Boscawen John: Electoral Referendum Bill — In Committee 
Boscawen John: Electoral Referendum Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:669;Page:16417] 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I will respond to those comments from the Hon Lianne Dalziel because like the Hon Lianne Dalziel I was expecting a debate about the expenditure limits—the limits on the amount promoters will be able to spend for or against any particular electoral system—specified in Part 3 of the Electoral Referendum Bill. I was somewhat surprised that the Chairperson put the amendments from Hilary Calvert to the vote in the previous part. The ACT Party promoted an amendment that would allow third parties to spend up to $750000; if we could not get Parliament to agree to a $750000 limit we suggested $500000. 
It is interesting that Lianne Dalziel criticised the fact that we put forward an amendment that would allow a third party the ability to spend $500000 because she would call that paid speech. Yes it is paid speech: it is buying advertising. It is what political parties do. Earlier this afternoon we voted on a bill that would enable the two major political parties in this Parliament to spend over $5 million—$5 million in paid speech I tell Ms Dalziel. 
Hon Member 
: How much? 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: Five million dollars. Yet we will restrict the right of an organisation that wants to be involved in this referendum to try to sway the votes of New Zealanders one way or the other to the sum of no more than $300000. 
That is not the only thing Ms Dalziel misrepresented. She derided my contribution by asking which ordinary New Zealander has $300000 to spend. We are not talking about individual New Zealanders; we are talking about organisations. We are talking about organisations that want to get involved in this election campaign. 
I sat on the Electoral Legislation Committee that considered this submission as did Ms Dalziel. She will be well aware that an organisation came along and submitted on this bill—an organisation that had formed to promote the MMP option. It was not one person; it was a group of people who purported to represent a much larger group of people and they sent their spokespeople along. I do not know the name of the organisation; I cannot recall it—it may have been “Promote MMP” or “Pro-MMP”—but certainly an organisation had formed for the purposes of promoting MMP. That is right: it is not one person but a whole series of people an organisation—a grassroots New Zealand organisation. So for Lianne Dalziel to stand up and suggest that the ACT Party is talking about one New Zealander having the right to spend $300000 misrepresents our position. Worse than that she actually knows that she misrepresents our position. 
The other point Lianne Dalziel made was that under the provisions of this bill third parties—organisations such as the one that appeared before our select committee—will have access to television. They will have access to television to promote their view one way or the other in support of or against one of the four different systems that are being put forward. 
It is interesting that she finds the use of television particularly obnoxious. The reason Labour finds television obnoxious is that it is powerful. One can actually persuade and influence people through television. We know that one of the reasons Len Brown’s committee put down for their success in Auckland was the early use of television. 
Television is also denied to the smaller political parties in this Parliament; they are denied the chance to spend their own money on television. Another major failing of this Parliament is that it has not taken the opportunity to correct that problem. 
Amy Adams 
: This is the referendum bill; it’s not the finance bill. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: This is the referendum bill and I explain to Ms Adams that under the referendum bill people can form organisations for or against one or more of the electoral systems that have been promoted. They can spend their own money they can spend it up to $300000 and they can spend it on television. It is a pity that parties in this Parliament are denied the opportunity to do that. 
Notwithstanding the fact that the limit is set at $300000 the ACT Party will be voting for this bill. We support the right of New Zealanders to have a say on their electoral system; we think it is important. But also we think it is important that the people be informed and that they understand what is being offered to them. It is a tragedy that by putting limits on organisations such as the one that appeared before our Electoral Legislation Committee in Wellington—I think it included academics from Victoria University—we deny New Zealanders the opportunity to be fully informed. 
I note that Lianne Dalziel referred to the supplementary member system. She called it first past the post with a winner’s bonus. I could take issue with that description of it too but I will not do so. 
The other amendment that Hilary Calvert put before Parliament this afternoon was to do with the actual voting form that appears in schedule 1. I thought that I might have had an opportunity to speak to that before it was put before Parliament. Earlier this afternoon the ACT Party put forward an amendment that would have provided for a vote in the referendum on the existence of the Maori seats. We did that because in the 1986 Royal Commission on the Electoral System the commissioners in recommending MMP also said that once there is a proportional system there is no longer any need to have electoral seats set up on a racial basis. 
Hone Harawira 
: They were joking. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: Mr Harawira may well say they were joking but they were not. The record shows that the royal commission in recommending MMP said if there is a proportional system a system where every vote counts there is simply no need for the Maori seat option. It is a pity that Parliament took the opportunity of voting down that amendment this afternoon. Thank you. 
Part 3 agreed to.