Electoral Finance Bill, Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 3), Electoral Amendment Bill

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) Link to this

The New Zealand First Party believes in capitalism as the best way, socially and economically, to organise the affairs of society. But when we talk about capitalism we talk about responsible capitalism of the type articulated by men like Benjamin Disraeli, and Keith Holyoake in the 1950s and 1960s in New Zealand. We do not talk about the elitism, the autocracy, the oligarchy, or the special interests that certain people in this Parliament represent today and nothing else. That is the modern National Party. It is light years away from what it used to be, and Mr English had the audacity to stand up here today repeating myths and shibboleths that are not true. He knows that they are absurd, but because he has an attentive audience from the foreign-owned principal media of this country, namely the Christchurch Press, the, and the, he knows he can get coverage.

Let me ask members this question. Did the New Zealand Herald complain back in 1993 when the National Party shut down another political party from advertising on any occasion in the campaign on radio or TV? Did the complain? Did the complain? Did that great doyen of the free and the faithful, the Christchurch complain? Not a word, not a sound, not a mutter, not a murmur. That is what principle is about in this Parliament. This party over here got $1.4 million in the last campaign in secret trusts. Where did it come from? This party gets more than $7 million every year now. The taxpayer pays the National Party, above all other parties, $7 million - plus to prosecute its parliamentary business. Now tell me, why would a party want an uncapped fund after getting $7 million from the taxpayers?

What is mysterious about this whole campaign over the Electoral Finance Bill is this. We are trying to find out whose freedom of speech is going to be suppressed. Has anybody told members whose freedom of speech is going to be suppressed? Well, I have not heard. Here comes the second mystery. What do the opponents of the bill want to say from now until the next election, and why would they want to spend millions of dollars buying space to say it? What do the opponents of this bill want to say from now until the next election, and why would they want millions of dollars to say that?

METIRIA TUREI (Green) Link to this

The Green Party is pleased with the changes that the House is making to the financing of election campaigns. The Greens respect the fact that there are good reasons for the boundaries this legislation places on the purchase of advertising and other campaign material. We are proud to have severely limited the anonymous donations that political parties can receive for electioneering purposes. We agree that such constraints are necessary in a free and democratic society that values a level playing field and fairer elections.

It is somewhat ironic that those who purport to be champions of individualism and freedom of speech are the ones opposing the bill, because they are opposing the very precepts on which this modern democratic system we participate in was built. They are opposing the principles of equality that their, and my, forebears sought to honour when they first arrived in this country. My ancestors, Susannah and Henry Hawes, arrived in Karamea, from the ship Michelangelo, which left Gravesend in 1874. Susannah was a pioneer of the West Coast. She came to this country to build a new life for herself and for her children. We can see in her writings, many of which have survived, that she had a great deal of hope and enthusiasm for her new life and her new country. She built her life here as part of a migration that sought to escape the inequality of the old country—the inequality of birth, wealth, and privilege.

When she arrived here the representative Government had been in place for about 22 years, and from the outset the potential for money to corrupt the political process in New Zealand had been both recognised and countered, and the need for restraints had begun to be incorporated into law. As early as 1858 a law was passed to prohibit treating, bribery of, and the undue influence of money on, our politicians. Politicians were not to be bought in our young New Zealand. In 1881, just a few years after Susannah’s arrival, the first rules to define campaign election spending were passed. They imposed caps on how much money candidates could spend on their campaign. In 1895 the cap was set at ₤200.

These early rules that constrained the ways that money would be allowed to influence politics and politicians, were integral to the new parliamentary system. Our ancestors knew exactly how the privilege of money and class could interfere with political expression, and they quickly created systems to prevent that interference. The clarity of our ancestors’ thinking on that score puts the current debate on this bill to shame. As new arrivals, they could have been forgiven for creating a utopian system of unfettered liberties; instead, they tried to ensure that their intention of building a new system came to pass—or at least they gave it their best shot. It was to be a system where money, class, the ownership of property, and accidents of gender were not left to become the iron determinants of political engagement. Instead, people built a system that elevated the place of opportunity and merit, that privileged openness and free speech and, above all, that sought to make fairness its distinguishing feature.

The Green Party is proud to uphold that principle. We are proud to have defended it against attacks on it by those who would interfere with its political expression through the privilege of wealth. Over the intervening years our rules have gradually been developed to take into account our growing nation and Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The 1986 report from the Royal Commission on the Electoral System was a watershed report on the impacts of money on political campaigning. Its recommendations came 95 years after the first limits on campaign spending. The commission argued, and rightly I believe, that if there were one area where our community should reasonably tolerate some limitations on the freedom of expression, it would be in the systems of how we elect our Government.

This has been the defining question in the debate over the bill—the question of whether it limits freedom of speech. Yes, the bill limits how much can be spent on advertising, thus extending the laws that New Zealand has had in place for over a century. We have two interesting examples of the use of money in such a context. We have the current example of the Southern Institute of Technology and its campaign in its newspaper advertisements. Under this bill, the institute’s campaign advertisements are not electioneering; they are issues advertising so they are not covered by this bill.

We also have a changing political process. We have got rid of door-knocking now—that traditional practice. Instead, we have very expensive phone spamming by Canadian call centres, which will ring 70,000 households—just like that—in order to drum up support for a dying campaign. Yes, this legislation requires transparency by those who are engaged in the electioneering campaign, and the Greens are pleased we were able to expose the rort of 2005 before it could seriously contaminate the election process. This bill helps to protect us against that rort and that kind of corruption. We have obvious examples from other, similar jurisdictions overseas where corruption has infected the political system. US democracy has become a commodity that is routinely bought and sold.

Members should make no mistake: advertising works. In New Zealand the advertising industry is worth more than $2 billion a year. Nobody would spend that kind of money unless it was effective. Democracy in the US, in fact, relies on marketing for its very existence. Who can stand for election and whose message will prevail depends on the donors, and the ongoing flows of cash and donations have come to depend on the elective representatives remembering to pay the piper. It is a form of democracy that has virtually no life at all outside the classic examples, where donations determine who gets to stand and who gets to succeed.

So why do institutions and individuals donate? The driver is a hunger for money by political parties but, despite public funding in other comparable jurisdictions, the hunger explains the driver only in part, because donors want parties and, hopefully, Governments to be beholden to them and to be preferred over their business competitors. It is a neat, cosy arrangement and it grows more blatant. Parties in Australia now openly call for donations that provide access to the Prime Minister or Premier at rates of $10,000. It costs less to get to see a Minister. All of the donors want access, and, some would reasonably argue, favours.

In New Zealand we seem to have accepted that there is a situation of donations to political parties, provided that the donation, the giver, and the receiver are known—that is, disclosure is the key for us. The Greens, to the best extent we could negotiate, have ensured that we have severely restricted the capacity for anonymous donations to be made to political parties, so that the public can know more about who is funding their political representatives and their political campaigns, and can then assess their policy positions in response. We have exposed the secret trusts to the disinfectant of sunlight. We have exposed the rorts of the 2005 election and we do not want those rorts to happen again. We have closed those loopholes. For parties that are in Government, such public scrutiny of funders and policy preferences is critical, and the Greens have made that scrutiny by the public easier through the provisions in this legislation.

The Greens will continue to work for better campaign funding law. This legislation does not do everything right, and we need better work done. That is why we have advocated so strongly for a citizens’ assembly. A citizens’ assembly would comprise two people selected from each electorate, who would work together as a group with advisers and a secretariat to consider New Zealand’s historical situation and comparable jurisdictions. It would hold public hearings, and would work towards developing a new campaign funding law that is about the New Zealand situation. This is what we have been advocating for nearly a year. Such an assembly would enable the citizens of our country to devise election funding rules that meet the changing needs of a society that is sophisticated and technologically savvy, but that at heart upholds the founding principles of the parliamentary democracy our forebears brought to this country—principles of transparency, equality, and fairness. In short, we need Kiwi politicians with no strings attached.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) Link to this

Kia ora, Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou e te Whare. Over these last few months of intense and passionate debate about the Electoral Finance Bill, one email stood out for me, because it said a lot about who we are as a Māori Party. I paraphrase part of that email here: “We are not members of the Exclusive Brethren. We are not members of the ACT party. We are not members of the National Party. We are not members of John Boscawen’s team, as Helen Clark scathingly and incorrectly called those who marched in Auckland against this bill.”

We are the Māori Party, and I welcome this opportunity to set the record straight on our party’s position on this legislation. We are the Māori Party, and, contrary to the Government’s claims, this legislation is not being attacked only by those New Zealanders who are able to pour thousands of dollars into electioneering campaigns to buy influence in Government. We are the Māori Party, with nothing behind us save the tens of thousands of voters who put us here and our absolute commitment to the well-being of those voters, and I tell everyone now that we are opposed to the Electoral Finance Bill. We are the Māori Party with not a bean to our name—

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) Link to this

United Future supported the introduction and development of the Electoral Finance Bill because we believed that it was important to tidy up the excesses of the last election in order to ensure that New Zealand continued to have a fair and open electoral system into the future. We still do believe that, which is why we have worked in the select committee and elsewhere to improve the legislation and to remove its most obnoxious features. We believe that that has been achieved, and we have continued to support the legislation through its second reading and the Committee of the whole House, despite our very deep concerns about the partisan way in which it has been developed. We would have strongly preferred there to be a genuine multi-party involvement in the development of this legislation, given that there was—at least, initially—a measure of common ground apparent on some of the issues it was likely to cover.

Over recent weeks, partly but not solely in response to a well-orchestrated campaign, it has become clear that many New Zealanders have deep unease about the legislation and its provisions as they perceive them. Many hundreds of people have contacted me through letters, emails, our party website, and other sources to let me know what they think about this legislation and, contrary to what some may think, I have read personally every item of communication delivered to me.

Although some of those measures have contained the usual outpourings of abuse and partisanship, which I have properly disregarded, and others have been plainly misinformed, many have also come from people within my electorate and around the country whose views I genuinely respect. In particular, I have been struck by the messages from individuals with no special political axe to grind, who genuinely fear that this legislation will limit their right to freedom of speech and expression. I am not talking about lobby interest groups that have a vested interest to pursue, but about average citizens who feel affronted by what they consider to be an attack on the essential freedoms they enjoy as New Zealanders. Various efforts made by me and others to persuade them that this is not the case have not succeeded, and it is pointless to continue attempting to do so.

All of this brings me to the legislation itself. No matter what it states, or how well it has been crafted, or what official interpretations are placed upon it, the court of public opinion is holding it to be a self-serving attack on the freedom of our electoral process. That perception has become the new reality, whatever we in this House may think of it. So the dilemma we as a party and I as an individual legislator face is this: should we continue to put in place legislation that we know is failing the test of public credibility? The answer we have come to is that we should not.

During the life of a Parliament there are likely to be many pieces of legislation passed that are unpopular, and this legislation could be just another one of those. There will be those who say that members of Parliament need to be able to stand against the public pressure on these matters, in the wider interests of doing what is right. We are elected here to lead our country, not to blow aimlessly like straws in the wind, they would argue, and that is so. That is why United Future works constructively and cooperatively with the Labour-led Government, through our confidence and supply agreement, to achieve the policies we believe are in the best interests of the country, and that is why we remain committed to doing so for at least the balance of this parliamentary term.

However, this legislation is not just another piece of unpopular legislation. Because of its nature and its content, it goes far beyond that. There comes an occasional time when a blind adherence to leading the country gives way to what some might see as a form of arrogance, and where the perception of being a straw in the wind is outweighed by the necessity of being seen to listen to what the people are saying. This legislation has become one of those occasions.

The blunt truth is that New Zealanders have gone beyond caring about its content; they simply mistrust it. I immediately acknowledge the rich ironies here. Many of the same people were, and remain, properly horrified at the antics of the last election, and they would be appalled if our election process ever became subverted by big money. They do not want to know what secrets parties have; they do want to know who is pulling the party strings. But their mistrust has developed because, those views notwithstanding, they do not see this legislation so much as a genuine attempt to resolve those problems as more a case of political utu. Legislation perceived in that way cannot succeed. A more robust and transparent process of independent review of all aspects of election funding—including the provisions of this legislation and vexed issues such as the State funding of political parties and maybe even a fixed election date—is a far better way to proceed. United Future has listened carefully to the views and feelings of New Zealanders. Consequently, we have come to the conclusion that we can no longer support the passage of the legislation.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) Link to this

I commend Mr Peter Dunne and United Future for the stand they have taken today and for saying that in their view the law is OK but public perception is against it and that, therefore, they will vote against this legislation.

What we have had here, irrespective of one’s view of this legislation, is a very poor process by which it has been developed. I think that the poor process is at the heart of the concern that Mr Dunne has identified. I look across to the Labour members, I look across to New Zealand First, and I look to the Greens—

ANNE TOLLEY (Senior Whip—National) Link to this

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. A number of Labour members of Parliament have moved from their seats and have been constantly barracking throughout a number of speeches. I just draw that to your attention. I did not want to interrupt the previous speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER Link to this

Ms Pettis has been rather vocal. I have tried to caution her, but she is sitting in her right seat. She is replacing the senior whip. But in the position of senior whip she should set an example, which is to enable orderly debate.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) Link to this

I am happy for Ms Pettis to be calling out. It is the only opportunity Labour gives her in this House.

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Economic Development) Link to this

It seems to me that this House has come almost to the point of a headless chicken phase. We have a man who has just given a speech about things he apparently believes, in which he says that if this legislation had been passed earlier the abolition of slavery in the US would not have happened, and the universal suffrage movement might not have happened. He gave that speech with passion, so either he believed it, in which case he is deeply in trouble, or he did not believe it, in which case he ought not to have given it.

I say to a previous speaker, my colleague Hone Harawira from the Māori Party, that his assessment of history around electoral law is a different history from mine. I will give him my truth on what electoral law history is. Actually, our colleague Metiria Turei began it when she reminded us that over a hundred years ago our forebears put limits upon themselves as to what they might expend when they went for public office, simply because the culture of that moment, and the culture that persists today, is that we cannot buy public office in this land—we cannot buy it. We can argue for it, we can cajole, and we can campaign, but we may not directly purchase public office in this land. We can purchase whatever else we wish. We can purchase an offshore island, a 14th motorcar, a third farm; we can purchase whatever we like in this market economy. But we may not purchase public office.

The member from the ACT party, Rodney Hide, said “one person, one vote”, when he was arguing in the opposite direction. He was arguing for “one millionaire, one seat in public office”. You see, the point is that the whole idea of one person, one vote is that we are equal—I go down and cast a vote, the member goes down and casts a vote, the millionaire goes down and casts a vote, and the pauper goes down and casts a vote—yet the member opposes this legislation.

Let us take a little step back in history. First of all, a hundred years ago £200 was the limit, and it progressed. We got to the 1950s and we worked out how to draw boundaries fairly. We missed the gerrymandering season that infested all of the United States and still infests Australia to an extent, especially at State level; we missed that. We decided to do it properly, and the criteria we laid down in 1956 still prevails. Some of us have spent a bit of time on electoral law select committees. I have done 9 years, and a number of people around this House have done a similar amount of time and have a bit of experience, so they will support this history to date.

Then we move to the point where we decided we would go for MMP. In 1993 we put law in front of the House, the third reading was given, and the assent was carried by the people in the 1993 election. They said “We want MMP.” Not only did they say that but they said “We want MMP even though Peter Shirtcliffe has spent a lot of money on trying to dissuade us.” We did not react then; we did not react as a Parliament. We said “We understand that the electoral coalition has to raffle chooks, and that Peter Shirtcliffe has to go and see his rough mates, but even then we will not react—even then we don’t mind a bit of money having a bit of a say.”

So we went through to 2005, and everything changed. In 2005 not only was there big money but the money came not from within but from without. Not only was it big money from without but it was big money that was covert and not overt. This was an attempt to buy an election anonymously. Peter Shirtcliffe put his head on the block and said “I’m doing this, and I’m proud to be doing it.”, and he went and spent all of his big money. We said “That’s OK.” But along came the Exclusive Brethren and said “We are not the Exclusive Brethren. We are not doing this. We have not spoken to the National Party. We have not gone to see the electoral law folk to see how we can get around the rules. We have done none of that. We are simply a group of business people.” But the Greens outed them. Then, as the months went by—in fact, as the weeks went by—in the course of the election campaign 2005 Gerry Brownlee, who was being noisy a few minutes ago, went on radio and said that he knew nothing about it. He went on radio and said “I don’t know.” Don Brash went on radio and said “I don’t know, either.” Then he said “I only know a little bit.” Then he said “I only met them once.” Then he said “I only met them once at a time. I might have met them more than once.” And John Key said “I don’t know anything about it.”

But, yes, they did. You see, it was a collusion. It was not a coincidence, it was not a bit of happy circumstance, and it was not serendipity; it was a planned collusion around the electoral law of this land. For more than a hundred years we did not try to put limits on third parties. We saw no reason to do that. Whoever had an interest—be they the SPCA, the Chambers of Commerce, the unions, the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, Grey Power, or Māori—could take part in the quest for the offices of the land, and could do so without any regulation, at all. All the while, through the first of our centuries, that was the way it was until the National Party’s secret mates came along. If National members want to know why we are standing here in the third reading debate passing this law, I will tell them that they are the reason. National members did not say to the Exclusive Brethren “This is a step too far.” They did not say “Can you try to make it a quarter of a million instead of a million and a bit.” They did not say “Don’t go trying overtly to get around the electoral law.” And they did not tell the Brethren to out themselves. They did the opposite; they colluded. This was collusion in an attempt to win office. That is going too far; that is not tolerable.

So we must join other Western democracies—although we have not until now—and start to regulate, more in sadness than in anger, I have to say. I do not think our country is better off for needing this regulation. But, given that we need it, we sure as hell are going to have it—just as Canada and the UK do. They have had to go down this path. I am sure they have done it more in sadness than in anger, too.

I will summarise. This country spent more than a hundred years not regulating third parties at all, but regulating only candidates. It always regulated candidates but never anyone else, and we got along OK. We got along with everyone’s little or medium-sized campaigns. We got along with Mr Shirtcliffe’s rich but overt, open, and out-there campaign. But the National Party decided that it would covertly use $1.2 million of someone else’s money offshore to try to help itself into office. The National Party needs to understand that that is beyond the culture of New Zealand’s electoral history.

I ask my colleague from the Māori Party to hear that version of history and to understand it. I think his version of history is at variance with mine, but that is how I see it. I do not think it is OK for this country ever to go to the point where we Americanise our politics and put our offices up for sale in some way or other.

Mr Hide said that the truth will always out. Well, I ask Mr Hide how an ordinary person, a humble person, or a modest person can have free speech when the airwaves are full with capitalists’ noise. That is what we were dealing with. Capitalism has its place because our market economy depends on it, but we cannot use the riches of capitalism to buy a place in Parliament. At that point, we have privatised the most public thing there is, which is public office. So the line must be drawn.

Bill English’s contribution, which was a series of deliberate misinterpretations of the Electoral Act, took us no further, and John Key, who opened this debate with the high moral pitch, ended up sounding like a 13-year-old trying to read Shakespeare. It did not work. He got the round of applause that was pre-arranged, but I could tell that the guy had not written the speech. He did not know how to pronounce “auspicious” and a few other words along the way. The truth of the matter is that these guys have to front up to the fact that they are the authors of their own misfortune. That is the truth of it. If it had not been for the Exclusive Brethren covertly attempting to buy office in New Zealand, then we would not have had to be here. We have not been here until now.

Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) Link to this

I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I did not want to interrupt my colleague but I bring your attention to an intervention made by the member who is about to take a call, Christopher Finlayson. He cast a comment to the Minister suggesting that he was a grandfather. The last time that sort of comment was ruled out of order in this House, Sonja Davies had been abused by an Opposition member in a human rights debate. The member had said: “Go on, Granny. Have a go.” That was ruled as being offensive. I urge you to ask the member to withdraw and apologise. Apart from anything else, the comment is ageist, and I believe that the member is probably older than the Minister he was trying to insult by calling him a grandfather.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) Link to this

I think that the Standing Orders actually require Mr Hodgson to be upset. I am sure he is actually quite flattered by his great success.

Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) Link to this

Mine was not a reflection of age; it was merely a comment. The member’s reflection was intended to be insulting and derogatory to older people.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) Link to this

I am pleased the previous speaker mentioned Shakespeare, because if ever there was a King Lear rave upon the heath without descending to the detail of legislation—as one should do in a third reading speech—it was that speech made by Mr Hodgson. In my speech I will look at the Committee stage of the legislation, say something about what emerged from that, and emphasise what my leader and deputy leader have said about the commitment of the National Party to repeal this odious legislation as soon as we gain office. I will not dwell this afternoon on the failure of the Attorney-General to provide a report under section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. He is a person who puts loyalty to party ahead of loyalty to country. His failings are well known.

The system has failed. The safeguards one expects to work have not worked. If the select committee process was hopeless, then the Committee stage of the legislation was simply a disgrace. If ever there was legislation that required a clause by clause analysis it was this. But instead of focusing on the workability of the legislation, the Labour, New Zealand First, and Green members took calls on various parts of the legislation and had generalised raves about the last election.

The Prime Minister’s response to our careful analysis was revealing. She criticised Mr English and me for nit-picking. She does not seem to understand that when inevitably there is litigation on this legislation next year, judges will need to grapple with the words of a particular section to ascertain what the section means. I can predict one thing: Annette King’s law of common sense will not assist; nor will it be possible for the courts to receive any assistance by looking at Hansard. Were they to do so they would see that National members had tried hard to look at the difficult issues, but that all Labour members, including, notably—I say for Mr Woolerton’s benefit—the Minister of Justice, could only go on about the Exclusive Brethren. I predict there will be a great deal of litigation next year. This legislation contains so many uncertainties that litigation is inevitable.

Secondly, let us take a look at how the legislation emerged from the debate in the Committee stage. The National Party put forward a number of serious amendments—some were principled, others were technical, but very few of the latter category were accepted by the Government. I predict there will be another amendment bill next year and that some of my proposed amendments will have to be adopted then, because the legislation that we are about to pass is unworkable. What about the regulated period provided for in clause 4?

This legislation will shortly be signed into law and will take effect from 1 January. For 1 year out of 3, political discourse in New Zealand will be regulated. How does that further the interests of democracy, whether one looks at it from the point of view of the political class or, more important, from the point of view of the public? The new Labour candidate for Wellington Central has already distributed a brochure introducing himself, and he has done so to avoid the consequences of the regulated period and the cap that will apply after 1 January. Out in the field even the Labour Party is looking for ways to get around its own law.

The supporters of this legislation have long said that it is designed to right the wrongs of 2005. That would be a noble goal if it was carried out with any sincerity, but sincerity, like public consultation during the select committee deliberations, has been lacking. Instead, this Government has chosen to be selective in the matters it has dealt with. It has conveniently ignored many of the wrongs that fell on its side of the ledger in 2005. The police decided they could not prosecute Heather Simpson because it would be unfair to tar an individual for a crime committed by a group. I proposed an amendment to the legislation that would have seen party liability introduced. Not only was this opposed by Labour, but it was not even referred to by its own speakers. The police showed themselves to be out of their depth in dealing with matters of electoral law, so we proposed the position of a chief electoral prosecutor who would be independent and who would have expertise to deal with this mess. Not only did Labour oppose this proposal, it vetoed any debate on it on the grounds it thought it would cost $3 million. Labour never wanted to debate the merits of a sound proposal, which was backed by many of the independent organisations that provided submissions.

Finally, at the very least, we thought that if it was to be left up to the police to prosecute, then they would need a reasonable amount of time to consider any prosecutions. The current version of the legislation says that prosecutions have to be undertaken within 6 months. We proposed an amendment that would give the police 2 years. But, again, Labour opposed this and, again, it failed to give us one single reason why it was a bad idea. The cynicism of this move to prevent any meaningful prosecutions under the new legislation would be extraordinary in itself, if it was not overwhelmed by the nature of the process through which the legislation has been so cynically pushed. On the three big issues that were raised by this legislation—the position of third parties, the regulated period, and the definition of candidate advertisement—there have been no improvements.

There is a donations regime in the legislation, lauded by New Zealand First, but it is muddled. It was hastily drafted in the latter stages of the select committee’s deliberations. If the Government had accepted the offer made by Mr English 12 months ago to talk about transparency and a sensible donations regime, this legislation could have been greatly improved.

This afternoon I pay tribute to Mr Dunne. I am pleased to see he has looked at the issue carefully and has listened to the concerns of members of the public. Clearly he has now read clause 5(1)(a)(ii). He now recognises that that subclause will shut down debate next year. But I am not quite so impressed by the Greens and the New Zealand First Party. The Greens like to portray themselves as innocents abroad, but they too have been active participants in this shabby affair. They are as cynical and as unprincipled on this issue as Labour. They do not care about the damage this legislation will cause to our constitution. Let us look at the members of New Zealand First. Fresh from their Starship Children’s Health stunt, they are now ignoring the message from their supporters in Tauranga, who correctly see the threat that is posed by this legislation.

The National Party has been accused of focusing too much on the interests of politicians, but that is wrong. Take, for example, the phrase “third party”. We have said time and time again that that terminology is offensive. The people are the principals in the democratic process; the politicians are the servants. People may not want to join political parties as much as they did in earlier years, but they may want to contribute to the political process by joining organisations like the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society and Greenpeace. The National Party recognises this. We did not want the term “third party”. We preferred the term “interested party”, but that was voted down.

So where to from here? Both my leader and deputy leader have given a commitment that National will repeal the legislation. The Labour Party has breached a well-established convention that electoral law should, so far as possible, be bipartisan or multipartisan. It will not be easy to reconstruct that convention but the National Party will do so, because it is in the public interest that we go back to a situation where there is proper discussion between all parties on these very important issues.

This has been a very sorry incident in New Zealand’s political history. The legislation will not endure. It will be repealed before the end of 2008, because the National Party will do the right thing in the public good and in the national interest. Much as one is tempted to exercise a little utu, there will be no utu. The distinctions between the two major parties in this country are obvious. Under the leadership of Helen Clark, Labour has become utterly negative. It likes banning things or people for its own sake. Its motto is: “Accentuate the negative; ban; boycott; embargo; exclude; vilify; blacklist; close down; shut up; silence; censure; hate; sneer.” But these are the things that come so naturally to Helen Clark and the other Labour Party wreckers and haters. They are the only things they know. As my leader said, it is time for a change.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) Link to this

It is a pleasure to stand to speak in support of the three bills arising from the Electoral Finance Bill. I thank the Justice and Electoral Committee members from Labour, the Green Party, and New Zealand First for the constructive role that they played. Not only was it a constructive role but also they turned up to the committee meetings—they were there steadily. They did not have all and sundry there to represent their parties. They were consistent, they turned up, and they worked on the legislation. I also thank the staff and the advisers for all the hard work they did. It is very much appreciated.

This legislation is a necessary response to an unprecedented abuse of our democratic processes. Prior to the 2005 election the National Party and its allies led a campaign designed to find loopholes in the rules—or simply to breach them—and to seek to overwhelm the election outcome with money. National introduced the continuous campaign to politics in this country, seeking by enormous expenditure to expose the public to its paid message everywhere. Such behaviour put democracy in New Zealand at risk. Big anonymous money can never be permitted to shape thought in a democracy. This legislation allows the public to have confidence that the covert campaign to buy persuasion and influence will be very difficult to repeat.

As documented by Nicky Hager, the National Party accepted the support of and colluded with the Exclusive Brethren. It behaved in a similar fashion with the Maxim Institute, with the so-called Fair Tax lobby, and with extremely wealthy members of the Auckland business community. By accepting their contributions and colluding in the planning of campaigns and advertisements, National subverted the spirit of our dearly held laws. It gained massive advantage over those parties that sought to campaign in the fair, open, and democratic manner that New Zealand citizens expect and deserve. Mercifully, National failed to steal the election.

This legislation regulates the role of third parties, in that it requires them, if they seek to campaign for or against candidates, parties, or combinations of both, to be open about doing so. If they do campaign, they are capped in their advertising expenditure at $120,000. As part of National’s strategy, trusts were used to cover up donations over the limit of $10,000 at which they would otherwise have to be disclosed. This legislation regulates the use of trusts. Although those donations are not completely outlawed, undue influence and abuse are countered by the introduction of caps on them. With this regime in place, the public can be confident that influence is not for sale via donations. By extending the regulated period to the year of an election campaign, the insidious influence of the continuous campaign, which became a feature—a shameful feature—of our political landscape during the last election cycle, can be avoided and a level playing field established. In order to prevent undue influence from outside New Zealand, overseas donations are also regulated. We are a small democracy in a globalised world. Our elections should not be for sale to the highest foreign bidder.

In summary, this legislation provides solutions that further the cause of democracy through enhancing transparency and accountability. It enhances democracy by preventing the abuse of the democratic process. It takes a strong stand against the undue influence of money in politics. I am proud to stand with my colleagues in the Labour Party, and with the Progressive party, the Greens, and New Zealand First in giving this legislation my strong support.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) Link to this

I would like to join my friend and colleague Lynne Pillay, the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee who so ably steered this legislation through the select committee process, in commending the merits of the legislation to the House. I praise her chairing; it was excellent chairing in the face of extremely provocative behaviour. I would also like to add my thanks to the officials who worked very hard to advise the committee to ensure that what came to the House as a result of the committee process was good legislation. In that regard I particularly thank Helena Catt, and Michael Petherick from the Ministry of Justice.

In my brief contribution to this third reading I want to look ahead. I have said that I endorse all the comments made by my colleague, but I observe that this bill is clearly not the last step in the need to provide for a system that prevents abuses and upholds democracy. This is recognised in that from the outset the then Minister of Justice, the Hon Mark Burton—in a call that has been continued by the current Minister, Annette King—has been very clear that a review group ought to be commissioned to consider the matters that remain outside the scope of this legislation. Paramount amongst those matters must be the public funding of political parties. As the Wallace Commission found so many years ago, this is an essential element in maintaining democracy in a country such as ours. Australia, Canada, and now even the UK—thanks to the work being done by Sir Haydon Phillips—have taken steps to implement such a system. We run the grave risk of exchanging our democracy for a plutocracy every moment that we continue to delay implementing a system of public funding for political parties. I sincerely hope that the review group to be established, which has been called for along with this legislation right from the start, will very clearly call for the public funding of parties, repeating the call made by the Wallace Commission back in the 1980s.

Absolute transparency is the other matter that the review group must address. Any participants in politics must be open about their participation in it. It is just too risky in the long term and in a globalised business environment to continue to tolerate anonymity on either the supply or the demand side of politics—whether from parties, donors, or other actors. No donor and no spender seeking to influence the outcome of an election should ever be allowed to hide its true identity from the public. Strict caps on spending—always under review for their adequacy—and ensuring that undue barriers to entry into the process do not exist are required.

I hope that the review group also looks at incentives to a broad participation in politics. We need civics education in our schools. People should be empowered to be more conscious of their rights and obligations in and to our society. Elected public service is a virtue and it should be seen as such, not denigrated by cynical actors in the political or media processes. The best people in our society should be proud to put themselves forward to contribute to the political process or in the campaigns of those who do. Wider and deeper participation in political parties and groups that support civil society can only enrich our nation. We fail to promote this at our ongoing peril.

Finally, strong enforcement of clear rules is vital. I look forward to the day when one single powerful independent agency administers all the aspects of New Zealand’s electoral law. It should determine electoral boundaries, it should register all the participants in elections, and it should monitor their activities for compliance, including donations, spending, and decisions concerning breaches of the law. It should also have carriage of the rules relating to political broadcasting.