New Zealanders know that this bill is all about Helen Clark’s paranoia. Helen Clark knows that she is in the dying days of her Government. The Government is lurching from crisis to crisis. Time after time we have seen what a dying Government looks like. It is skewing the playing field in favour of itself. It is making it harder and harder for ordinary New Zealanders to have a say, and easier and easier for big Government money, big union money, and big-spending Government department advertising to influence the election of this country.

New Zealanders are appalled by what this Government is proposing. We strongly oppose this legislation. New Zealanders will not forget what this Government is doing, because it is an affront to the democratic values of this country.