Auchinvole Chris: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
Auchinvole Chris: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13668] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 What we have here is desperate attempt to litigate the last election not the next election. It is a desperate attempt to re-litigate the last election in 2005. We could almost call this the “Look Back in Anger Bill” because that is what Labour is doing. Those members are looking back in anger. Let us see the constructs of this bill. What was it that inspired it? Well there were technicalities that needed correction. I do not think that anybody has disputed that. Doing that is a good idea. It is a good idea but there is a mind in Labour—and I do not think that mind is present in the House—that thought: “Let us use this to some advantage. Let us leverage on it.” What was it that really hurt those members in the last election? Let us think about that. It was the early demonstration of National’s hoardings. “We are not having those again.” said the mind. “How can we stop it?” asked the others. The mind said: “Bring the date forward. They have that in England. Bring it to the beginning of the year. That will stop National’s hoardings which did us so much harm.” So we have an early programme and an early date. It is borrowed legislation. The trouble with borrowed legislation is that it fits only where it hits. 
If we look at the English situation with due respect to Labour it does not seem to be working over there because I believe there have been fingers in the till in spite of that Government’s having policy that Labour thinks is so suitable for us. I would suggest that it was not the genesis of the parliamentary wing of Labour that developed this. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Who did it? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Well the mind is somewhere in there but also it started to get clever. Again we look at the constructs. The mind said: “Let us ask the Greens to help us. If we have enough of a majority then we do not have to involve bipartisan discussion.” What position were the Greens in after the last election? Someone a dogma-driven idealist-structured and single-minded group of people had produced a pamphlet—a pamphlet; how dreadful! So that must be stopped and these groups must be stopped. The Greens were happy fodder for the clever clever constructs. One could say that they were sucked in. What inspired them to do that? I guess it is a case of recognising in others that which one sees in oneself because if we were to ask which party in Parliament was principally dogma-driven idealist-structured and single-minded then I think the Green Party would qualify for those meritorious points. Those members saw in others that which must be stopped because they know it works against them. 
New Zealand First with its vociferous spokesman on this issue— 
Hon Member 
: Squawking. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: No I would not call him squawking; he is vociferous. I am put in mind of some of those geographic films on television about the animals where the main contestants are fighting away and there is always someone lurking around the edges waiting for some advantage. That is what I am reminded of with New Zealand First members. And United Future members will simply wait and see although I understand they said that they would not support this legislation in the event of urgency being used. 
Let us spend a minute looking at the process. I sat through I think the majority of the Justice and Electoral Committee meetings and I would suggest the process could be described as a shameful sham. Lynne Pillay who is in every other respect a pleasant person was the same every day—she had nothing intelligent or constructive to say. She used to say: “It has been decided. The Greens have agreed.” and when we considered discussion she said we had no need. I have heard her say in this Chamber in response to one of the remarks made by my colleague Mr Finlayson that there was very little considered discussion on this bill. She said that Labour had the majority—in other words ipso facto there was no need for discussion. I thought this was supposed to be a Parliament. That is what I came here for: a discussion for consideration.