Mapp Wayne: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13615] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I want to reflect on the speeches given by New Zealand First and the Green Party and the reason I want to do that is this: they are in the Chamber propping up legislation being proposed by the Government but that New Zealanders do not want. The reason that New Zealanders do not want it is that they see it as an assault on their democracy: their rights and freedom to participate. Yet both the parties that have been speaking in support of the bill are backing it on the basis that it is about fairness. I want to bring to the attention of the Green Party the point of view of for instance the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society. It often becomes involved in political debates like whether political parties should support Maui’s dolphin and protect them. In fact I had a visit from those people about protecting Maui’s dolphin. I have to say to the Green Party that this bill will effectively stop the organisation doing that unless it goes through a complicated and difficult procedure of registrations and then running the risks of committing offences and being prosecuted. 
Metiria Turei 
: Untrue. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: That is the point of clauses 120 and 125. I need to explain obviously to the Green member why she does not understand the law she is supporting. The only way the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society could run a campaign to protect Maui’s dolphin to engage the public interest is to print pamphlets hold public meetings maybe have radio ads put ads in the newspaper and the like. If the organisation did that throughout New Zealand and held a dozen or so meetings then straight away on that one issue alone it would have spent tens of thousands of dollars which it would have had to gain from its members. Do members know why? 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Why? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: That is an issue that particular political parties are identified with and indeed they go so far as to say: “Support those parties that will protect Maui’s dolphin.” That is what the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society will do and there are many many other concerned citizens’ organisations just like that. The whole problem with this legislation is that it makes things much much harder for those organisations to do that. I will admit that it does not make it impossible but why put those organisations through the hoops? Why force them to register? Why get them to record all of their donations? Why put them at risk of being prosecuted? 
Hon Annette King 
: They don’t have to. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I hear the Minister saying no but it would be hugely helpful if she read the bill and understood that Subpart 5 does precisely that as soon as one gets involved in any discussion which is about supporting a political party or a group of parties on a particular issue and that leads one directly into Part 3 and the provisions around sanctions. The Green Party then said: “Well we’re going to support this legislation.” but this legislation is designed to restrict freedom designed to limit debate and actually designed to help Labour get elected as was quite clearly revealed by Jill Pettis. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Citizens’ Assembly. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: So their excuse is: “Well we will pass the legislation to chill freedom to stop debate but our fix-up our ‘solution’ is to have a Citizens’ Assembly.” They seem to think that that will somehow make whole their deficiency. They are totally wrong. It will be seen as the facile trick and device that it is. I just want to tell the member of the Green Party what a Citizens’ Assembly actually is. Everyone in this Chamber is a citizen. Every person here has been elected. It is an assembly. This is the place where we debate the legislation and I just wish that the Green Party in particular and the New Zealand First Party understood their obligation to New Zealanders and that is about freedom. These parties come into the House specifically to represent the citizens—they would say the minorities. Yet they are supporting legislation that will do the very opposite of that; it will prevent those citizens’ groups from participating easily in the election. They have constructed a whole apparatus of registration donations regimes and so forth and then on top of that they say that the financial agent under clause 119 of the third party then is going to be liable to be prosecuted. How does that defend freedom?