Woolerton R Doug: Electoral Finance Bill — Second Reading 
Woolerton R Doug: Electoral Finance Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13388] 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First is in favour of the Electoral Finance Bill for many reasons but I will talk about just a few things. The National Party has made a big issue out of free speech. It has made a big issue out of the idea that Labour intends to look after itself. It has made a big issue about New Zealand First’s involvement in the last election and the fact that we had a bit of a problem with spending on a pamphlet. It has made a big issue out of those sorts of things. 
Many submissions were heard on this bill—nearly 600 in fact. Over 100 were heard orally and we worked for long hours. Many submitters wanted to know one thing specifically. They were concerned—and I guess they had a right to be—about who donated to political parties who were the real backers of political parties what they stood for and what they expected when their party of choice was elected to Parliament. I think that those submitters have a right to be concerned about those issues and that they are things that will go on into the future of politics. 
But this bill makes a very very good attempt at attending to those problems. It makes a big attempt at making sure that transparency is the order of the day that secret trusts are attended to and that donators are identified. I think that is fair enough and here is why. In the 2005 election donations over $10000 were made to the New Zealand National Party from a Bell Gully trust account PO Box 4199 Auckland a donation of $62000; a Buddle Findlay trust account PO Box 1433 Auckland a donation of $25000; J. Benton—presumably that is a private person and God bless him or her for identifying himself or herself—a donation of $25000; a Jones Young trust account— 
Chris Tremain 
: Hang them! Hang the man! 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: I do not think there is any need to hang any of these people. I just want to make sure that people know how much money the National Party spent at the last election and why there are concerns by the general public about where money for political parties comes from. This is why. It is because one party in particular is concerned absolutely with secrecy. 
I will go on. Donations to the National Party included those from a Jones Young trust account Shortland St Auckland of $100000; a Russell McVeagh trust account of $50000; Sky City management—at least it was identified—of $60000; the Ruahine Trust PO Box 2244 Auckland of $249948; and the Waitemata Trust PO Box 2244 Auckland. As a former official of the National Party I can tell members that I am well aware—well aware—of the Waitemata Trust. Its donation to the National Party was $1254845. Toll Holdings—and God bless Toll Holdings for identifying itself—donated $25000. The Westpac Banking Group donated $30000. The total amount of donations from that list was $1881793. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: But where is the secret? 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: But those are the secret trusts. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will be seated. What I want is what everyone wants in this world and that is order. Chaos may be fruitful in furthering some forms of management but will not be the parent of good order here. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: I say to those members opposite—and it might surprise them—that I am not concerned about secret trusts at all but the public of New Zealand are concerned about them. They are the ones who are concerned. Through the submission process the public of New Zealand told the select committee that they are concerned about secret trusts. Those trusts are the public’s main concern and to the extent that it can this bill is attending to that problem. 
But that is not the whole of the issue. Much has been made by the National Party in recent weeks and by the  
New Zealand Herald 
 I might say about political parties using public money. Much ado has been made about the Labour Party using public money and about New Zealand First United Future and others using public money. But the biggest beneficiary of public money in this Parliament today is the National Party to the tune of $7 million—$7 million has gone to the New Zealand National Party for its use. Yet National members have the temerity to go out in public and make out that they are the Goody Two-Shoes around here. They have the temerity to do that when they are the biggest beneficiaries of public money. And that sum has just been increased. 
I am not often here quoting newspapers but I want to read to members a little bit from Colin Espiner of the Christchurch  
Press 
. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Is that a secret newspaper? 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: The members opposite are yelling out about secrecy. I have done all of that bit and told members that I am not concerned about that; the public is. 
I want to read this from Colin Espiner of the Christchurch  
Press 
. National members were waving the  
New Zealand Herald  
around the other day so here is a little bit from the Christchurch  
Press 
. Colin Espiner said: “What particularly annoys me is the bleating from the National Party over this.”—“this” being the Electoral Finance Bill—“The Nats escaped virtually scot-free from the AG’s report by sheer luck.” I can expand on that if people want me to but I will do that further on in another speech on another day. “The party had spent most of its leader’s budget on political advertising earlier in 2005 believing the election would be in July.” And I know the reasons for that. “The AG only looked at the last few months leading up to the September polling day.” Those are not my words. 
Colin Espiner continued: “Don’t believe that National won’t spend every penny of the almost $7 million it receives from the taxpayer for ‘parliamentary purposes’ either. National gets more than any other party (because ministers of the Crown don’t count in the funding formula meaning Labour loses out) and recently received an increase in its budget of $668000—the most of any party.” We would never know that by the way the National Party has been campaigning on this issue recently. And he went on to say: “If National really believed this law was a travesty it would hand this money back and refuse to use its leader’s budget for any purpose the AG originally deemed to be unlawful—including hiring expensive Australian election consultants push-polling and billboards featuring its leader.” 
Colin Espiner concluded: “It won’t of course. But National is relaxed in opposing this legislation confident in the knowledge that it will pass anyway and because its leader could himself bankroll National’s entire election campaign if necessary.” Quite frankly I think he should do that because at least New Zealand would then know where the National Party’s money came from. At least and at last New Zealanders would know who the backers of the National Party really were. At least and at last New Zealanders would know what the real agenda of the National Party would be if it were ever to gain the Treasury benches.