Boscawen John: Electoral Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Boscawen John: Electoral Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1270] 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 On 18 December 2007 I sat in the gallery above as other members of the public do now and I looked down on the speakers in the third reading of the Electoral Finance Bill. Many outstanding speakers that day spoke against that bill but there was one speech I will never forget and it left very firm memories in my mind. It was a speech by Hone Harawira. He started his speech by saying “Yes folks money talks but nothing talks quite like the truth”. Nothing talks quite like the truth and the truth has finally spoken. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is now just a little bit of confusion amongst my colleagues as to which reading of this bill we are on. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: We are continuing with the debate that was adjourned on the first reading of the Electoral Amendment Bill. We are continuing with the debate so this is just a continuation. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. When the Hon Phil Goff was elected leader of the Labour Party he moved immediately to distance himself from the Electoral Finance Act and he acknowledged the mistake that he and his party had made; I congratulate him and I congratulate the Labour Party on that. But that does not hide the fact that the passing of the Electoral Finance Bill was one of the worst events in the democratic history of our country. The Labour Government and their supporters represented arrogance they changed the rules to suit themselves and they tried to tilt the playing field in their favour. The only way they believed they could get re-elected to Parliament was by changing the electoral rules to suit themselves. That in my view was a despicable act. 
That was done despite widespread opposition from throughout the country and despite widespread opposition in the media. I refer in particular to the campaign led by the  
New Zealand Herald 
 commencing on Monday 15 November with its “Democracy under Attack” series. I quote the first paragraph of the editorial—it was the first time the  
New Zealand Herald 
 had placed its editorial on the front page—“When is the Government going to get this message: democracy is not a device to keep the Labour Party in power.” It printed the third editorial on the front page the following day and the fourth on the Wednesday. 
What also characterised the passing of that bill was the deceitful way it was done and the way that people who spoke out against it were attacked. I was attacked by members in this House. The  
New Zealand Herald 
 was attacked. The  
New Zealand Herald 
 was portrayed as being interested only in its advertising revenue. I have the highest regard for the editorial staff and the editor of the  
New Zealand Herald 
 and for the other members of the news media. The  
Dominion Post 
 the Christchurch  
Press 
 the  
Otago Daily Times 
 and most other newspapers throughout this country ran campaigns against the Electoral Finance Act. 
Let us look at the consequences of passing that Act. There are many consequences. I think it is quite interesting that the Labour members today can reflect on the fact that they are sitting in Opposition because I believe that one of the reasons there has been a change of Government is the passing by the previous Labour Government of the Electoral Finance Bill. We had a party vote earlier and the result was 69 to 53. It would be very very easy to believe that the result of the last election was an overwhelming victory to the National Party. That is far from the truth. The result of the last election could so easily have been different. I think Labour members might like to reflect on the fact that had New Zealand First got just 10000 more party votes it would have been game on and who is to say how the Maori Party would have moved? We might as well not have had a change of Government. So we see a party that moved to pass a law to tilt the Electoral Act in its favour and it has been punished by the electorate. I think that is a very important lesson for all parliamentarians to learn because that bill was pushed through quickly it was pushed through with deceit and it was pushed through with arrogance. I urge the members of the National Party when they are in Government for 9 years not to try to do the same thing. 
I think it is also interesting that all of the parties that supported the Electoral Finance Bill at various stages suffered losses. Labour certainly suffered losses New Zealand First is no longer in this Parliament— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to do this and I regret it but it is important to do it before 6 o’clock because to do it afterwards will mean there will be no ability to follow it up or to rectify the situation on the part of the Government. The problem I have is that in the earlier period before the re-moving of the adjournment motion this debate was adjourned. When a debate is adjourned if it is not set down for resumption “presently” then it is set down automatically for resumption next sitting day and therefore there is not an ability—as we are purporting to have now—to pick up a debate notwithstanding the urgency motion. To pick up a debate that would be on the Order Paper for the next sitting day I understand would require the suspension of the Standing Orders. When the member moved that the debate be adjourned he did not move that it be adjourned and set down for further discussion presently. Therefore my submission to you Mr Assistant Speaker is that we probably have about 2 minutes to get this matter sorted out. 
The alternative of course is to go on to the other debate that was set down in the original urgency motion or in fact probably to go to either of the two subsequent bills that are there. I would go to Peter Dunne who has had roughly the same length of time and experience that I have had in the House for advice. It is certainly my understanding that when a matter is adjourned unless there is an agreement of the House to the contrary it is then set down for further consideration on the next sitting day. I think we had this problem at one time with the maritime legislation and it required a special motion of the House—a suspension of the Standing Orders—in order to recover the matter and get it back on to the Order Paper. 
I can see that some preparation for advice is going on and while that is occurring I will attempt to fill in the time in order to give you a chance to get that advice. But again I say that we are in an unusual situation because of the mistake made by the Leader of the House earlier and we are not in normally flowing waters on this particular occasion. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I will just try to respond to that but it would be my understanding that there was no expectation to do otherwise than to continue presently. The member’s point is that that has not been said but I think that the intention was clear. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Can I respond to that Mr Assistant Speaker? Unfortunately when we are passing laws as we have seen in this particular bill and when we are dealing with motions in the House to work by our intentions unstated is not the way that we work. The House made an agreement to adjourn the debate. It did not make an agreement to adjourn it to “presently”; it made an agreement to adjourn it. When a debate is adjourned then it is adjourned. It is something that has to be left until it is next on the Order Paper and the next occasion an adjourned debate is on the Order Paper is on the next day the House sits. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Let me respond. We can look at Standing Order 129(1) and I think the point is quite clear that the intention was there and really the test of that was that the House voted. So the intention was accepted in the vote of the House. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Can I speak to that just briefly Mr Assistant Speaker? I am not speaking to that point of order because I see where you are coming from but it was the intention as we understood it this morning that the Government wanted to proceed with the first and second readings of the Electoral Amendment Bill. That was the intention as we understood it to take up your point. The fact that the Leader of the House did not move that in his urgency motion does not change the fact that that intention was not reflected and that was how we got into this procedural mess. It was because of the fact that the words did not follow what the intention was. The Opposition does not contest your view on that but because— 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
Hon Darren Hughes 
:Not “contest”; I do not mean that in a challenging way. But I am saying that we would like to discuss that with you because the issue is that we are just saying that we think that what the Leader of the House intended when he moved that the debate be now adjourned is not really good enough because that is not what he did. We have to go on what he said and that is not what has occurred. I am also conscious that we have now gone into the time for the dinner break. We have gone past 6 o’clock and we may have to resume consideration of this matter at 7.30. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I think that is what we will do and— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. So that you take the thought away with you I think that it is only fair that I briefly respond on this side to that contribution. Standing Order 129 “Adjournment of debate”— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The member should not do this without seeking leave for 2 minutes maximum. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
:I seek leave for a maximum of 1½ minutes. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought. Is anyone opposed to that course of action being taken? There appears to be no objection. Leave is granted. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
:Mr Assistant Speaker I ask you to consider Standing Order 129 “Adjournment of debate” which states: “(1) After a question has been proposed any member on being called to speak to that question may move ‘That this debate be now adjourned’ …”. The point is that these are new Standing Orders for this Parliament and this Standing Order makes it abundantly clear that the debate is adjourned “either to a later hour on the same day or to any other day.” There has been no change of day as a result of the two urgency motions. So picking up the bill subsequent to the second motion does not affect the fact that we are on the same day. Therefore we can pick up the bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: OK that point has been made. Nothing has broken the urgency motion at this stage. This is a matter of debate on which I will rule. 
Sitting suspended from 6.03 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.