Boscawen John: Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Boscawen John: Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 03 August 2010. Volume:665;Page:12941. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 I had not planned to take a call in this debate on the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill. I told the National whip that I would not be speaking. However I do not believe that the comments from Chris Hipkins who has just resumed his seat can go without being responded to. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: It’s still not too late. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: No it is not too late and I want to respond to Mr Hipkins’ comments but before I do let me comment briefly on the contribution of Kevin Hague. Kevin said he was speaking on behalf of his co-leader Metiria Turei. Metiria serves with me as a member of the Electoral Legislation Committee and the Green Party has advocated that there should be a cap on the coming referendum on the possible change of the electoral system. The evidence that the committee has heard is that many organisations are interested in the outcome of that coming referendum and want to contribute to the public debate on it. To suggest that we should see some sort of cap is totally impractical because many organisations have made submissions on the referendum and many organisations should have the right to express their views. 
For example we have four different electoral systems up for grabs if you like in the coming referendum. Who is to say he or she has the God-given right to promote one particular viewpoint? There may be half a dozen different organisations that want to promote a pro-MMP campaign and there may be three or four organisations that want to promote a pro - first-past-the-post campaign. When it comes to imposing limits what do we do? Do we say we will allow $500000 to promote each type of electoral system and if there are five organisations wanting to run a campaign they should have $100000 each and if there are two they should have $250000 each? It simply is not practical to have a limit on that referendum because unlike a citizens initiated referendum where we have one organisation promoting a referendum and a spending limit within which it must make its case to the people there could be any number of organisations wanting to express a view and influence the outcome of that referendum. 
However let me come back to the comments of Chris Hipkins. He criticised the National Party for overspending on television advertising in the 2005 general election. I think National had an allowance of $900000 and spent $1 million on TV advertising and then it said that in its calculations it had forgotten to allow for GST. National said that it could spend only $900000 but had spent a million and it had broken the law. Someone listening to the debate this evening would think the Labour Party was the paragon of democracy standing up for free speech and democracy. Very few people in this country will be aware that it is illegal for a political party to go out and buy broadcasting time other than what is given to it by the organisation responsible for overseeing elections. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: That’s National’s position as well. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: That is the National position. So we currently have a law under which it is illegal for the ACT Party the Green Party and the Maori Party to purchase broadcasting time and try to compete with the two largest parties in this Parliament. It is illegal for us to compete with the Labour Party and the National Party. Those two larger parties get something like $900000 or $1 million for broadcasting. The allocation for the Green Party at the last election was around about $200000 and the Maori Party and the ACT Party were given $100000. The law of New Zealand makes it illegal for the ACT Party to purchase additional time with its own money. We do not ask for the taxpayer to pay for it. We would like to raise our own money to try to compete on an equal footing with both the Labour Party and the National Party and the law denies it. 
We have a bill going through the Electoral Legislation Committee right now that could change that law but I am told that although the National Party would support that change the Labour Party and the Green Party will not. I am told that the Minister of Justice would be happy to amend the legislation to provide an equal chance for all of the political parties in this country to raise their own money and enable them to compete at the next election on an equal footing but the Labour Party and the Green Party are opposed to it. So for members on the other side of the House to stand up and have the gall to suggest that they support a free and democratic society when they know full well— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Talk to your mates then. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: Well let me ask Labour members whether if the ACT Party were to introduce amendments to that legislation to provide for all parties in this Parliament to campaign on an equal basis they would support it. The situation is that at the last election the two largest parties in this Parliament were given by the taxpayer $900000 each to purchase broadcasting—radio and television time—and the ACT Party was given $100000 the Maori Party $100000 and the Green Party $200000. We are denied the chance to raise our own money to compete. When I first met Tariana Turia prior to the 2008 election I recall her telling me that the Maori Party was significantly disadvantaged. It wanted to purchase radio broadcasting time on Maori radio and was denied the chance to do it. If it could have raised the funds it could not spend the money. Let me repeat for the Labour Party that if it is prepared to support an amendment to the legislation I am prepared to go to the Maori Party and seek support— 
Hon David Parker 
: No we are not. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: You are not prepared to support it. 
Hon David Parker 
: Because it would be wrong. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: It would be wrong. We have just heard from Mr Parker that he thinks it is right for the Labour Party to be able to spend $900000 on broadcasting time for the National Party to spend $900000 on broadcasting time and for the smaller parties in this Parliament to be denied the chance to compete on an equal footing. I am not surprised that Mr Parker says Labour opposes that because I asked that question of Mr Little when he appeared on behalf of the Council of Trade Unions. I asked him why the Labour Party was opposed and whether he thought that was reasonable and he said he thought it was. He said it was perfectly sensible for both the Labour and National parties to have $900000 to spend on broadcasting time while smaller parties in this Parliament are denied the chance to compete on an equal footing. That tells us something about the principles of the two largest parties in this Parliament. Thank you very much.