Dalziel Lianne: Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Dalziel Lianne: Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:669;Page:16456] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 Labour will be supporting the final reading of the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill and the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill. These bills did not excite the same level of public attention as did the Electoral Referendum Bill. The Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill attracted 44 submissions 11 of which were heard by the Electoral Legislation Committee and the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill attracted only six submissions four of which were heard by the committee and I guess that is a higher hit rate for those who were heard as opposed to the others. There is a significant reason for that and I will come to that when I speak on the Electoral Referendum Bill. 
I wish to acknowledge the work of the select committee as well as the Minister of Justice has done and in particular I thank Amy Adams for her competency in chairing the committee and her willingness to engage on issues where there was not agreement. There are issues upon which she and I will never agree but I respect her position. The reason I respect her position is that as a result of the discussions we have had I actually understand her position—I do not agree with it but I understand it. I believe that the genuine contest of ideas that often happens behind the closed door of a select committee is something that the public never fully sees or appreciates and I want to put that on the record. 
I also acknowledge the Minister’s willingness to seek a compromise that enabled a consensus to emerge around the most important elements of the legislation. The two parties have both had to give something in order to gain what it was they felt was a priority in reaching that consensus. We will be supporting measures in this legislation that do not form part of Labour policy but they are part of achieving that broad agreement that the Minister spoke of. 
For Labour the important issue was the cap on third-party spending. We believe that without the cap the potential for well-resourced campaigns to exert undue influence or even the perception of undue influence would be damaging to the integrity of our electoral system and run the risk of what I call the Americanisation of New Zealand elections. 
I have spoken on issues through the debate and I will summarise them to remind us why we are having this debate. I will not defend Labour’s attempt to write new rules in the wake of what happened in 2005. Those rules were not durable because there was no attempt to reach consensus or to make compromises. The reason for that was the very uncompromising position of a party that avoided the regulated period to set the scene for one of the most bitter campaigns that I have ever experienced in my then 15 years in politics and that culminated with the unprincipled collusion with a religious sect to help bring down a Government. The irony that the sect does not vote and that it used subterfuge to hide its true identity was not lost on a voting public who would have been unaware of its involvement had it not been exposed prior to the 2005 general election. Trust between the two major parties had already broken down completely when consensus on race issues was finally destroyed with the “Iwi/Kiwi” billboard campaign masterminded by John Key’s right-hand man Steven Joyce and the team from Crosby/Textor. The billboards with the photoshopped photographs of the scowling face of then Prime Minister Helen Clark contrasted with the benevolent kindly face of the then Leader of the Opposition Don Brash set the scene for a campaign I would prefer to forget. But it is a campaign that I will always remember in order to remind me of what would have happened if the subterfuge had not been exposed in time. 
This bill will not stop the scene-setting behaviour outside the regulated period but it will stop third parties like the Exclusive Brethren going to the Electoral Commission with a $1.2 million campaign. After finding out that using Don Brash’s photo and promoting him as the next Prime Minister would require the consent of the National Party and that the whole $1.2 million would be charged to the National Party they then changed it to attack Labour Government pamphlets on health and defence and the Greens on drug policy. To know that that religious sect preaches the virtues of integrity but failed to practise them by hiding its true identity with false addresses as it did in that campaign was a revelation of the extent that those extreme right-wing organisations will go to. They will not be allowed to spend $1.2 million in the next campaign as a single entity; $300000 will be the limit and by law we will be entitled to know who they are and where they can be genuinely contacted. 
I hope I never see the likes of the 2005 election campaign again. Let us contest ideas and aspirations let us debate plans and strategies let us engage with the public and with each other with respect for the democratic process and let us never ever allow this place to become subservient to the influence of a well-resourced minority who would never stand for election to serve the public interest but who would only ever seek to exploit a private benefit from the shadows. It is said that sunlight is the best disinfectant and this law does cast light into those shadows and that is why Labour will support its final reading today.