Adams Amy: Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Adams Amy: Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:669;Page:16457] 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 It feels like the end of a long journey standing here to contribute to the third reading debate on the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill. It has certainly been a big part of my year’s work and I start this contribution by thanking the Minister of Justice not only for the process he has put up on the reform of electoral finance laws which I think has been an excellent robust transparent and inclusive but also for giving me the opportunity to get involved in the process. It has been something I have very much enjoyed. 
I recognise that I am a new member to the House but I think that gives a perspective in these debates that should not go without inclusion in the argument. It has been very interesting to work with all the members of the Electoral Legislation Committee. I acknowledge the Hon Lianne Dalziel the Hon Pete Hodgson and the Hon Darren Hughes; the members of the committee on my side Paul Quinn Hekia Parata and Chris Tremain; as well as Metiria Turei John Boscawen Rahui Katene Jim Anderton and Peter Dunne. They all were very good to work with. They all came with an open mind and a real understanding that if this was going to be durable solution we had to as far as possible put politics to one side and try to address this bill very much on its merits. As the Hon Lianne Dalziel said in her contribution we did not always agree—we usually will not and probably my caucus is quite pleased about that; I certainly am—but I think we did get to a very good place and there is no substitute for having people who live and breathe this stuff contributing to the future of it. 
I will make a couple of comments about where we got to on some of these matters. We have gone through them as the bill has progressed through the House on a number of occasions. One thing I will touch on really because it has not had a lot of airtime in this debate is the changes to the advance voting rules. Clearly the bulk of this bill is on electoral finance the regulated period the campaign limits and the disclosure and spending limits which have received most of the airtime. But I think it is worth getting on the record that those changes to the advance voting rules will make the whole process of advance voting a lot easier a lot more inviting and they should we hope lead to a significant increase in participation in the voting process. It has certainly been the recommendation of committees’ inquiries before and I am very pleased to see that we have had the opportunity to make that happen. 
I want to comment on the issue of spending caps. I said in my second reading contribution that my starting position was that I did not see one as being warranted. I did not see it as being a considerable issue in New Zealand but philosophically I have no problem standing here and supporting the position we have now come to. As I have said everyone who undertakes election advertising other than third parties is subject to a cap. 
I go out there spend funds that are my own or are funds I have raised and I am subject to very tight rules on how much I can spend and on what. When the National Party the Labour Party and the Green Party campaign there are very strict rules on what we can spend to ensure that it is a contest of ideas. It seemed to me to be odd to say the least that in a very tightly constrained area a third party could come in and spend at will against us. 
I think it is worth noting for anyone following this that there have always been limits on what third parties can say in positive campaigning by which I mean a bill board that asks the public to vote for a certain party and candidate. It was only ever negative campaigning that was open slather. I have to put on record that the last speaker Lianne Dalziel spoke at some length about the nastiness of negative campaigning but to be really fair about it I have to say it is not a one-sided thing. The 2008 election was a pretty good example of some fairly strong negative campaigning from the Labour Party. But that is a part of it and we can all take the hit and the cut and thrust. But what I do not think was right was that third parties be they unions religious groups business groups or lobby groups could spend at will when the parties and the candidates could not. 
Fundamentally I have no problem supporting a limit. The issue for me was to ensure that the limit was high enough to ensure that every citizen of New Zealand has the chance to engage in this debate in a meaningful way if they want to do so. My own view was that a limit of around $500000 would have been good but a limit of $300000 over 3 months means that we know there is still a significant ability for everyone to engage in the election process and undertake election advertising. There is no limit on discussing the issues. There is no limit on anyone who wants to take a stance on an issue. This limit applies only to the carrying out of election advertising. 
Finally I will touch on disclosure limits. I know that the Greens have expressed their concerns with the small change we made to those. I want to put on record that those limits of $1000 and $10000 before one has to name one’s donor have been in place since 1993 without review. Yes transparency is an important part of the process but so is the right to freedom of association and privacy around donations. 
No one in this country should have to disclose who they support politically. If they want to make a contribution that is not big enough to buy influence then they should have the ability to do that without fear of retribution from people on the other side of the political debate. We have seen that happen often enough to know that it is a real threat and we have to set a balance between the public’s right to know and the donor’s right to support parties of his or her choice. For me we have to ask at what level the balance should swing in favour of disclosure. I personally am of the view that at $1500 and at $15000 we are still very much in favour of transparency over the donor’s right to privacy. I think a small increase is not only warranted but necessary. I am very pleased to support it. 
I conclude by very warmly commending the Electoral (Finance and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill to the House. I hope we have achieved through this process an enduring solution to these difficult matters. Thank you.