Pillay Lynne: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Pillay Lynne: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13464] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 What a story! What a good story Tony Ryall tells. If anyone takes the time to read National’s minority view in the select committee report they will see again what a story the National Party tells. 
The Electoral Finance Bill is not an attack on free speech; it is an attack—and quite unashamedly—on big-buck speech. We want to see—as I heard my good friend Charles Chauvel saying before—the principle of one person one vote. That is what the Labour Party—and in fact the majority of people in this Parliament—wants to see. I saw the huge advertisement in the  
New Zealand Herald 
—which was paid for by an ACT member—and I saw Rodney Hide who had popped a bit of sticky tape across his mouth to prove a point which is probably the only way we would see Rodney not being able to talk— 
Hon Member 
: That’s the best part about that ad. I liked it. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: That is right. The  
New Zealand Herald  
states that free speech is going to be stifled. We know that is not the case. The illusion that it is creating in its paid advertisement with its cronies is that ordinary people will not be able to speak freely. It talks about people not being able to speak with megaphones and all that sort of thing. 
People do not even have to be listed as a third party unless they spend more than $12000. I know that to the National Party whose mates spent $1.2 million on its parallel campaigns $12000 seems like chicken feed. But to the majority of New Zealanders $12000 is a lot of money. The majority of New Zealanders—and the majority of people who came to the select committee in support of the bill—want to see transparency and accountability. What is wrong with that? I am pleased the select committee listened very very carefully to what submitters said. Again the illusion is that no one supports the bill. That is absolute rubbish. The whole non-governmental sector supports the bill. It had concerns which we fixed that it would be caught by the definition of advertising. 
I want to stop there just for a moment. Do members remember the huge fuss Opposition members made about the fact that non-governmental organisations which receive Government money for the good work that they do were advocating about things like smoke-free legislation? One would ask “Why?” because where does the National Party get its big money from? Where were the National Party members then talking about freedom of speech? Where were they then talking about advocacy? No they did not want to hear it not when those things interfered with their fund-raising and with their money. 
There is no question that the National Party’s opposition to this bill is absolute naked self-interest and it is appalling. It is absolutely appalling. We heard from members of the Human Rights Commission who came to the select committee and talked about the third party cap. I had to congratulate Rodney Hide who had a good idea. He said: “Let’s consult the Human Rights Commission about the proposed changes.” So we got the Human Rights Commission members to come back. They said—and this is what we do not see in the advertisements—that they absolutely supported the purpose to provide for transparency and accountability in the democratic process and to prevent the undue influence of wealth and to promote participation in the parliamentary democracy. I quote from its report back to the select committee on 31 October which members will never see in the  
New Zealand Herald  
or anywhere else: “The commission strongly supports the following recommended changes which it believes better enhance freedom of expression and the right to participate in electoral processes.” Why do we not see that Mr Chairman?