Dunne Peter: Electoral Finance Bill Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 3) Electoral Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Dunne Peter: Electoral Finance Bill Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 3) Electoral Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:644;Page:14046] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 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.