Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) : I move, That the Electoral Finance Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee for consideration. I also indicate to members that I will be seeking leave, assuming that the referral of the bill to the Justice and Electoral Committee is successful, for the voting membership of the committee to be extended to mirror that of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, in order to give all members and parties the opportunity to fully participate in the consideration of this bill.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am wondering, in noting the comments just made by the Minister that he will seek leave for the course of action he proposes, whether the Minister has misunderstood the arrangement that has been put in place. The arrangement was that he would seek leave, and it would, of course, be a debating matter. We observe that although the Government is very keen to put this electoral bill together without consultation and in a partisan fashion, it seems very, very keen to have the bill considered in a bipartisan fashion. We cannot have one thing without the other. I think the Minister may have meant to say that he was going to move that the Justice and Electoral Committee be reconfigured as if it were the Finance and Expenditure Committee, for the purposes of hearing this bill alone. That, of course, would be a debatable motion.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable member for that.

Hon MARK BURTON: Speaking to the point of order, I say that I was clear about what I intended. I indicated to the House that at the conclusion of the debate, assuming that the House votes successfully for the first reading of the bill, I would seek leave for the voting membership of that committee, for the purposes of consideration of this bill, to be extended to mirror that of the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

Gerry Brownlee: This House usually operates quite smoothly because there is agreement about the way in which things should progress. I just indicate to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, because the Speaker obviously has an interest in the House maintaining its order, that this sort of riding roughshod approach where we have a partisan approach to a bill that affects the entire electoral process in New Zealand, and this idea that the Opposition should simply roll over and capitulate to what the Government wants to do as far as hearing the nation’s views on the bill, is completely unacceptable and simply exacerbates the already ham-fisted way in which the Government has dealt with this.

Hon Peter Dunne: I have been listening to the points raised by both the member and the Minister. As I understand it, the composition of a select committee is determined by the Business Committee in the first instance, and ratified by this House at a later date. The question of either augmenting the membership of an existing committee, or changing it in the way the Minister indicated he would seek leave to do, has to be cleared by the Business Committee first. I wonder whether the point that Mr Brownlee raises is really tied up with the issue of the matter being referred to the Business Committee to make the changes in the membership, which can then proceed. I think there is a misunderstanding around that point.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The issue has not been discussed in the Business Committee. However, the House can seek leave to do so.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The point Mr Dunne makes is an interesting one. You are right, Mr Assistant Speaker, that the issue has not been considered by the Business Committee. In general, select committees are agreed on by the Business Committee at the start of a Parliament as far as proportionality and all the rest is concerned. But the formation of select committees takes place by virtue of a debate here in the House—a motion on the Order Paper and a debate in the House. There has been no consultation in any significant way on the Electoral Finance Bill. There is a desire to have as many parties represented in the process as possible, but I do believe that it would be most appropriate and proper at this late stage of the proceedings for there to be a debate over the constitution of that select committee.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I just advise members that the leave that the Minister has foreshadowed can be debated by members in the course of this debate.

Hon MARK BURTON: This bill deals with one of the most important aspects of our democratic system, the fairness of elections. At the heart of the bill is the principle that the public should have the highest confidence that our electoral system is honest and open, and that money spent in the run-up to an election is clearly accounted for. Alongside this, a second principle promoted by this bill is that there should be fair and equitable participation in electoral campaigning. Wealthy interest groups should not have a disproportionate influence on the outcome of an election simply because they have access to greater financial resources than the general public.

The 2005 general election brought concerns about campaign financing into sharp focus. This led to debate across the public and political spectrum about the nature of the electoral finance regime. To this end, the bill is directed at reforming the rules governing electoral finances. It also responds to recommendations from successive Justice and Electoral Committees, including the committee I consulted with that reported last year. Finally, the legislation also addresses some of the unimplemented recommendations of the 1986 Royal Commission on the Electoral System.

The bill is a detailed one, and I know that members will be very interested in the fine detail of its provisions. The key features of the bill are as follows. Firstly, it makes a raft of changes to the accounting, audit, and disclosure framework that applies to candidates and political parties in the run-up to a general election. Under the bill, candidates and parties will have to provide much more detailed information about their election expenditure. In tandem with this, the bill will require all expenditure and donations to go through a financial agent who is appointed expressly for this purpose and who also will be responsible for filing a candidate’s or party’s expense and donation returns on their behalf. These measures will create an environment of accountability and transparency in the run-up to an election, thereby making the campaign finances of candidates and parties a matter of clear public record. The proposals are also in line with other comparative regimes such as the United Kingdom and Canada, which place strict limitations on who can authorise spending and pay for campaign expenditure.

The bill contains a much stricter regime for third parties that choose to enter the campaign arena. During the 2005 election it became evident that third parties could mount campaigns that had the potential to undermine candidate and party expenditure limits. It is simply unacceptable to the general public that a third party should be able to, in effect, buy an election result. The key features of the new third-party regime are as follows. Firstly, every third party will be required to notify the Chief Electoral Officer of its involvement in electoral activities when spending over a certain threshold occurs or is anticipated. The Chief Electoral Officer will keep a list of all third parties so that everyone is aware of their identity during the lead-up to an election. Alongside this, such third parties will be required to account for their spending in a detailed manner, and provide comprehensive information about any donations they receive that are to be spent on campaigning. Third parties will also be subject to strict election expenditure limits under the new regime. A third party will be limited to spending $60,000 nationally, or $2,000 in an electorate contest. This will help to guard against parallel election campaigns.

The Government, in introducing these third-party proposals, is seeking to encourage full and open expression from a diverse range of interests in the run-up to a general election. Some members have already suggested that the third-party reforms unjustifiably restrict freedom of expression. They do not, and the Crown Law Office advice on this matter is clear in that regard. The aim of the reforms is to ensure that wealthy interests do not have a disproportionate voice in our electoral system; nor, for that matter, should they be able to overwhelm the speech of political parties and candidates. To this end, the bill sets a fair limit on the amount that third parties can spend and introduces much greater transparency around their identity and financial expenditure.

Another important new measure in the bill is that the regulated period for election expenditure will significantly increase. The bill proposes that where a general election is held in the final year of the parliamentary term, candidates, parties, and third parties will all have to account for their expenditure from 1 January. This is a significantly longer period than the 3-month rule that currently applies, and it should provide a much more accurate picture of campaign expenditure. This is in line, again, with other comparable jurisdictions. For example, the period is less than that of the United Kingdom, which provides for a regulated period of a full calendar year before polling day. For early elections—that is, any general election that is held in the first 2 years of the parliamentary term—there will be a fixed 3-month regulated period for candidates and parties. For third parties, the regulated period will run from the date when the Prime Minister announces the election.

The bill also seeks to clarify issues that emerged from the Peters v Clarkson election petition about the interpretation of the current law. Amongst other things, that case raised questions about the allocation of election expenses between a candidate and a party where an advertisement says: “Vote for me, vote for my party”. These issues are clarified so that the clearly defined rules are in place for the next election.

The bill also strengthens the electoral penalty regime. The penalties for the most serious electoral offences—corrupt and illegal practices—will be significantly increased. Alongside this, changes are proposed to the time limits for prosecution, which will make New Zealand’s system, again, comparable to that in jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom. The bill provides a new penalty that will allow the courts to require persons convicted of an offence under the electoral finance regime to pay any benefit they have received from their offending to the Crown. This recognises the significance of these types of offences and ensures that people who breach the provisions cannot profit from their offending.

There are also changes to the broadcasting regime. The most significant change relates to the membership of the Electoral Commission. The bill will remove the requirement for political representatives to be appointed members of the Electoral Commission when exercising their functions under Part 6 of the Broadcasting Act. The bill also simplifies some aspects of the broadcasting regime.

The Government has also considered the question of the structure of electoral agencies. In 2001 the Election Framework Taskforce recommended that there should be a single electoral agency with integrated responsibility for all parliamentary electoral administration. That recommendation has, I believe, significant merit. However, it needs to be reconsidered in the context of the bill that is before the House now, which confers new functions on the Chief Electoral Office and the Electoral Commission.

As part of the preparation of this reform package, the Government also looked very closely at the way in which political parties are funded. One possibility that was considered was that political parties might receive some public funding, as this system already operates in a number of other countries. The Government also looked at implementing much stricter rules around the donations that candidates and parties receive from private individuals. However, the reality is that such proposals require very detailed consideration and also a measure of consensus. In the United Kingdom, for instance, Sir Haydon Phillips was recently asked by the Prime Minister to conduct a review of political party funding. His report was published in March this year. The report, for those members who have not read it, provides a very useful examination of the substantive issues. More important, Sir Hayden has built consensus among political parties about the reform of party funding.

To enable full and careful consideration of these matters, the Government is establishing a review of electoral administration and political party funding. The review will report back in December 2008. This will give time to consider the recommendations and, if appropriate and required, to introduce legislation before the 2011 election.

In conclusion, I reiterate that many of the measures in the bill are consistent with those of comparable jurisdictions. Other countries are moving in a similar direction. There are some very valuable measures in the bill, and it is my view that it will enable far greater public confidence that our electoral system is open and fair, with clearly defined rules to protect it from abuse. I strongly encourage members of the public to make submissions on the bill when it is before the select committee. I commend the Electoral Finance Bill to the House.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) : This advertisement that I am holding up appeared today in the New Zealand Herald and the . It is an advertisement from the Post Primary Teachers Association (PPTA), and it is the start of what I think will be a long and difficult campaign to get pay rises out of the Government. It is a vigorous kind of advertisement. I was the subject of such advertisements personally when I was an education spokesman.

The PPTA, with its advertisements in today’s Dominion Post and the , has spent half of the annual allowance that this legislation gives to anyone in New Zealand to influence public opinion with. If the PPTA ran this ad after 1 January next year, the $30,000 it has spent today would be half of the $60,000 limit that, under this bill, any third party can spend to influence public opinion. That $30,000 for the ads does not include the posters in the staffrooms or the pamphlets it is distributing. It does not include the email, which is covered by this bill. It could well be—[] That member should listen, because the PPTA is going to come kicking her door down. It could well be that this week the PPTA, with what it has spent on all the other material that goes with this ad, has spent the lot. In an election year it would not be able to do one more thing to influence public opinion.

That shows us just how paranoid Labour is. That is the impact it is having on its mates—the people who vote for Labour, who deliver its pamphlets, and who raise its money loyally, election after election. The PPTA and the New Zealand Educational Institute, which represents 60,000 New Zealanders, will, between them, be able to run four full-page ads for 1 day each, next year. Do they know that? Imagine the size of the riot there would be on the front steps of Parliament if National said to the teacher unions: “Between you, you can run four one-page ads all election year. That’s all you’re allowed, because we’re worried that you’ll criticise us.”

This week we have seen how deep the paranoia in the Labour Party is. We have had a long-running scandal about the sacking of a civil servant, not because of her political views but because of the political views of the person she lives with. That paranoia extends to the introduction by the State Services Commission of a register of interests for senior civil servants, whereby they will have to declare the political interests of people with whom they are associated. That is how deep the paranoia is, and this bill is a case of more paranoia. This bill represents a Labour Party that is worried that someone might criticise it. Someone might run an ad in the newspaper.

John Carter: Who?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The PPTA—that is who.

What will happen when Greenpeace wakes up and realises what a shambles Labour’s climate change policy is?

Simon Power: Amnesty International.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Amnesty International, the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society—they know that the climate change policy is a total shambles. The people who are opposed to battery hens hold their convictions deeply, I can tell members.

John Carter: What does Nandor think about that?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: All the people he says he represents are, by this bill, virtually banned from trying to influence public opinion. The $60,000 is only the start of it. They are limited to $60,000 at the top, but if someone spends $5,000, that person has to register as a third party. Labour cannot stand the idea that someone out there is spending $5,000, which is about the cost of one mail-out going to a couple of thousand homes. That sum of money could not cover Gore. A mail-out in Gore means that someone qualifies as a paranoid critic of the Labour Government.

The SPCA in Gore and the Women’s Refuge are trying to raise money. Do members know why those organisations would count? Let us look at the definition of election advertising in the bill and see just how broad this paranoia goes. Clause 5(1)(ii) states that an election advertisement is any form of words or graphics, or both, that can be regarded as “encouraging or persuading voters to vote, or not to vote”—we are familiar with that; it is the rule now, in terms of the 3-month period—“for a type of party or for a type of candidate that is described or indicated by reference to views, positions, or policies that … are pursued (whether or not the name of a party or the name of a candidate is stated):”. So election advertising is anything someone says that might persuade someone to vote or not to vote—and members should listen to this—that is “described or indicated by reference to views, positions, or policies that are or are not held, taken or pursued …”, whether or not the party is named. So someone does not even need to say: “This is a National Party position.” Someone can just say: “I am against good climate change policy.”, and that counts, because National has the position of having good climate change policy.

But it gets worse. Clause 5(1)(iii) states: “taking a position on a proposition with which 1 or more parties … is associated;”. So if National is associated with people working hard, with self-reliance, and with getting ahead, and a person goes out and runs an ad that says: “I want New Zealanders to get ahead. Please get out and vote.”, then that will be covered, because it is a proposition—hard work—that is associated with National. Someone cannot advertise in favour of hard work, because that is associated with National. Someone cannot advertise against corruption, because that is associated with Labour—it is that simple.

This is straight out of Zimbabwe. In fact, if members read the rules of the former Soviet Union about election campaigning, they will see that those rules were less restrictive than these ones.

John Carter: Mugabe wrote them.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Mugabe would be proud of this. He cuts out the middle man; he just locks them up.

Labour has come up with the worst possible result in respect of electoral reform. All Labour’s mates thought they would get State funding. Well, the public said no to that. The Christchurch Press said that Labour would bring in a clear, robust, and transparent set of rules that would do away with the dark and potentially corrupt practices of the past, like the pledge card. Then the said that that was not what had happened, and that this legislation had Dr Cullen’s and Helen Clark’s fingerprints all over it. Helen Clark has paranoia and Dr Cullen is bluffing. Dr Cullen sounded big and tough all through last year about what Labour would do, but the Christchurch said the bill was a botch-up. Well, we could have told the that, because Minister Burton was doing it. The bill fails to fix the obvious flaws in the present system.

The Government is setting out to regulate political opinion for the whole of the election year. After 1 January next year nobody can have an opinion without it being counted against a spending limit. If anyone wants to have a public opinion and spends more than $5,000, that person will have to register. A person will have to register in New Zealand to have a public opinion! That is a disgrace! That is why this bill will go down. National members will oppose it with every fibre of their effort, because it must go down. The registration of Government critics is deeply paranoid, it is offensive, and it must be stopped. I say to Helen Clark that New Zealand will stop it.

Helen Clark is wrong again. She was wrong about the pledge card, she was wrong about Taito Phillip Field, she was wrong about the smacking bill, and she has totally misjudged public opinion on this. Will New Zealanders roll over and say: “Yes, Helen, please make me register, because I have an opinion you don’t like.”?

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) : I am absolutely appalled at that member, Bill English, standing in this House and saying what he did, when a select committee with National Party members unanimously pushed that we should have a change to electoral law, that we should have transparency, and that we should have accountability—all the things that are really important. That member stands in this House and says the National Party will not support this bill. He does not even say National will let the public of New Zealand have a say—not even that. He says it will oppose this bill. Why? And what was he frothing at the mouth the most about? It was about third-party funding. Why did that cut such a nerve? Bill English, the champion of the Post Primary Teachers Association (PPTA), and the friend of the unions! He is worried about the unions’ ability to communicate with their members, and that they will be stymied by being able to spend only $60,000 on third-party advertising. That is just a smokescreen.

We know why Mr English is so upset that he and National are not going to support the referral of this bill to a select committee. We know why he is going to insist on being part of the Justice and Electoral Committee and hearing submissions, when he is not even prepared to have an open mind and listen to what the public of New Zealand says, listen to what unions say, and listen to what the employers associations say. The Exclusive Brethren may even front up and have a view on the legislation. I know they do not vote, but they may have a view on third-party funding.

I am really proud to stand and speak in support of this bill. It is very, very welcome. The Justice and Electoral Committee will be delighted to have this bill before it, because at the heart of this bill is the principle that the public should have the highest confidence in our electoral system. They should have that, and I know they will when this bill has been through the select committee process and is back before this House. We need to have an electoral system that is transparent, fair, and not open to the undue influence of wealthy interest groups. We want to have a democracy that is informed, and where, in fact, interest groups can directly inform their members; where employers associations can directly communicate with their members, as can unions, churches, and any other organisation. But Labour says that when it comes to third-party funding, there has to be accountability: that the funding is declared, that it is clear where the funding comes from, and that there is a limit. We think that is very appropriate. So I am really proud to stand in support of the bill.

Indeed, it was the Justice and Electoral Committee that said this legislation was due. When the Minister was before the committee very recently, he was asked by members of the Opposition—and he will confirm this—

Hon Mark Burton: National Party members!

LYNNE PILLAY: —by National Party members—when we would get this legislation before the committee. National members said they wanted this legislation, and now they stand in this House and say that they will not vote for it, and that it would not even go to the select committee under National. That is appalling.

We are not cutting freedom of speech; we are ensuring there is freedom of speech. We are ensuring that votes will not be bought, that the public will have the information available to them, and that they will make an informed decision—and they will be able to do so under this legislation.

I commend the Minister. I know he has been very committed to this legislation. I know that the public of New Zealand are committed to it, and I really look forward, albeit at a bigger select committee, to hearing the submissions. I really look forward to the legislation coming before our committee. I commend this bill to the House.

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) : One thing that the motion Mark Burton will seek the leave of the House for later today does not deal with is replacing the chairperson of the committee that will hear submissions on the Electoral Finance Bill. After listening to that speech, I say that one thing is for sure: the current chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee, Lynne Pillay, will be completely out of her depth when it comes to dealing with those complex and technical issues. National will be making sure that I and Tony Ryall are on that committee for the hearing of submissions on the bill.

National has some major concerns about the way that this particular bill has been put together. Many of those concerns have been outlined by the Hon Bill English. I have spent some time over the last 24 hours on thinking about why Labour would take such a partisan approach to what has historically been a bipartisan topic—that of electoral reform. Yesterday, when we were in the general debate, I was thinking to myself, as a former chief National Party whip and as someone who has been on some of the more bipartisan committees that exist in this Parliament, that, generally speaking, senior Labour members who have been on those committees have been thoughtful about the way legislation is enacted and about the way the rules and conventions about Parliament are developed. They have been careful about that, because they realise that at some point Labour will be in the Opposition, and will have to deal with the convention, rule, or legislation that has been put in place on that basis. So I got to thinking about why Michael Cullen and Helen Clark would want to pass legislation that would, in future, limit and restrict Opposition parties as blatantly as this bill does.

Then the answer came to me. Actually, Helen Clark and Michael Cullen do not care about the Labour Party after they have finished with it; they are not in the slightest bit interested in the rules, regulations, and legislation that future Labour caucuses will have to work under. They are not in the slightest bit concerned about what will happen to the Labour Party in future if Labour members are sitting on the Opposition benches. All that Helen Clark and Michael Cullen are worried about is creating a legislative environment that regulates opinion that could in any way disagree with their programme, leading into this election. Those senior Labour politicians who have historically seen rule making and convention setting as being enduring and going beyond the next two or three Parliaments, because of the fact that those that fill the Treasury benches move back and forward, would have looked at this legislation and said it would disadvantage any Opposition party, no matter who was in Opposition.

But Helen Clark and Michael Cullen do not care about the Cunliffe-Cosgrove years to come. They do not care about whether Shane Jones will cope with this issue when he is in Opposition. Helen Clark and Michael Cullen do not care about Maryan Street and other MPs of the same intake having to deal, from the Opposition, with what this legislation does. They are regulating and legislating for one election, and for themselves. That is what makes this legislation not only partisan but incredibly short-sighted in respect of the enduring life of Parliament. It should not be about just the political careers of Michael Cullen and Helen Clark. That should concern those members of the Labour Party who will inevitably end up in Opposition, at some point.

I am deeply concerned about the partisan approach that this legislation has taken, when, historically, electoral reform has been negotiated and shared between the major political parties and the other parties in Parliament, and has operated in an enduring way. The curious thing about this legislation is that on the substantive issue there has been no consultation and no discussion with the major political parties, but when it comes to the procedural matter of the make-up of the select committee, that is a different kettle of fish altogether. All of a sudden the Minister of Justice is very interested in having conversations about how those matters can be expedited.

What this bill will do, apart from the matters pointed out by my colleague Bill English, is to have Greenpeace, the anti-whaling lobby, the battery hen lobby, Amnesty International, the Post Primary Teachers Association, the New Zealand Educational Institute, the Council of Trade Unions, and the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union all limited, in any one calendar year, in terms of what they can say, what they can print, and the message they can convey, even to the Labour Party. Expression of the political opinions of those organisations will be severely restricted and regulated. Do those groups understand that? This legislation is not just about shutting out Opposition criticism of Government policy; it is also about saying to third-party interest groups who seek to influence Government policy that they will be limited in the way they put out those opinions, as well.

Hon David Cunliffe: Hear, hear!

SIMON POWER: Well, I am sure that those parties that seek to influence Government policy would be very interested in that approach. This bill says to those parties and to Opposition parties that from 1 January there are limits, and that they will be regulated in what they say or do.

But, in the meantime, Government departments and ministries will continue to spew out so-called education campaigns about Government policy over which this legislation, funnily enough, does not have any authority whatsoever. We know that for the last 12 months or so, with regard to the issue of KiwiSaver, for example, across the areas of TV, press, and online advertising the advertising campaigns in respect of that Government initiative have cost just under $1.3 million. We know that there will be no problem in advertising, for just under $500,000, the issues relating to the educative aspects of the so-called 20 free hours of early childhood education. We know that the $16,000 spent in recent months on advertising and promoting Working for Families will not be caught by this legislation. What do we know? We know that a Government has an unlimited capacity, through ministries and departments, to promote and advertise Government policy, but that when it comes to Opposition parties, or for that matter to any interest groups that want to convey a position on a particular issue, their opinions will be regulated. Their opinions will be regulated, but as far as Government initiatives go there will be no such limitations, at all. The New Zealand public should be deeply concerned and worried about that.

I would ask the next Labour speaker one simple question: what happened to the tub-thumping around anonymous donations? Let us hear from the Labour members who stood in this House for 6 months in general debates, banging the table and saying they would deal to anonymous donations and expose the funders who are supposedly behind other political parties—except, allegedly, the Labour Party. What happened to that tough rhetoric? Perhaps the next Labour Minister or member to speak could let the public know where that particular point is contained in this bill. I am just a simple boy from the provinces, but I could not find any reference in this bill to the hard-line rhetoric we have heard from Labour members on that issue.

If the Government thinks it will refer this bill to the select committee and get away with the Opposition parties rolling over on those technical and thematic issues, then I say that that will not happen. The playing field in every democracy should be level, and this Government is trying to tilt it in a way that excludes not only political parties but also interest groups with genuine policy concerns and issues that they want to put before the public. We must remember that this bill is not for the benefit of the Labour Party; it is for the benefit of Michael Cullen and Helen Clark.

R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) : I have listened to previous speakers with a lot of interest. I have listened particularly to Mr Bill English and Mr Simon Power. They should be ashamed of themselves, and I have listened for that reason.

Mr English described this Electoral Funding Bill—which New Zealand First will support being sent to a select committee—as like something that would come out of Zimbabwe, because he believes that it stifles free speech. I will tell members, in case they have forgotten, about something that was very Zimbabwe-like. It happened when New Zealand First was formed. In the very first election we fought, we were not only barred from getting a share of public broadcasting money, but also barred from using our own money. That is what happens in Zimbabwe, and that is what the party of Mr Bill English and Mr Simon Power did to us. It was aided and abetted by the Labour Party, whose members should be ashamed to hear that. We were barred in those years from going on public radio to send out our message. That is what Zimbabwean policies are all about, and National is guilty of doing that.

The other thing that those two speakers in particular talked about was 1 January being the date in an election year that the countdown of election spending clicks in. National members should be reminded that that is critical, because after the 2005 election they were the ones who called the cops, to use my colloquial language. I still have contacts in the National Party, and we know that its members spent more public money on the election than any other party in this House. [Interruption] Yes, they did. They spent more public money on the 2005 election than any other party in this House, by a considerable margin.

Members of the public who are listening to this debate will be hearing Mr David Bennett saying “Pay it back.”, and they will be wondering what I am talking about. I am talking about the 3-month rule. Nobody knows when the clock starts ticking, because nobody knows when the election will be called. National did not know, either, in 2005. Does anybody know why I say that? Because I have absolutely cast-iron evidence that National members believed that the election would be in July 2005. They started spending 3 months prior to July, because they believed that the election would be then. Mr David Bennett is quiet now; he knows that that is correct. National members started spending 3 months before July, and they poured it out. They poured it out. The ACT party was so confident that National was correct that the local ACT candidate in Hamilton went on holiday. He booked his holiday for October, because he thought the election would be in July. He had been reliably told that by the National Party, and the National Party tipped the dough out 3 months before July.

But we never know when that 3-month clock will start ticking, when that 3-month period prior to the election will start. In the case of the National Party, it had spent the bulk of its money before the 3-month period, and that is why that party got away with a seemingly correctly funded election. But it was exactly the opposite.

John Carter: That was so bad! It was naughty!

R DOUG WOOLERTON: Mr John Carter is saying it was naughty, and he is tapping his hand. And he is right: it was naughty. But what was really naughty was for those members to say that National was the only honest party in this House, and that they did not spend public funds. They spent more than anybody else, and that is able to be proved. They spent it before the 3-month period, by mistake.

I want to mention another reason—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the member, but there is far too much interjection. It is almost getting to the stage of being barracking, which is not permitted. I refer members to Speakers’ ruling 57/3 and remind them that politics is the art of the possible, and the possible we will explore today is good order.

R DOUG WOOLERTON: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for your fairness. I draw the attention of the public to another reason why New Zealand First is supporting this Electoral Finance Bill. It concerns an election campaign in Tauranga. This is the first time that I have seen people’s names mentioned in a Bills Digest, and it is the first time that I have seen an issue mentioned in a Bills Digest: “The Peters v Clarkson election petition”—I am reading this directly—“although not upheld in court, raised questions about the interpretation of current law, for example, the treatment of dual-purpose advertisements.” It was argued—successfully, as it happens—that a billboard and, in some cases, a whole wall of advertising in Tauranga were meant for another purpose. They were not meant for election advertising. Because the advertising had been done skilfully by Mr Clarkson’s team—it had not been done by Mr Clarkson personally—the court could not get enough evidence to rule it out.

We cannot have those sorts of things happening, because that is not working to the intent of the law. It is using every damn trick in the book to get round the law, and that is what the National Party did. Its members themselves are responsible for this bill coming into the House. New Zealand First members say that it is about time, because we need clarity around these things. We need some honesty to come into electoral law, and we need to go forward being able to sell our messages without the threat of big money winning every time. Thank heavens it did not win in the last election, and we hope it will not win in the next!

New Zealand First also applauds the removal of political representatives from the Electoral Commission when it comes to radio broadcasting. We think that should have happened a long time ago. That situation is an overhang from the first-past-the post system. In fact, New Zealand First members have for a number of years tried to get ourselves on to that commission, to even it up, but our first preference was always to get rid of political appointees, so we are pleased to see that that will happen.

I have not spoken a lot about third-party advertising and what has become known as the Exclusive Brethren contributions to political campaigns. Clearly, that is something that must be attended to. It is relatively new. Everybody understands—and it is fair cop—that business will give to National, will give to Labour, and will give a very small bit, I must say, to New Zealand First. We understand that that is offset on the other side by the contribution from the unions, which in the main back the Labour Party, but some unionists vote for National, New Zealand First, the Māori Party, United Future, or whatever. But it is clearly wrong for a group to come in with a completely full-on campaign, with the knowledge, as we have found, of the party that is to be the beneficiary of its largesse. It is completely wrong for a group to come in in that way, and this bill attends to that, as well, and we applaud it.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) : It is fundamental to our democracy that it is one person, one vote—not one dollar, one vote. It is fundamental to our democracy that the election should not be bought by the biggest spender, which is the way it has always been accepted it should be in the United States. The pre-election debate needs to be a contest of policies, but in that country, which has no caps on spending, it is a contest of who can attract the most campaign donations.

Already, the United States presidential contenders are being ranked in the media by how much campaign funding they have been able to attract. Under that system, no party representing ordinary people could ever win an election over a party representing the very rich and the big corporates. So it has proved to be, in that country.

The 2005 election brought those concerns to the fore in New Zealand and highlighted a number of very undemocratic practices. The Exclusive Brethren conducted an initially secret campaign to discredit Labour and the Greens on behalf of the National Party—and we know from the emails that National knew about it—spending over $1 million that did not count towards National’s campaign spending cap. Other non-party organisations, such as unions, spent significant money advertising on behalf of other parties, although they did so quite transparently, not clandestinely, and it did not involve anything like as much money.

As the book The made clear, National received $1.7 million of anonymous donations from trusts that were designed to disguise the origin of those donations—because if they had not been, they would have been given directly to the party. But senior officials in the party knew of the source of that money and, therefore, knew whom the party was beholden to.

Labour received $300,000 of anonymous donations, which may be why it is not keen to curb the practice. A great deal of money was spent on campaigning, including electioneering billboards, before the 3-month period before the election. Therefore, it did not count towards the spending cap.

The Green Party is deeply concerned that those practices should not happen again. So what is needed to ensure that? We believe that there are five areas that need immediate change, and that others should be considered in the longer term.

First, there must be limits on what parties can spend, so that policies and credibility, not budgets, determine the outcome, and that must be the case not just for the 3 months before the election. Second, there must be limits to spending by proxy organisations, so that they do not just become a way for parties to get around the spending cap.

Third, anonymous donations over a small amount—we propose $1,000—must be outlawed. It is fundamentally important that voters know who is funding parties and to whom they are beholden. People and particularly corporations give large donations to political parties not out of altruism but in order to influence or reward policy. That information must be before the voters when they look at the policies the parties are offering.

Fourth, there must be limits, we believe, on the size of donations. It is fundamentally undemocratic if parties representing big business or very rich individuals can raise their entire campaign budget from a few very large donations and have no need for broad-based, grassroots support.

Fifth, we must end the practice of having representatives of the two old parties on the Electoral Commission when it allocates broadcasting funding under the pretence that the largest Opposition party can represent all the smaller parties. The Tui billboard has a good expression for that.

The Greens are voting for this bill because it goes halfway. It deals with Nos 1, 2, and 5 of the concerns I have expressed, but we are very disappointed that the Government has backed away from dealing with the other two.

We are supporting the bill because it implements Green Party policy on extending the pre-election period back to 1 January in an election year. That will ensure that an election campaign like the National Party billboards in 2005 can still happen, but it will be part of the capped election spending. We support the rolling disclosure of donations above $20,000 during a campaign, because it is not much help to voters to find out in April of the year following an election who has bankrolled the new Government.

We support the bill because it removes all political appointments from the Electoral Commission when it is determining broadcasting funding, leaving that to independent analysis rather than horse-trading on the commission. We have been arguing about that for many years, so it is good to see that in the bill.

We support the bill because it attempts to control the practice of re-routeing election spending via third parties. I was appalled to hear the National Party this afternoon defending the campaign by the Exclusive Brethren. [Interruption] Oh, yes. They did not mention the Exclusive Brethren. They talked about the unions, the Post Primary Teachers Association, and the environmental movement—and we know they have always been strong supporters of those organisations! But we know who they really meant.

Numerous authorities here and overseas, including the New Zealand royal commission and many commissions on electoral campaign funding reform overseas, have supported controls on non-party participation in elections. This is not a new idea; it is New Zealand catching up with what many others in the world have proposed.

I think that the National Party has gall to base its opposition to the bill around defending its mates in the Exclusive Brethren and their right to do what they did at the last election. However, we do believe that the way this legislation attempts to control third parties needs another look, and we will be very involved in the select committee scrutiny of the bill.

There is a fine line to tread between controlling ways of bypassing parties’ spending caps and completely muzzling freedom of speech by many citizens’ organisations, and this bill goes a bit too far. Does it mean, for example, that any organisation that expresses any views in an advertisement in an election year, even if it does not mention parties, voting, or the election, is breaching the rules? Organisations have an absolute right to influence public opinion if they identify themselves and if they do not do it in support of a political party.

The Kyoto Forestry Association has already said it will breach these rules in its attempt to change policy on the allocation of Kyoto Protocol forest credits. I do not agree with Roger Dickie that credits are a property right belonging to forestry investors, but I will stand up for their right to put forward that view publicly, as long as they do not use the opportunity to say: “Vote for X and do not vote for Y.” And I hold that view even though they are, in fact, likely to tell people to vote for the Greens, because they said we have the best policy on forest credits, even though it is not the same as their policy. It is in this case a matter of principle for us.

Would the Environment and Conservation Organisations of New Zealand’s Vote for the Environment 2005 campaign, which invited parties to complete a questionnaire about their policies and published the results, be illegal now if it cost more than $60,000? We have to find a better way of doing this, and I look forward to the select committee debate.

But we in the Green Party are very disappointed that the bill goes barely halfway to giving us a fair campaign finance system. It still does not address the serious issues of anonymous donations, and it does not address caps on individual donations. There are no controls on secret donation laundering trusts, there is no cap on what a large corporation can give, and there are no restrictions on overseas donations, including donations from foreign Governments.

I wonder whether members have ever reflected on the extent to which foreign Governments would have the capacity to influence the New Zealand elections by funding some of the participants. I refer here to Raymond Miller’s book published in early 2005, Party Politics in New Zealand, where he quoted Peter Dunne as saying that United Future drew on the expertise offered gratis by an American political consultant who was put in touch with the party by the US embassy in Wellington. So the US Government’s representatives in Wellington provided a US consultant’s services free to the party that was trying to give the Government a way out on genetic engineering—and it succeeded in giving the Government that way out. I do not think that overseas organisations should be able to participate in our elections.

Finally, I will comment on the question of the select committee, because there was some discussion of that matter at the beginning of the debate today. The Green Party has been calling for months for this bill—ever since the beginning of its development—to be considered by a select committee that represents all parties. Therefore, we were keen to support the proposal that it go to a select committee that has that representation. However, at the same time, there is logic to having it go to a committee that has the background in the issues and has discussed them before, and that also has the start-up intellectual capital to deal with them.

So when we told the Government that we were minded to support a proposal where this bill would go to a committee representing all members, and the Government offered the way out of extending the Justice and Electoral Committee to represent all parties, we thought that was an ideal solution, and we will be supporting that. I hope that no member will be churlish enough to prevent those members from being added to the Justice and Electoral Committee.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) :Tēna koe, e te Kaihautu. I ngā marama 18, i heke te ngākau tapatahi o te Pāremata nā te whakapono o te iwi tērā pea me kore rātau e whakapono, ko tātau o tēnei Whare he tāngata tōtika. Nā te aha? Nā ngā mahi o ngā pāti tawhito e rua, i ngā mahi utu pāpāho a Nāhinara me te kāri kī taurangi a Reipa. E hika mā! Ko te mutunga mai o te hē, ko te wā i uru mai tētahi pire i rō Whare nei hei whakatika i ngā mahi, i mahia i waho i te ture, arā, te whakapaunga hē o te $1.17 miriona. Ka taea e tātau te kite ka pēhea tō tātau tū i te rangahau a te Readers Digest i tā rātau rangahautanga i waenganui i te 600 tāngata i Aotearoa nei. Ko te pātai, “Ko wai o ēnei momo tāngata ka whakapono koe?”. E 26 ngā momo tāngata i whakarārangihia, ā, ko tātau kei raro noa atu i ngā kaihoko whenua, ngā kaituhi niu pepa, ngā kaihoko motokā hoki.

He maha noa atu ngā take kāre te tangata e whakapono ana ki a tātau ngā kaiwhakaara ture, pēnei i ēnei: ngā kaupapa Mahi mō ngā Whānau, e whakaparahako ana i ngā tamariki ko ō rātau mātua kei runga penihana; te Hanganga Ture Ika, i puta mai ahakoa kāre i hui i te taha o rātau kei te hī, kei te hoko ika rānei; ngā mahi whakaiti i a tātau anō i rō i tēneki Whare; te takahi i ngā ingoa pai o ngā kaimahi ā-Kāwanatanga ahakoa, ko ngā Minita kē kei te hē; he mahi ngāwari noa iho te whakaae kia haina tētahi o tātau i te Tikanga Whanonga.

Nā tēnei āhuatanga o te noho, ka hiahia te Kāwanatanga kia whakapono te iwi, ka mārama ake te titiro, whakatau tika i ngā nekeneketanga a ngā kaitono, ngā pāti, me ērā atu kei te kimi pōti. Ko tāku, kare pea e ea ēnei wawata.

Ko ngā tikanga whakatau tika kia mahi pono, ā, kia kite mārama, kia huraina ngā mahi, koi nei ngā tohu e hiahia ana e te Māori hei kaupapa whai. Ko ngā kaupapa e pā ana ki te pire, ko ngā kaupapa e kī ana, kāre e taea e ērā nā te nuinga i whakatau hei kaiwhakahaere mēnā he mahi hē ā-ture, he mahi tūkino, he mahi pirau rānei. Ko te kaupapa o te kaitiakitanga, he kaupapa kia mōhio mārama tātau me mahi ngā mahi i runga i te whakaaro pai ki te ao me te whenua, ā, me manaaki hoki i te iwi. Me manaaki i ngā rawa a te iwi. Nā te āhua o te kaitiakitanga ka tono mātau kia kaua te moni e whakaritea, ko wai ka wikitoria i ngā wā pōti.

Koi nei te ahua o te New York City i whakatauirahia e Michael Bloomberg. Nāna i toha te $140 miriona o āna ake moni kia wikitōria a ia i ngā pōti e rua mō te tūnga, koro matua o Te Āporo Nui. Ā, kāti, ka taea pea te kī, ko te $140,000 i riro i a Nāhinara mai i ngā rōpū tiaki moni, he koha kore noa iho te iti hoki mēnā ka whakatakotohia i te taha o tērā a Bloomberg engari, ko te kaupapa kē te kōrero. Ko te kaupapa “kōrero ai te moni”, ngā kaupapa rānei kia mārama ake te titiro whakatau tika, kia mahi tika i raro i te ture, koi rā kē ngā kaupapa. Ko tā te Pāti Māori kia kore ngā tōrangapū e nanakia ki te hanga āhuatanga ā-rōia nei kia kore e mōhiotia ko wai ngā kaituku moni ki a rātau.

Nā te pire nei ka taea kia riro e ngā tōrangapū ngā koha piki atu ki te $10,000 te rahi, ā, ka taea hoki te huna ko wai te kaikoha. I te mutunga, ka riro e ngā tōrangapū ētahi koha kaitā mai i ērā, he nui ō rātau rawa, ā, ko te waka hei kawe mai, he waka kāre tātau i te mōhio nō hea, ā, ko ngā kaikoha, kāre tātau e mōhio ana, ko wai. E hāngai pū ana ngā tikanga a te koha ki tēnei take, kia mōhiotia whānuitia, ko wai kei te koha tōrangapū. I mua o te taenga mai o te “tikanga puhera moni”, ka whakatakotohia ngā koha i runga marae kia kite te katoa, tino mārama rawa ana hoki.

He pērā tonu te āhua o ō tātau whanaunga o Te Puku o Te Wheke me ā rātau takapau rauiti, hākaru tapa hoki ka whakatakotohia hei koha i ā rātau hui whakahirahira. Ka taea pea e tātau te whakarite, mēnā kāre te kaikoha e hiahia ana kia mōhiotia ko wai ia, tērā pea me kore ia e whakatakoto koha.

Kei te mōhio mātau o te Pāti Māori ehara mā te moni anake ka wikitōria. Ko tā ngā kaipōti he kaingākau i ngā mahi a te kaikimi pōti, ā, mēnā ka tū motuhake taua tangata mō ngā kaupapa i whakaritea e ngā kaipōti. Ahakoa he āwhina tā te moni kāre e taea e ia mēnā he koretake te kaitono. Engari, ka hoki anō ki te waiwai o tēnei, arā, te traumata paparua. Mehemea ko te whakaaro kei muri i te pire nei kia nui ake a ngāi tātau, kia whai wāhi te uru ki ngā āhuatanga pōti.

Nā te mea, kāre he aukatinga i ngā koha huna, ngā koha rānei kei te haramai i ngā ara, kāre tātau i te mōhio nō hea, ka puta te kōrero o te Rōpū Huaki Mahi Kāwanatanga, kāre i ea te kī taurangi a te Kāwanatanga kia whakatuwheratia, kia kore ai e uru mai te pirau ki ngā tikanga pōti.

Ko tētahi ake o ō mātau tino take ka pā ki ngā tikanga whakamōhio, whakapiri atu ki te katoa. Ka tautoko rawa mātau i te tono kia tirohia ngā kaupapa pōti e tētahi rōpū wehe kē, ā, ka tirohia anō te āhua o ngā pūtea mō tēnā, mō tēnā o ngā tōrangapū. Engari, ko tā mātau he whakatū rōpū ā-iwi whānui, wehe kē hei titiro i te āhua o ngā pūtea ka riro e ngā rōpū tōrangapū. Ko tā mātau whakapono, ehara mā tātau ngā mema Pāremata e hanga i ēnei ture i runga i te āhua kua wehe atu tātau i te iwi. Ko te kōrero a te kotahitanga, me kimi tātau i ngā whakaaro whānui ā-iwi, kia taea e rātau te kī, āe, nā mātau ka mana te kāwanatanga ā-iwi.

Mēnā he mana kei ngā kōrero a tēnei Pāremata kia pūmau te iwi ki ngā mahi o rō Pāremata, me tīmata mai i ō tātau rangatahi. I kitea e ngā rangahau i tērā tau, e 51 paihēneti o te Māori kāre i te pōti i taka i waenganui i te tau 20 ki te 30. He ōrite te āhua o te pōti a te Māori ahakoa he pōti whānui o Aotearoa, he pōti whāiti o te rohe. Nā, i a tātau e kimi huarahi ana kia ngākau pai te iwi whānui i te kāwanatanga ā-iwi, me ako tātau me pēwhea te mirimiri i te rangatahi i te tuatahi.

Mēnā kei te pono tātau me te āhua mō āpōpō me uru pono ki ngā kōrero whakawhitiwhiti whakaaro, kāre mātau e whai i ngā tikanga whakamōhio a Reipa. Kāre mātau i te kī me hui hei wānanga whakaaro ahakoa i tū te hui i ngā hāoro e rua i muri mai o te pānuitanga o te kaupapa mō te hui i rō nūpepa, arā, te Dominion Post i taua ata.

He mana rangatira kei muri i ngā kaupapa o tēnei pire, he kōrero mō te tika, te pono mō te kore huna. Ko te raruraru, “Kei runga te kōrero, kei raro te rahurahu.” Ka hunaia tonu nō hea ngā koha, kāre e rere kē ki ērā tikanga kei te mau i tēnei wā. Mēnā ka noho tonu ngā mahi huna, ka taea e ētahi te whakapirau i te tangata. Kei te pā pōuri mātau kāre i te tū tētahi hui i waenganui i te iwi nā te mea ko tā mātau wawata, kia whai wāhi te iwi whānui ki te whakatakoto i ō rātau whakaaro. Kia taea hoki e rātau te kī, ā, nā mātau tēnei kāwanatanga ā-iwi.

Kāre mātau mō te pōti mō tēnei pire. Kāre hoki he kiko i roto, ā, ko ngā kōrero kei ngā ngutu noa iho e titi ana. Ahakoa te kōrero, kāre te korukoru e pōti mō te Kirihimete, ko ngā korukoru kei roto i tēnei Whare, kei te pōti mō tō rātau Kirihimete nā te mea, ko te mea pōuri ki a mātau, kei rātau te mana i tēnei wā. Tēnā koe.

• [An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[Greetings, Mr Assistant Speaker. Over the last 18 months, the integrity of Parliament has been thrown into disrepute to such an extent that people’s belief that politicians can be trusted has been badly eroded. The degenerating political environment arose out of the actions of both of the older parties, with their interpretation of rules over broadcasting spending, and the pledge-card fiasco. Gracious me! Events sank to an all-time low when a bill was pushed through the House to validate unlawful spending—$1.17 million of misspending, to be precise. How low, can be gauged by the Reader’s Digest annual “Who do you trust?” survey of 600 New Zealanders, in which politicians ranked at the bottom of 26 professions, scooping the barrel below real-estate agents, journalists, and car salesmen.

Of course, declining trust in politicians is also caused by things such as Working for Families proposals, which fail to highlight their discriminatory impacts on the children of beneficiary parents; Fisheries Act legislation, which emerged without the key industry sector groups having been first consulted; personal character assassinations of members across the House; besmirching the reputation of public servants for the faults of Ministers; or even as simple a thing as failing to grant leave for an MP to sign up to a code of conduct.

It is against this sort of setting that the Government seriously wants the New Zealand public to believe that this bill will bring about greater transparency and accountability on the part of candidates, parties, and others engaged in election activities.

For the people of the land, the concepts of accountability, transparency, and integrity are central to the trust that iwi Māori place in others.

That is the New York City factor—epitomised by Michael Bloomberg, who spent more than $140 million of his own money to win his two mayoral elections in New York.

The Electoral Finance Bill enables political parties to accept donations of up to $10,000 without the donor revealing his or her identity. In essence, parties are able to receive huge donations from wealthy donors funnelled through secret trusts and anonymous donors with no one being the wiser. The concept of koha is, I think, relevant to this issue, of declaring the identity of the source in political donations. Prior to the invention of the “money in the envelope” ritual, gifts were often laid on marae for all to see—and it was indeed extremely transparent.

We see amongst our Pasifika whanaunga, too, the very public nature of the gifting process—finely woven mats or tapa cloth being laid down as a contribution to a significant ceremony. One could perhaps conclude that if the sources did not want to be identified, then perhaps they should not gift.

We in the Māori Party recognise, of course, that money does not guarantee victory. What attracts the voters is the experience of candidates, and whether they are prepared to stand up for the issues the constituency expects of them. While money helps, it cannot rescue a poor candidate. But it does get back to this essential double standard, if the aim of the bill is to restore confidence and increase public participation in the electoral process.

The fact that there is no specific ban on donations from trusts, or ones made anonymously, prompted the Coalition for Open Government to say that it falls far short of the Government’s promise to create a more open and incorruptible election system.

The other major issue the Māori Party has with this bill is around the process of consultation, and public engagement. We absolutely support the proposal for an independent review of the structure and organisation of electoralagencies, which will also address how political parties are funded.

We believe that if this Parliament is really serious about creating public and political confidence and participation in parliamentary democracy, then the place to start is with the hope of our future—young people. Research released last year by the Electoral Commission found that 51 percent of Māori non-voters were in the 20 to 30-year-old age-group.

If we are really committed to tomorrow, we need to be committed to engaging and truly involving ourselves in the debate. We do not mean consultation as Labour sees it—which in our case was a briefing a couple of hours after the Dominion Post had already told us everything we needed to know.

The intentions of this bill are honourable, mouthing commitments to democracy, transparency, and integrity. The problem is that the fine print does not match the platitudes; the fact that donations are still anonymous in effect endorses the status quo, wherein political influence and corruption can occur through secret means. We are also greatly disappointed that consultation amounted to nothing. That is a particular concern, because we do have such a huge interest in ensuring that the Parliament is connected, responsive, and accountable to the people of the land; being able to have discussions together around that is what we would think could happen in a democracy.

We cannot vote for a bill that has so much rhetoric attached to it and lacks real substance. While it is said that turkeys never vote for Christmas, it appears that the turkeys in this House will be voting for their Christmas, as they have the numbers at this time. Thank you.]

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) : United Future will support the introduction of the Electoral Finance Bill and its reference to a select committee, because it thinks there are, at the moment, issues relating to the way in which the financial treatment of elections occurs that need to be updated. I am one of those who think that laws relating to electoral finance and spending ought to be changed rarely, that changes should occur only when circumstances permit, and that they should occur on the basis of the widest possible consensus about what those changes might be. I am always wary of members of Parliament being seen to set out our own rules in this respect. I must say that as this debate has unfolded over the last few months United Future has been concerned that it is being conducted in an excessively partisan manner.

The trick to electoral change and laws relating to electoral change is to get buy-in from the earliest stage. We have been advocating for some time that prior to the presentation of this legislation to the House it would have been prudent for the Government to involve at least the major Opposition party in the work it was doing, and we consider it to be a matter of some regret that we have proceeded to this stage without that occurring. In that regard the proposal for an enhanced select committee, albeit through some adjustments to the membership of the Justice and Electoral Committee, is a useful and positive step. It will mean, at least, that all the parties in this Parliament will have the opportunity of hearing the evidence on the bill and, hopefully, then reaching some measured conclusions about the way forward. But I repeat the concern that it would have been better, in retrospect, for that to have been the case from the time the bill was being crafted, because, in many respects, the issues that this bill deals with are not deeply contentious between the parties.

There are some issues where people have strong views but, in reality, I think most of us are aware of the fact that there needs to be some tidying-up of the law in this regard. It is not acceptable in a free and open society, where free expression of opinion is paramount, that some people’s opinions account for more, not because of the merit or otherwise of the opinion, but because of the financial support that lies behind it. The rules in New Zealand have generally been interpreted pretty fairly by all the players in the electoral scene. But it is fair to say that the instance of the Brethren church campaign at the last election did go beyond that element of fairness that most of us have traditionally understood to be the case.

I am not saying that the Brethren Church campaign is the only instance of its type over the years, because clearly it is not, but it is certainly the most blatant. Equally, I am not saying that outside groups have no role in the electoral process, or have no right to express an opinion or seek to influence other people’s opinions on that process. After all, that is what political parties, which we are all about, do routinely. But where that practice occurs, just as there are constraints on the ways in which political parties must operate, and the accountabilities that apply to them, so too should there be similar constraints and accountabilities on those seeking to influence the voting choices of others. I see the changes proposed in this regard being addressed, really, to that particular point.

There will be issues—and I am happy for the select committee to give a lot of consideration to these—about whether, for instance, the $60,000 figure that has been included in the bill is the appropriate one. If it is not appropriate, then let us devise a figure that is more appropriate but that also reflects the fundamental point of ensuring a free and fair competitive election process. I think that the changes that the bill proposes with regard to the electoral clock starting to tick from 1 January each year make some sense in an environment where we do not know until comparatively late in the piece precisely when the election will occur.

I do have some concern about whether the amount set in the legislation is, in fact, a fair and adequate one, noting always, because of the ways in which electoral law is interpreted, and the ways in which we as members of this House do our job, that, whatever limit is set, there will always be an inbuilt advantage to the incumbent. It is one of those matters that simply goes with the territory, because we are out there in our respective guises, day in and day out, being members of Parliament. Those seeking to be members of Parliament are simply always competing against that incumbency. So, again, if a different figure is to be set, let there be no illusion that this somehow will resolve the difficulty, because it will not. It will, perhaps, make it a little fairer in some senses, but essentially the point will remain.

I also note with approval the bill’s provisions regarding the way in which electoral broadcast time is to be allocated, and the removal of political representatives from that process. It used to be easy in the days of a bipartisan system to have one representative from each side making that choice, or being involved in the making of that choice. It becomes more difficult in a multi-party environment, and I think it actually places grave strain on both the representative of the Opposition and the representative of the Government to have to take on other representational roles as well. Clearly, to have a broadcasting authority with eight representatives from all of the different parties would be impractical, so I think in an environment where the formula is fairly clear-cut, the understandings are clear, and people have a chance to make their submissions and to be heard before the authority, the best option is the removal altogether of political representation from that body.

A number of other measures set out in this bill are much more technical in nature—for instance, relating to the way in which donated time is to be calculated, and how services performed that do not have a distinct financial value are to be interpreted, as well. But there are some issues that are beyond the scope of this bill. I suspect that they come into the category of still being too hard. They relate to all of the electronic communications that are now becoming far more paramount. For instance, how could we, if we ever tried, value a text messaging campaign that some parties may well choose to adopt as part of their election expenditure?

The point behind this is that whatever law we put in place, and however well meaning and earnest we are about it, we will quickly find that the political parties, and the human beings who populate them, being the creatures they are, will find ways of getting around those provisions. So to that extent our electoral law is always a catch-up law. It is always taking a situation that has been found to be obviously failing and seeking to correct that. We cannot write the perfect law in this regard, and that is why I have some suspicion about the academics and the theoreticians who say: “This process should be handled by us. Set up an independent commission to run these things and make these decisions.” With all due respect to their well-meaning intent, I do not think that would work, because ultimately this is a political process. It is about the way in which our political system works. Our political system comes with a lot of nuances and subtleties that the well-meaning theoretician standing on the outside simply would not understand.

I conclude as I began. I think this bill has some useful measures in it. United Future members will certainly be supporting its going to the select committee. We are looking forward to participating in that committee and hearing the submissions, but it is a matter of regret that will taint the passage of this bill that it has been put together in a way that has seen a bare majority involved in its construction, and a significant minority excluded. The one lesson to emerge from this process is that for robust, credible law in the future, it is best to have as many people as possible involved in its drafting, or its evolution, at the start, to get the buy-in, to get the support, and to remove the suspicion that it is being done at the behest of one group to advantage it at the expense of another. I hope that is not the case with this legislation when it comes back to the House and is eventually passed. It will be a test of the select committee, and the participation of members in that, to ensure that that is not so.

Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) : The previous speaker talked about his suspicions about this seedy Electoral Finance Bill and how he hopes that it is not all about giving one group an advantage over all others. Well, I have to tell the member that this bill is all about giving the Labour Party an advantage over all others. The party that stole the last election now wants to buy the next one! It wants to buy the next election by having restrictions on everybody except the Government. Every New Zealander who wants to express his or her view will be restricted in how much money he or she can spend, except the members of the Labour Government.

This is a Government that has spent tens of millions of dollars in the last 12 months promoting itself—Working for Families, police recruitment, and KiwiSaver. It has spent millions and millions of taxpayers’ dollars promoting itself, and what has it brought to Parliament this week? It is a seedy, Louisiana, Huey Long - type bill that will suppress free speech in this country. I repeat what I told the House earlier on: the party that stole the last election intends to buy the next, through using millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money.

But I will tell members one thing: good will overcome evil, time and time again. The evil of this legislation will not be allowed to stand. When New Zealanders find out that the Labour Party is going to restrict all public advertising and how much can be spent, for the whole year of election year, they will ask: “What’s gone wrong here?”.

We take our democracy for granted in this country. Free elections and a free press help to protect our democratic rights—our rights of free speech and our rights to criticise the policies of the Government. But these rights are not automatic. We have to stand up for them, and we have to stand up against those who want to undermine our rights to have a say. This bill does not apply just to political parties. This bill applies to any New Zealander who wants to speak out against the Labour Party. If people oppose a political party’s policy and wish to publicise their opposition, they will have to register. If people want to put out an ad that says: “Let’s be hard-working and get ahead”, and the ad does not mention a party, it does not say to vote for National or not to vote for Labour, it just says they want people to work hard and get ahead—and that is associated with the National Party, and certainly not with the left—they will have to register their views. If people oppose a political party’s policy and wish to publicise their opposition to it, wherever their organisation spends over $100 a week they must register with the Government to exercise their right to free speech. If their organisation is going to spend over $100 a week in an advertising campaign, over a year, then they will have to go to the Government and register so that they can say what they want.

Under this bill it will be illegal for any third-party organisation to spend over $60,000. Well, actually, I do not think the lefties in the Council of Trade Unions, the Post Primary Teachers Association, and the New Zealand Educational Institute have worked that out yet. If we look at the advertising in most election campaigns, who do we see are the big third-party spenders? They are the unions—the very same organisations who are clicking the ticket with the bargaining fee that they are cleaning up out of everybody. For instance, in the case of the Spotless Services workers, of the $16 million for low-paid workers the unions got $1 million. That is the sort of stuff that is going to fund the Labour Party at the next election.

Labour wants to restrict New Zealanders from criticising its policies. Labour will have unlimited Government funds. It is spending $15 million to promote Working for Families, $7.5 million for KiwiSaver, and $5 million for the Accident Compensation Corporation’s Covered campaign. Imagine what it will do in election year.

Imagine that there are huge restrictions on political parties. Do members realise that if a candidate is selected in February next year, and the election is in October, all that the candidate will be able to spend is the $20,000. Do members realise that that is all they will be able to spend? We will have this situation where New Zealand First will start doing what happens in England. People there are not selected as the party candidate; they are selected as the prospective party candidate. If someone is a prospective party candidate, he or she is not a party candidate. That is why they have that phrase over there—so they can avoid all the campaigning rules. That is what will happen here.

I say to Labour that these policies simply cannot last. The unions, which will now find they are restricted, will ask Helen Clark to measure this bill against all her rhetoric about anonymous donations. I ask members to remember that this is the woman who got over $800,000 of anonymous donations when she first became Prime Minister. It was the biggest lot of anonymous donations in the history of New Zealand, and it was received by the Labour Party when it came to power.

What did Helen Clark say about this issue? She said in December 2006: “I think the public wants to know who is funding political parties. They want to know who is pulling the strings, if they are pulling the strings through funding.” That is what Helen Clark said. Then she said: “I look forward to the National Party support for clamping down on anonymous donations.” Helen Clark said, on 6 September 2006: “I understand that in Australia everything over $250 has to be declared. That sounds like a good idea to me.” But what did she say yesterday? Ms Clark said: “Banning anonymous donations in their current form without providing additional State funding would have led to parties across the spectrum struggling for funding.” So this is the party that said: “Let’s get rid of anonymous donations.”, but now she says we are not going to do that, because it would lead to parties struggling for funding.

What does that mean? Banning anonymous donations would mean no money for Labour, therefore what does Labour do? There will be no money for anybody! Well, that is not what Labour is doing. There will be no money for Labour, so it will not let anybody else spend anything. That is what Labour is proposing. Helen Clark said: “No money for Labour, so we won’t let anybody else spend anything else.” Every member of that Labour Party should have been hanging his or her head in shame as I read that this morning. For over a year it was reported that Labour spent every day moaning about these secret donations, and, as has been noted in a publication today: “The National Party agreed that these donations should end. Helen Clark and Labour have decided unilaterally to leave it out, because Labour would have struggled for funding without such money.”—that is according to www.kiwiblog.co.nz. Is that not inconsistent?

Hon Bill English: It’s completely normal for Helen Clark.

Hon TONY RYALL: That is right. On the one hand she was saying to get rid of these anonymous donations, but when that was going to affect Labour’s funding, it was: “Oh no, we don’t think we can do that.” That is completely deceitful. That is what this bill is about—it is deceitful. This bill means that the Labour Government can spend whatever it likes, but no one else can.

I have to say that the best thing about this bill going to a select committee is that all the parties will have an option to have a say. All the parties will be able to decide whether this bill is democratic. I think it is undemocratic. If anybody had stood up in this House and said that in Zimbabwe Mugabe had just passed a bill that said parties could not advertise or promote over the whole year of the election, third parties could not spend more than $60,000, but Mugabe could spend whatever he liked, Phil Goff would have frothed and his veins would have popped in outrage. The veins would have popped in outrage that Mugabe was limiting the free speech period, putting restrictions on what third parties could advertise, and making critics register with the Government. Phil Goff’s veins would have popped like nothing we have ever seen before.

But that is what the Government in New Zealand is doing today. In New Zealand Helen Clark now wants the critics to register their conflicts of interest—she did yesterday; maybe she does not today—and that is the sort of Government that New Zealanders will turf out in less than 12 months’ time. New Zealanders will get a Government that will respect the views of the people, one that has not become tired, arrogant, and out of touch like that aging front bench opposite.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) : I rise to take a call on the first reading of this very good bill, the Electoral Finance Bill. What a shame it was to hear and see the contributions from National members in this debate, on the radio, and in the print media over the last couple of days since this bill was tabled. The reality of this legislation is that no group will get special treatment. The new rules will limit the campaigning done by everyone, including unions, business groups, and religious organisations.

At this point we have not had State funding introduced. I personally think that is a matter for regret, but, clearly, the group that will be set up to review future directions will be able to consider that matter.

I would like to deal with some of the worst examples of propaganda and misinformation that we have heard in the House today and in the media since this bill was tabled. First, I will address this shibboleth, this nonsense, that this legislation is an attack on free speech. It is not rocket science to know that where money and politics mix—as they do on the other side of the House—one had better have rules in place to safeguard the system from abuse.

Members know that political parties have had limits on their spending in this country since 1895. It was not until the last election, though, that New Zealanders realised that groups could pretend to be independent and then pour millions of dollars into backing a party—and we know which party that was. The very people who are rallying around their hollow cries in the defence of free speech are some of the very people who were at the centre of those abuses at the last election, and it is a disgrace to hear them try to defend those practices in the House today.

Then there is the misinformation being put out that Labour is trying to silence its critics and is putting in self-serving rules ahead of the next election. Well, this bill delivers a level playing field. All parties will be treated fairly, and all third-party groups like unions, business groups, and religious organisations will be covered by the same rules. That is an excellent advance and it is beyond time that we should see it. Again, the people who gained most from the abuses in the 2005 election are trying to spread misinformation and propaganda in order to block what they know are fair-minded reforms that will prevent these rorts in the future. One just needs to follow the money to realise what is going on here in this debate.

Then there is this misinformation that claims Labour is giving special treatment to the unions. Of course, we are not; unions will have to abide by the same rules as everyone else. People who claim that unions are being treated differently are not being truthful. Corporates will be able to communicate directly with their shareholders, employers and manufacturers associations and unions will be able to communicate directly with their memberships, and Churches can provide information to their congregations. None of this means that they are able to put ads in the paper without playing by the rules that everyone else has to play by.

Then there is the propaganda being put out that National will lose the most out of this situation. This bill will not disadvantage National; it will simply take away the disadvantages faced by all other parties that did not have access to the secret, third-party ad campaigns that helped National at the last election. This is especially true for the smaller parties, which would never have been able to compete with the millionaire financing that National had access to.

I would just say that one of the notable aspects of this first reading debate has been the contributions made by the third parties. I enjoyed listening to the speeches made by the leaders and representatives of those parties, and I think their contributions bode very well for our making this an even better bill in the select committee.

Then there is the misinformation that claims Labour is still trying to get State funding through at the next election. As I said, this bill will not provide for State funding. It is true that the independent review foreshadowed by the Minister of Justice will look at State funding, amongst other things such as stronger watchdogs, donations, and thresholds, and that it will report back after the election. But the review will not have anything to do with what Labour prefers one way or another.

It is true that in many other countries State funding has been shown to be the best way to keep abuse out of the system and to avoid a plutocracy, where one well-funded party can simply get its way and try to snow the public. Personally I am a supporter of State funding, and I think it is important that independent people look at what it might mean for New Zealand, which is what successive reviews of general elections by the Justice and Electoral Committee have called for.

In conclusion, I say that I welcome the independent review that the Minister has foreshadowed. Clearly, it will be good to have a three-member panel—with one member to act as the chairperson—to publish a discussion document, invite submissions, consult with political parties, and provide a final report to the Minister of Justice with recommendations for consideration by Cabinet. It is good to see that the review will cover issues as broad as the structure of the electoral agencies, State funding, and the wider question of political party funding, including the sources of donations and relevant thresholds.

I think this bill is a good start. As has been signalled, hopefully, the House will be generous-spirited and will grant leave for the select committee to contain a decent representation from across the parties in the House. I think that mechanism will be able to improve the bill even further. I hope the public are not snowed by the propaganda and the misinformation that I have mentioned in my speech, and I hope there is full participation in the deliberations of the select committee, which I greatly look forward to.

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) : I seek leave for the membership of the Justice and Electoral Committee, for the purpose of its consideration of the Electoral Finance Bill, to be increased to 13 members, through the addition of one further member from each of New Zealand Labour, New Zealand National, New Zealand First, ACT New Zealand, and United Future, with those members to be appointed by the leaders or whips of each respective party; and for Hone Harawira to have the right to vote on any question put to the committee in relation to this bill.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is not.