English Bill: Electoral Finance Bill — First Reading 
English Bill: Electoral Finance Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10778] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 This advertisement that I am holding up appeared today in the  
New Zealand Herald  
and the  
Dominion Post 
. It is an advertisement from the Post Primary Teachers Association (PPTA) and it is the start of what I think will be a long and difficult campaign to get pay rises out of the Government. It is a vigorous kind of advertisement. I was the subject of such advertisements personally when I was an education spokesman. 
The PPTA with its advertisements in today’s  
Dominion Post  
and the  
New Zealand Herald 
 has spent half of the annual allowance that this legislation gives to anyone in New Zealand to influence public opinion with. If the PPTA ran this ad after 1 January next year the $30000 it has spent today would be half of the $60000 limit that under this bill any third party can spend to influence public opinion. That $30000 for the ads does not include the posters in the staffrooms or the pamphlets it is distributing. It does not include the email which is covered by this bill. It could well be—[ 
Interruption 
] That member should listen because the PPTA is going to come kicking her door down. It could well be that this week the PPTA with what it has spent on all the other material that goes with this ad has spent the lot. In an election year it would not be able to do one more thing to influence public opinion. 
That shows us just how paranoid Labour is. That is the impact it is having on its mates—the people who vote for Labour who deliver its pamphlets and who raise its money loyally election after election. The PPTA and the New Zealand Educational Institute which represents 60000 New Zealanders will between them be able to run four full-page ads for 1 day each next year. Do they know that? Imagine the size of the riot there would be on the front steps of Parliament if National said to the teacher unions: “Between you you can run four one-page ads all election year. That’s all you’re allowed because we’re worried that you’ll criticise us.” 
This week we have seen how deep the paranoia in the Labour Party is. We have had a long-running scandal about the sacking of a civil servant not because of her political views but because of the political views of the person she lives with. That paranoia extends to the introduction by the State Services Commission of a register of interests for senior civil servants whereby they will have to declare the political interests of people with whom they are associated. That is how deep the paranoia is and this bill is a case of more paranoia. This bill represents a Labour Party that is worried that someone might criticise it. Someone might run an ad in the newspaper. 
John Carter 
: Who? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The PPTA—that is who. 
What will happen when Greenpeace wakes up and realises what a shambles Labour’s climate change policy is? 
Simon Power 
: Amnesty International. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Amnesty International the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society—they know that the climate change policy is a total shambles. The people who are opposed to battery hens hold their convictions deeply I can tell members. 
John Carter 
: What does Nandor think about that? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: All the people he says he represents are by this bill virtually banned from trying to influence public opinion. The $60000 is only the start of it. They are limited to $60000 at the top but if someone spends $5000 that person has to register as a third party. Labour cannot stand the idea that someone out there is spending $5000 which is about the cost of one mail-out going to a couple of thousand homes. That sum of money could not cover Gore. A mail-out in Gore means that someone qualifies as a paranoid critic of the Labour Government. 
The SPCA in Gore and the Women’s Refuge are trying to raise money. Do members know why those organisations would count? Let us look at the definition of election advertising in the bill and see just how broad this paranoia goes. Clause 5(1)(ii) states that an election advertisement is any form of words or graphics or both that can be regarded as “encouraging or persuading voters to vote or not to vote”—we are familiar with that; it is the rule now in terms of the 3-month period—“for a type of party or for a type of candidate that is described or indicated by reference to views positions or policies that … are pursued (whether or not the name of a party or the name of a candidate is stated):”. So election advertising is anything someone says that might persuade someone to vote or not to vote—and members should listen to this—that is “described or indicated by reference to views positions or policies that are or are not held taken or pursued …” whether or not the party is named. So someone does not even need to say: “This is a National Party position.” Someone can just say: “I am against good climate change policy.” and that counts because National has the position of having good climate change policy. 
But it gets worse. Clause 5(1)(iii) states: “taking a position on a proposition with which 1 or more parties … is associated;”. So if National is associated with people working hard with self-reliance and with getting ahead and a person goes out and runs an ad that says: “I want New Zealanders to get ahead. Please get out and vote.” then that will be covered because it is a proposition—hard work—that is associated with National. Someone cannot advertise in favour of hard work because that is associated with National. Someone cannot advertise against corruption because that is associated with Labour—it is that simple. 
This is straight out of Zimbabwe. In fact if members read the rules of the former Soviet Union about election campaigning they will see that those rules were less restrictive than these ones. 
John Carter 
: Mugabe wrote them. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Mugabe would be proud of this. He cuts out the middle man; he just locks them up. 
Labour has come up with the worst possible result in respect of electoral reform. All Labour’s mates thought they would get State funding. Well the public said no to that. The Christchurch  
Press  
said that Labour would bring in a clear robust and transparent set of rules that would do away with the dark and potentially corrupt practices of the past like the pledge card. Then the  
Press 
 said that that was not what had happened and that this legislation had Dr Cullen’s and Helen Clark’s fingerprints all over it. Helen Clark has paranoia and Dr Cullen is bluffing. Dr Cullen sounded big and tough all through last year about what Labour would do but the Christchurch  
Press  
said the bill was a botch-up. Well we could have told the  
Press 
 that because Minister Burton was doing it. The bill fails to fix the obvious flaws in the present system. 
The Government is setting out to regulate political opinion for the whole of the election year. After 1 January next year nobody can have an opinion without it being counted against a spending limit. If anyone wants to have a public opinion and spends more than $5000 that person will have to register. A person will have to register in New Zealand to have a public opinion! That is a disgrace! That is why this bill will go down. National members will oppose it with every fibre of their effort because it must go down. The registration of Government critics is deeply paranoid it is offensive and it must be stopped. I say to Helen Clark that New Zealand will stop it. 
Helen Clark is wrong again. She was wrong about the pledge card she was wrong about Taito Phillip Field she was wrong about the smacking bill and she has totally misjudged public opinion on this. Will New Zealanders roll over and say: “Yes Helen please make me register because I have an opinion you don’t like.”?