Finlayson Christopher: Electoral Finance Bill — Second Reading 
Finlayson Christopher: Electoral Finance Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13397] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 As is tolerably clear by now National opposes the second reading of this dreadful Electoral Finance Bill and we oppose it for a number of reasons. 
First there has been no cross-party consensus in developing this bill. The National Party tried to have a reasonable discussion on issues like donations—not in its own interests but in the public interest—but all overtures were firmly rebuffed. The reality of this matter is that this is utu legislation the rationale for which was best expressed by the member for Dunedin South when in response to a question from Mr Ryall about the reason for the legislation he started going on about the red and blue billboards that littered the country in 2005. So that is what it is all about; it is payback for the National Party’s highly effective billboard campaign at the last election. 
As can be seen from the National Party’s minority view another major concern was the procedural failings of the Justice and Electoral Committee. I will not go into these at any length; I have been allocated only 10 minutes to speak not a week. Where does one start to outline the litany of failures? The committee was ineptly chaired except when I briefly took over when the Labour Party general secretary Michael Smith appeared. He was treated courteously by me and given an extension of time. However courtesy stopped with the National Party. The chair Lynne Pillay was rude to a number of witnesses. On one occasion she berated witnesses for apparently being late even though they turned up at the time the committee clerk had told them to appear. Mr Benson-Pope did not like the evidence of one witness and told him to go and join the Exclusive Brethren. And so it went on. The whole process was an embarrassment to Parliament. 
Let us look at some of the procedural failings. The majority of the committee members were apparently very concerned about having the Human Rights Commission appear. The commission was initially offered two opportunities to appear and when it could not meet the unrealistic deadlines imposed by the committee chair the majority of the committee members decided they did not want to hear from it. Eventually the commission did turn up and its evidence was very good proof as to why the majority had been so anxious for the commission not to appear. The commission’s criticisms were devastating and courageous and I expect that those people will all be fired very soon. I wanted them to come back after they had done some further work on the bill with Ministry of Justice officials but the majority of the committee was not going to have any of that—once bitten twice shy. 
The donations regime was presented to the committee by the majority without any notice whatsoever. As National said in our minority view the public had identified transparency of donations as a major issue and the National Party was prepared to look at that issue. But no attempt was made to have a productive discussion. In the course of the Committee stage I will have something to say about the Owen Glenn clause that Mr Ryall referred to—Owen Glenn being the Labour Party lovey who lives in Double Bay in Sydney in that great Liberal seat of Wentworth and so it will remain after next Saturday’s election. 
Another major concern was the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. As is well known I have said on a number of occasions in this House that the Attorney-General failed to provide a report on the bill in accordance with his obligations under section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Instead he relied on an opinion prepared by Crown Law. As the Human Rights Commission and hundreds of submitters said this bill raised important New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issues. The Attorney-General missed all of them and by elevating the interests of party above country and by wilfully failing to provide a report on such important issues the Attorney-General has brought his office into disrepute. 
I for one am very disappointed in the attitude of the Green Party given its self-proclaimed interest in human rights. The Greens are very interested in human rights for people like Ahmed Zaoui but they are not quite so worried about human rights for 4.2 million New Zealanders. Metiria Turei needs to know that the issue of human rights is not a theoretical subject not something one talks about just at hippy conventions; it is an issue that needs to be considered in the context of all legislation. But every time we tried to raise the issue of human rights the Green member was not interested in listening. Those members are all talk. Rod Donald would never have supported this legislation. 
I turn now to the substantive matters. The bill will require close and careful analysis in the Committee stage. The select committee under the chaotic chairmanship of Lynne Pillay has sent back to the House a bill that is so awful that the Prime Minister is already telling the public to write directly to the Minister of Justice on what amendments they think could be made to it. What a joke! 
Where does one start to look at the inadequacies? In the first place this is typical Labour fare; it is a regulatory nightmare. It is anything but clear. If we look at clause 3 which sets out the purposes of the legislation— 
Chris Auchinvole 
: What does it say? 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Paragraph (e) I say to Mr Auchinvole states that one of the purposes is to ensure that the controls on the conduct of election campaigns are clear and can be efficiently administered. The auditing regime—so says the Institute of Chartered Accountants—is anything but clear. The institute says it is unenforceable. It says it will diminish confidence in the electoral system. Just this morning Dr Catt from the Electoral Commission has been saying that parts of the bill are incredibly hard to understand—and not just the auditing requirement. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: She was at every meeting. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: She was at every meeting as Mr Auchinvole says—and she is the expert. Importantly Labour and the majority of the select committee members have gone to great lengths to ensure that the regulated period remains 12 months. They were not even prepared to discuss the issue. This clause is payback for the National billboards. 
Over the last few days in question time Mr English and I have been focusing on clause 5 which sets out the meaning of “election advertisement”. We have looked at two issues: what an advertisement is and whether editorial material can be caught. Let us look at just one of those issues—editorial material. If we look at clause 5(2)(c) we immediately see a problem because in order to be exempted from being an election advertisement the editorial material must be selected—and note this word—“solely” for the purpose of informing enlightening or entertaining readers. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Solely. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Note that word “solely” I say to Mr Auchinvole. It does not mean “primarily” or “principally”; it means “for one purpose only”. These are important questions dismissed by the Prime Minister from afar as nitpicking. 
The Minister of Justice lamely said that people could go to the Electoral Commission but that is not an answer. The Electoral Commission is the body that is supposed to be supervising all these advertisements and it does not understand this appallingly badly worded legislation. 
Then the Minister said that we could apply the law of common sense. I am very interested in this new concept. Indeed over the past few days I have been studying textbooks on jurisprudence to find out where it comes from. Does it come from the United States Supreme Court? Is it from the statements of some judgment of the Supreme Court of New Zealand? Was it from a great legal theorist like Professor Jeremy Waldron of New York University who is possibly one of the greatest legal brains in New Zealand’s history—with the possible exception of Mr Chauvel the once and possibly future private secretary to the Attorney-General? No my careful research has discovered that the inspiration for “King’s law” as it is now known throughout the international legal community is apparently Pauline Hanson who stated on many occasions that her view on issues is based on common sense and her experience as a businesswoman running a fish and chip shop. So there we have it. Annette King is proof in person of the observation that people may change their climate but they cannot change their nature. She who goes out a fool cannot ride or sail herself into common sense. 
Clause 5 is a shocker and the questions that Mr English and I have been asking this week show that paragraph (ii) of clause 5(1)(a) is just as extreme as paragraph (iii) which was struck out of the bill and clause 5(2) is unacceptably vague. We tried to have a discussion on this at the select committee but we were shut down just as we were shut down on every issue we endeavoured to raise. So we will be spending quite some time on this clause in the Committee stage. The select committee’s hearings had all the objectivity of a Stalinist show trial. 
The bill is unintelligible unclear and overly complex it breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and it requires substantial rewriting. If this bill becomes law there is but one certainty for 2008 and that is that there will be a bucket load of litigation and ultimately there will be injustice to the people of New Zealand. There will be more about this at the Committee stage. Suffice it to say as is perhaps tolerably clear by now National will not support the second reading.