Dunne Peter: Electoral Finance Bill — Second Reading 
Dunne Peter: Electoral Finance Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13392] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 When the Royal Commission on the Electoral System reported in 1986 it said: “It is illogical to limit spending by parties if other interests are not also controlled. Supporters or opponents of a party or candidate should not be able to promote their views without restriction merely by forming campaign organisations ‘unaffiliated’ to any party. … Nor should powerful or wealthy interest groups be able to spend without restriction during an election campaign while [the parties] are restricted.” That quote is at the heart of this legislation and I suspect that the principle it outlines is one that everyone in this House would actually agree with. We legitimately regulate the spending of political parties during an election campaign so that they cannot be seen to buy an election. It is entirely appropriate to pick up the royal commission’s recommendation and say that where third parties—outside groups—who seek to become involved in the election campaign are concerned there should be some constraints on the type of expenditure that they can undertake as well. 
The problem we have got into is that politics has actually intruded into this argument. Everyone is seeing this issue not from the point of how to make the electoral system work fairly but of how it affects them. The consequence of that has been the unseemly debate that we have seen since the last election. I have not heard anyone at any time get up and say that the restrictions on political parties should remain but that there should be no restrictions on any outside group. No one has advanced that proposition. So why is it when legislation that seeks to give effect to that proposition comes before the House we split asunder. The reason as I said before is nothing to do with principle but everything to do with grubby day-to-day politics. 
The people of New Zealand have a right to know that the electoral process is fair and that the propositions being advanced by parties at election campaigns are ones that they can make a judgment upon and vote upon without that process being fettered by unhealthy money dirty money call it what you like coming from other sources. By and large—and I suspect this is the reason the matter was not tackled long ago in 1986—New Zealand campaigns have been free of that influence until the last election. It was when the Exclusive Brethren’s campaign became public that a great deal of angst occurred amongst ordinary citizens who said: “This is not right. Although these people have a right to express their views the anonymity and the devices they are employing cut across what we have long regarded as being fair play in the electoral system.” That is what this bill seeks to correct. It seeks to give effect to the recommendation of the 1986 Wallace royal commission which has lain on the Table of this House for 21 years. 
A lot of things have been said over the last 5 months since this bill was introduced that have been fuelled in some senses by various interests that are patently untrue. Let me debunk them. This bill does not limit the rights of free speech of any New Zealander to express a political opinion at any time. It says that if an individual or group of individuals acting as an organisation wants to become involved in the election process then they must register and that they are limited in terms of the amount of expenditure they can carry out. But their right to express an opinion is not tampered with. Their right in private or public conversation or street corner or public meeting to express an opinion is not tampered with. Their right as an organisation to lobby on behalf of their interests or their members for policy positions is not tampered with. But where they seek to say “we want to be part of the election campaign” campaigning for a particular party or group of parties as a way of getting around the expenditure limits placed upon those parties then quite properly the principle espoused by the royal commission comes into effect. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Oh this is unrealistic. This is totally unrealistic. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I want to remind the member opposite that by opposing this bill he is really saying that supporters of a party or candidate should be able to promote their views without restrictions merely by forming campaign organisations unaffiliated to any party. In other words the parties will be controlled but their friends and supporters can go out and set up a parallel organisation and not be controlled. That is what the member is arguing. That is of course an invitation to stupidity. It is a situation we have seen all around the world which other democracies have dealt with by making changes of this type. When one looks at the international environment in fact what is happening here is about the mid-point of change that is considered right by countries around the world. 
There has been some debate about the regulated period but the point about it is as we have seen in the past with a short regulated period and no control as we have had historically that there is a huge amount of expenditure either committed or carried out during the pre-regulated period to spill over into that campaign period. That is a cynical manipulation of the system—legal at the moment but cynical none the less. The notion of a regulated period whether it is 12 months a lesser period or whatever is about saying there is a point at which the electoral clock starts ticking and there is a point at which the activities of those who want to operate in parallel with political parties come under the same broad ambit. 
Members cannot have it both ways. Members cannot say it is perfectly proper to place controls and high standards upon political parties taking part in election campaigns while at the same time turning a blind eye to what might happen elsewhere. Individual citizens will express their views and they will continue to do so in a free and unfettered way. But it is incredibly naive to think that there will not be organisations formed as we have seen to get around the law. That is exactly what has happened to date and that is what made the original recommendation of the royal commission so important and what makes this legislation timely and relevant. 
I want to say this though. This bill I think has not been through the best of processes and the problem with that is that the National Party and the Labour Party have been equally guilty for different reasons. One side wanted to stitch up the numbers first and the other side took the view that it was simply going to oppose whatever was proposed because it did not like the idea of some restrictions. The consequence of that has been a situation that I think is most unsatisfactory. With an election next year the problem we now face is a very difficult choice. If we do not pass legislation of this type at this time we will actually get the same situation as we had in the last election all over again. The one thing on which most people who have expressed a view on what went on at the last election agree is that that was unsatisfactory. So what this House ought to be concentrating on is not the argument about who did what when but on this legislation; looking at it thoroughly in the Committee stage and then determining whether it is in the best shape to proceed. 
United Future will support the second reading of this bill. We will examine the bill as it proceeds through its Committee of the whole House stage and then take a view as to what we should do when it comes to the third reading because there are issues to be considered. We want to see what the debate in this House is about and where the bill ends up. But it is important that we progress the issue to prevent a repetition of what was a most unsatisfactory election process in 2005. 
Debate interrupted.