Finlayson Christopher: Electoral Finance Bill Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 3) Electoral Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Finlayson Christopher: Electoral Finance Bill Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 3) Electoral Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:644;Page:14051] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I am pleased the previous speaker mentioned Shakespeare because if ever there was a King Lear rave upon the heath without descending to the detail of legislation—as one should do in a third reading speech—it was that speech made by Mr Hodgson. In my speech I will look at the Committee stage of the legislation say something about what emerged from that and emphasise what my leader and deputy leader have said about the commitment of the National Party to repeal this odious legislation as soon as we gain office. I will not dwell this afternoon on the failure of the Attorney-General to provide a report under section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. He is a person who puts loyalty to party ahead of loyalty to country. His failings are well known. 
The system has failed. The safeguards one expects to work have not worked. If the select committee process was hopeless then the Committee stage of the legislation was simply a disgrace. If ever there was legislation that required a clause by clause analysis it was this. But instead of focusing on the workability of the legislation the Labour New Zealand First and Green members took calls on various parts of the legislation and had generalised raves about the last election. 
The Prime Minister’s response to our careful analysis was revealing. She criticised Mr English and me for nit-picking. She does not seem to understand that when inevitably there is litigation on this legislation next year judges will need to grapple with the words of a particular section to ascertain what the section means. I can predict one thing: Annette King’s law of common sense will not assist; nor will it be possible for the courts to receive any assistance by looking at  
Hansard 
. Were they to do so they would see that National members had tried hard to look at the difficult issues but that all Labour members including notably—I say for Mr Woolerton’s benefit—the Minister of Justice could only go on about the Exclusive Brethren. I predict there will be a great deal of litigation next year. This legislation contains so many uncertainties that litigation is inevitable. 
Secondly let us take a look at how the legislation emerged from the debate in the Committee stage. The National Party put forward a number of serious amendments—some were principled others were technical but very few of the latter category were accepted by the Government. I predict there will be another amendment bill next year and that some of my proposed amendments will have to be adopted then because the legislation that we are about to pass is unworkable. What about the regulated period provided for in clause 4? 
This legislation will shortly be signed into law and will take effect from 1 January. For 1 year out of 3 political discourse in New Zealand will be regulated. How does that further the interests of democracy whether one looks at it from the point of view of the political class or more important from the point of view of the public? The new Labour candidate for Wellington Central has already distributed a brochure introducing himself and he has done so to avoid the consequences of the regulated period and the cap that will apply after 1 January. Out in the field even the Labour Party is looking for ways to get around its own law. 
The supporters of this legislation have long said that it is designed to right the wrongs of 2005. That would be a noble goal if it was carried out with any sincerity but sincerity like public consultation during the select committee deliberations has been lacking. Instead this Government has chosen to be selective in the matters it has dealt with. It has conveniently ignored many of the wrongs that fell on its side of the ledger in 2005. The police decided they could not prosecute Heather Simpson because it would be unfair to tar an individual for a crime committed by a group. I proposed an amendment to the legislation that would have seen party liability introduced. Not only was this opposed by Labour but it was not even referred to by its own speakers. The police showed themselves to be out of their depth in dealing with matters of electoral law so we proposed the position of a chief electoral prosecutor who would be independent and who would have expertise to deal with this mess. Not only did Labour oppose this proposal it vetoed any debate on it on the grounds it thought it would cost $3 million. Labour never wanted to debate the merits of a sound proposal which was backed by many of the independent organisations that provided submissions. 
Finally at the very least we thought that if it was to be left up to the police to prosecute then they would need a reasonable amount of time to consider any prosecutions. The current version of the legislation says that prosecutions have to be undertaken within 6 months. We proposed an amendment that would give the police 2 years. But again Labour opposed this and again it failed to give us one single reason why it was a bad idea. The cynicism of this move to prevent any meaningful prosecutions under the new legislation would be extraordinary in itself if it was not overwhelmed by the nature of the process through which the legislation has been so cynically pushed. On the three big issues that were raised by this legislation—the position of third parties the regulated period and the definition of candidate advertisement—there have been no improvements. 
There is a donations regime in the legislation lauded by New Zealand First but it is muddled. It was hastily drafted in the latter stages of the select committee’s deliberations. If the Government had accepted the offer made by Mr English 12 months ago to talk about transparency and a sensible donations regime this legislation could have been greatly improved. 
This afternoon I pay tribute to Mr Dunne. I am pleased to see he has looked at the issue carefully and has listened to the concerns of members of the public. Clearly he has now read clause 5(1)(a)(ii). He now recognises that that subclause will shut down debate next year. But I am not quite so impressed by the Greens and the New Zealand First Party. The Greens like to portray themselves as innocents abroad but they too have been active participants in this shabby affair. They are as cynical and as unprincipled on this issue as Labour. They do not care about the damage this legislation will cause to our constitution. Let us look at the members of New Zealand First. Fresh from their Starship Children’s Health stunt they are now ignoring the message from their supporters in Tauranga who correctly see the threat that is posed by this legislation. 
The National Party has been accused of focusing too much on the interests of politicians but that is wrong. Take for example the phrase “third party”. We have said time and time again that that terminology is offensive. The people are the principals in the democratic process; the politicians are the servants. People may not want to join political parties as much as they did in earlier years but they may want to contribute to the political process by joining organisations like the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society and Greenpeace. The National Party recognises this. We did not want the term “third party”. We preferred the term “interested party” but that was voted down. 
So where to from here? Both my leader and deputy leader have given a commitment that National will repeal the legislation. The Labour Party has breached a well-established convention that electoral law should so far as possible be bipartisan or multipartisan. It will not be easy to reconstruct that convention but the National Party will do so because it is in the public interest that we go back to a situation where there is proper discussion between all parties on these very important issues. 
This has been a very sorry incident in New Zealand’s political history. The legislation will not endure. It will be repealed before the end of 2008 because the National Party will do the right thing in the public good and in the national interest. Much as one is tempted to exercise a little utu there will be no utu. The distinctions between the two major parties in this country are obvious. Under the leadership of Helen Clark Labour has become utterly negative. It likes banning things or people for its own sake. Its motto is: “Accentuate the negative; ban; boycott; embargo; exclude; vilify; blacklist; close down; shut up; silence; censure; hate; sneer.” But these are the things that come so naturally to Helen Clark and the other Labour Party wreckers and haters. They are the only things they know. As my leader said it is time for a change.