Turei Metiria: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
Turei Metiria: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13618] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I want to deal with a couple of other matters on Part 3 that the Greens were very pleased to see changes made to in the Justice and Electoral Committee. In particular I refer to the removal of a statutory declaration for spending less than the threshold amount for third parties. This is an issue that all the minor parties were keen to see changed. It means that people or groups do not have to sign a statutory declaration if they want to spend money under the threshold for listing as a third party. It did seem like an unnecessary bureaucratic measure so it was great that it was removed. 
We are also very pleased with our advocacy for strengthening the enforcement provisions for a corrupt practice—which has already been talked about to some extent—from a fine of $40000 to a fine of $100000. This is very important to us because of course it means that the police will take prosecutions and treat them seriously when the consequence of the criminal or corrupt activity is very high. So increasing those fines was a very important thing to do and the Electoral Commission supported us doing it. 
I also refer again to the very good Supplementary Order Paper 170 which establishes a Citizens’ Assembly a form of citizens’ jury for our country. I take note of Mr Mapp’s very poor analysis of the importance of having the public engaged in such a process. I understand that he has been many years away from the legal profession and perhaps has lost a bit of his edge on that matter but it is very important to the Greens that the public have a say. We have campaigned on this issue for a very long time—since the early stages of this year. 
Anne Tolley 
: So why not send the bill back? 
METIRIA TUREI 
: Anne Tolley is interjecting on me. I emailed Anne Tolley a copy of my Supplementary Order Paper that had provision for a citizens’ jury incorporated into it. It took Anne Tolley only 56 minutes to email me back. Do members know what she said? Did she say that National would like to look at the Supplementary Order Paper and consider the issues or that she had read it and it was very interesting but National had principled reasons for not agreeing to it? No. Did she send me anything of use about why she thought that perhaps it was not a good idea? No. There was no analysis no description—nothing. All she did after 56 minutes of very poor consideration was to send me back an email that said “No”. “No” is what Anne Tolley said. It took her 56 minutes to come to the conclusion that no citizens should not have a say in how their campaign reform should look. 
Anne Tolley says that citizens should not have a say about campaign finance reform. It took her 56 minutes to dismiss the public of New Zealand. It took her 56 minutes to decide that New Zealanders could not be trusted to make decisions about campaign finance reform. Why is that? Why did it take her only 56 minutes to decide? Hmm let me see. Perhaps it had something to do with the fact that the National Party is opposing anybody who is trying to make sure that we have a transparent system in this country where the use of money is clearly defined where it is clearly understood to be part of the corrupting process and where there are clear caps on the way that money is spent and on the massive amounts of secret trust money that the National Party gets. 
I feel very sad that National could be so dismissive of the rights of citizens to make decisions about the nature of their campaign finance. People have a right to make a decision that political parties should not get anonymous donations from wealthy organisations and people like those in the Business Roundtable people like David Richwhite—all of those people who have long reputations for certain kinds of behaviour in New Zealand. National wants to be able to keep the money coming from all of those kinds of people and from organisations like the Business Roundtable and it does not want New Zealanders to have a say about it. I just find that so tragic. [ 
Interruption 
] Well Wayne Mapp has no analysis. 
I would like to hear from Anne Tolley why it is she would take only 56 minutes to decide that New Zealanders should have no say in electoral campaign finance reform. Is it because she knows that if New Zealanders did have a say they would say they want more transparency they want more control and they want to know where the secret money comes from? They would want National to tell them who funds the party who gave National $1.2 million from the Waitemata Trust and who gave National hundreds of thousands of dollars in secret funds. The public want to know but Anne Tolley does not want the public to know. Anne Tolley said no to citizens having a say and no to the community having an input into campaign finance reform. What is Anne Tolley’s problem?