Turei Metiria: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
Turei Metiria: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13656] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I appreciate the passion in Rodney Hide’s speech but I think it is important to note that the Electoral Finance Bill is not about stopping people from talking. This bill is about applying the same principle—that there should be limits as to how much is spent in a campaign. There are currently limits on political parties and on candidates. The royal commission 11 years ago said there should be limits on others as well and we are simply enacting that recommendation. This bill is not a breach of freedom of speech. It does not prevent people from being engaged. It makes sure that the rules are sound and apply equitably across all the players in the campaign. 
This afternoon I want to specifically mention the amendment in the name of Christopher Finlayson of the National Party to change the date on which this bill comes into force from “the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” to 1 April 2008. The Greens have never been 100 percent committed to a start date of 1 January. We understand why it is necessary to extend the regulated period and we need only look at the “Iwi/Kiwi” billboard campaign—the racist campaign of the National Party—to realise how early political parties will begin their election campaign and how easily they can avoid their spending caps by campaigning early. So we do believe there should be an extension of the regulated period. 
Our preference would be for around say 1 March. We investigated what it would take in this part of the debate to make that change so that the bill would not apply until 1 March and the regulated period would not apply until 1 March. We found that if a provision such as that written by Chris Finlayson was put forward and passed it would undermine every aspect of the bill and this is for quite technical and legal reasons. The amendment would mean that the bill would not come into force until—in National’s amendment—1 April. But that would not stop the regulated period. It makes no difference to the regulated period. What it does do is make the bill inherently inconsistent in its provisions. Then the only option is for the law courts to determine whether a regulated period of 1 January applies whether a regulated period applies retrospectively whether a regulated period applies only from the date that the bill comes into force—which would be 1 April—or whether in fact the regulated period would apply at all because of that inherent inconsistency. 
If passed Chris Finlayson’s amendment would mean that there may not be a regulated period at all. That would mean that the caps would not apply for third parties for candidates or for political parties. The National Party would be able to spend anything it liked because no regulated period would exist if this provision put forward by Chris Finlayson was passed and the law courts found the bill was so inherently inconsistent that they could not apply the regulated period. 
It does beg the question: if I got that advice and I found that out with relatively junior experience as a lawyer then what advice did Chris Finlayson receive? He must have received the same advice. I talked to the Office of the Clerk. I got independent advice about this issue. Chris Finlayson is a much more experienced lawyer than I am and he is much older than I am. He must have got the same advice—that if his provision passed into law the regulated period as a whole would be at risk and there may not be a regulated period at all and that would allow the National Party and indeed any political party to spend any money it wanted over the whole period right up until the day of the election. 
That is certainly not a risk that the Green Party would ever be prepared to take. We believe that the reasons behind the regulated period are to help maintain a level playing field and to help ensure an equitable spending regime for political parties candidates and third parties and that that is an important thing to do. We do not believe in eliminating the regulated period. 
It concerns me a great deal that this might be the covert purpose behind Chris Finlayson’s amendment to shift the date on which the bill comes into force to 1 April. I would be very interested to hear what his advice was and whether he got the same advice that I did from a variety of sources that this could indeed be the impact. Perhaps he does not know. Perhaps it was not the advice he got. Perhaps his intention is perfectly innocent. That may well be the case. Certainly there is no way surely that the National Party could possibly support eliminating the regulated period so that it could spend whatever it liked.