Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:669;Page:16455] 
Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill 
Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill 
Third Readings 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill and the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. These two bills are part of a package of legislative measures giving effect to the Government’s electoral reform commitments. As I have said many times in this House electoral law should be based on a broad consensus so that the rules are enduring and certain across elections. In that sense the most important aspect of the new electoral finance regime has been the process used to construct it. The law also needs to be fair and transparent so the public can have confidence in the integrity of the outcome of elections. In February 2009 the Government repealed the Electoral Finance Act 2007 and replaced it with an interim regime. We then undertook to introduce new laws after a thorough and lengthy consultation process involving all parliamentary parties and the public. Only those proposals that had widespread support would proceed. 
The Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill has resulted from the work of many people including those who submitted throughout the consultation process all parties represented in this House through the Electoral Legislation Committee and officials who have worked extremely hard on this particular package. The bill reforms the election advertising and donation rules in the Electoral Act 1993 to provide greater clarity transparency and accountability in election campaigns. Candidates political parties and third-party promoters will better understand their obligations and the Electoral Commission’s enforcement role will be made simpler. Additional regulation of third-party promoters is introduced to improve transparency and accountability and to uphold public confidence in the conduct of elections. The bill also makes a number of changes to the donations regime to provide for administrative efficiency and again greater transparency. I am confident that this bill strikes the right balance between participation and fairness. 
The Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill provides a permanent definition of the term “funding entitlements for parliamentary purposes”. The bill also aligns with the proposed electoral finance rules to ensure that Parliamentary Service funding is not used for election advertising. Together these bills will enhance the public’s confidence in the integrity of our elections. 
Finally I thank all parties and the public for their participation and interest in this area and their desire for an enduring legislative framework for electoral finance laws. I commend these bills to the House. 
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. 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 It feels like the end of a long journey standing here to contribute to the third reading debate on the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill. It has certainly been a big part of my year’s work and I start this contribution by thanking the Minister of Justice not only for the process he has put up on the reform of electoral finance laws which I think has been an excellent robust transparent and inclusive but also for giving me the opportunity to get involved in the process. It has been something I have very much enjoyed. 
I recognise that I am a new member to the House but I think that gives a perspective in these debates that should not go without inclusion in the argument. It has been very interesting to work with all the members of the Electoral Legislation Committee. I acknowledge the Hon Lianne Dalziel the Hon Pete Hodgson and the Hon Darren Hughes; the members of the committee on my side Paul Quinn Hekia Parata and Chris Tremain; as well as Metiria Turei John Boscawen Rahui Katene Jim Anderton and Peter Dunne. They all were very good to work with. They all came with an open mind and a real understanding that if this was going to be durable solution we had to as far as possible put politics to one side and try to address this bill very much on its merits. As the Hon Lianne Dalziel said in her contribution we did not always agree—we usually will not and probably my caucus is quite pleased about that; I certainly am—but I think we did get to a very good place and there is no substitute for having people who live and breathe this stuff contributing to the future of it. 
I will make a couple of comments about where we got to on some of these matters. We have gone through them as the bill has progressed through the House on a number of occasions. One thing I will touch on really because it has not had a lot of airtime in this debate is the changes to the advance voting rules. Clearly the bulk of this bill is on electoral finance the regulated period the campaign limits and the disclosure and spending limits which have received most of the airtime. But I think it is worth getting on the record that those changes to the advance voting rules will make the whole process of advance voting a lot easier a lot more inviting and they should we hope lead to a significant increase in participation in the voting process. It has certainly been the recommendation of committees’ inquiries before and I am very pleased to see that we have had the opportunity to make that happen. 
I want to comment on the issue of spending caps. I said in my second reading contribution that my starting position was that I did not see one as being warranted. I did not see it as being a considerable issue in New Zealand but philosophically I have no problem standing here and supporting the position we have now come to. As I have said everyone who undertakes election advertising other than third parties is subject to a cap. 
I go out there spend funds that are my own or are funds I have raised and I am subject to very tight rules on how much I can spend and on what. When the National Party the Labour Party and the Green Party campaign there are very strict rules on what we can spend to ensure that it is a contest of ideas. It seemed to me to be odd to say the least that in a very tightly constrained area a third party could come in and spend at will against us. 
I think it is worth noting for anyone following this that there have always been limits on what third parties can say in positive campaigning by which I mean a bill board that asks the public to vote for a certain party and candidate. It was only ever negative campaigning that was open slather. I have to put on record that the last speaker Lianne Dalziel spoke at some length about the nastiness of negative campaigning but to be really fair about it I have to say it is not a one-sided thing. The 2008 election was a pretty good example of some fairly strong negative campaigning from the Labour Party. But that is a part of it and we can all take the hit and the cut and thrust. But what I do not think was right was that third parties be they unions religious groups business groups or lobby groups could spend at will when the parties and the candidates could not. 
Fundamentally I have no problem supporting a limit. The issue for me was to ensure that the limit was high enough to ensure that every citizen of New Zealand has the chance to engage in this debate in a meaningful way if they want to do so. My own view was that a limit of around $500000 would have been good but a limit of $300000 over 3 months means that we know there is still a significant ability for everyone to engage in the election process and undertake election advertising. There is no limit on discussing the issues. There is no limit on anyone who wants to take a stance on an issue. This limit applies only to the carrying out of election advertising. 
Finally I will touch on disclosure limits. I know that the Greens have expressed their concerns with the small change we made to those. I want to put on record that those limits of $1000 and $10000 before one has to name one’s donor have been in place since 1993 without review. Yes transparency is an important part of the process but so is the right to freedom of association and privacy around donations. 
No one in this country should have to disclose who they support politically. If they want to make a contribution that is not big enough to buy influence then they should have the ability to do that without fear of retribution from people on the other side of the political debate. We have seen that happen often enough to know that it is a real threat and we have to set a balance between the public’s right to know and the donor’s right to support parties of his or her choice. For me we have to ask at what level the balance should swing in favour of disclosure. I personally am of the view that at $1500 and at $15000 we are still very much in favour of transparency over the donor’s right to privacy. I think a small increase is not only warranted but necessary. I am very pleased to support it. 
I conclude by very warmly commending the Electoral (Finance and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill to the House. I hope we have achieved through this process an enduring solution to these difficult matters. Thank you. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I will probably not take my full 10 minutes. I do not want to repeat a lot of stuff that has been said on the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill but I want to repeat a little bit which is that the process worked and it need not have. It worked I think for just about everyone. When some minor parties in contributing to this debate say they are very distressed about this or that aspect of the outcome I think they may also say that the process was none the less a valuable one. In respect of the major parties which were the ones that had to put together the deal on third-party expenditure the $300000 figure came about because Labour and National talked to one another. It was a deal from which Labour and National emerged near enough to equally unhappy. That is what negotiation is like. The people who made it happen were the folk on the Electoral Legislation Committee who have been mentioned by Amy Adams as well as the Minister of Justice. 
It need not have happened. It need not have happened because there is an awful lot of bad blood going back to the 2005 election. Lianne Dalziel put that on the record firmly again. I think she did it really well and I am glad she did it but it does not need to be done again by me. I will not do it afresh. What happened is we moved from that point of very serious disagreement over the years to the 2008 legislation being repealed and an interim regime being put in place and now we have the third reading of legislation that will have some durability. So I thank colleagues from other corners of the House including the Minister. 
I am still distressed that and do not easily understand why some of the media think this bill is a bad thing. Some of the media think Simon Power is a disappointment. 
Hon Simon Power 
: It’s not just relating to this bill; it’s very wide. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The Minister is a modest man. The 
 Listener  
surprises me. I read  
Listener  
editorials. They are usually a good read. I find them informative I find them educational I agree with them more often than I disagree with them but this one I disagreed with. It started off by saying that yes it is true that money can buy elections absolutely it is true. It gave the argument away at the beginning. But it then went on—and I thought it rather specious logic—to suggest that because we would all know who these dastardly people were we the public would rail against their unregulated expenditure and the money would be wasted. That is tantamount to saying that the advertising industry is a joke. The advertising industry probably does not think that is the case. It probably thinks that expenditure on good careful marketing makes a difference to the product being backed. That was none the less the approach taken by the 
 Listener.  
The 
 Listener  
did not submit on the bill. The 
 Listener  
did not appear before the select committee. It did not have to—of course it did not—nor did the  
New Zealand Herald 
 which made similar comments. But I am surprised that they would support a situation in which candidates as Amy Adams has said and parties are rule bound during the regulated period but any other third party seeking to influence the outcome is not similarly regulated. If they want to argue that the figure is wrong that is fine. If they want to argue that some of the other detail in the legislation is wrong that is fine too; I have no doubt that we have not perfected it the first time round. 
But boy we have agreement across the House. The Greens wanted it to be tighter and the ACT Party wanted it to be looser. They will speak for themselves and I acknowledge the different positions they have. But across the two main parties the ones that are called the old parties by the third parties we now have agreement on a regulatory regime for third-party expenditure. What caused that was as Lianne Dalziel pointed out the involvement of the Exclusive Brethren. We had had some third-party involvement in elections before a little bit here a little bit there—nothing too bad. I can remember the SPCA deciding that Michael Laws was a good guy—or something equally unlikely. I think it was in 1987 or 1990—something like that. It was a long time ago. It did not need to be regulated. It was just a bit unusual. But now it is clear that we have reached a point in our history where some regulation is needed. 
That concludes my remarks. I will finish where I began by saying that for me the process has been a very good one and I would like to thank all of my colleagues who took part in it. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I will start where my colleague Mr Hodgson ended because the process has been a comparatively good one in dealing with quite fractious electoral law matters. 
It seems to me having been involved in the first Electoral Finance Act process a few years ago that this is actually part of the same process and is just unfinished business. If there had been enough time to deal with the issues we raised then—and we dealt with them in a very fractious and combative manner but if we had been allowed to go through the process such that we had a bit more time to then deal with those issues—we would have probably ended up in exactly the same place. When a highly reactive often emotional approach is taken to develop legislation on a very technical and often principled-based issue like electoral law it is a real difficulty to find the best form of electoral law to provide the best protection for the community and for political parties. So in some ways I see this bill as the end result of a process that was really just unfinished business. We would quite likely have ended up here if we had had the time to go through this properly. 
Of course the difficulty was that as Lianne Dalziel explained the 2005 election was a very unusual election in some respects because of the Exclusive Brethren attack. I acknowledge my late colleague Rod Donald and Jeanette Fitzsimons who exposed the Exclusive Brethren campaign and the relationship between the Exclusive Brethren and the National Party in that million-dollar campaign. If it had not been for Rod Donald and Jeanette Fitzsimons chasing down those people they would not have had their role in the campaign exposed to the extent that it was. That is the history out of which this legislation has been born. It has taken 5 years for us to work through to get reasonable electoral law. 
But the issues are even older than the 2005 election. In 1986 the Royal Commission on the Electoral System said it was not fair if some people in the community used their relative wealth to exercise disproportionate influence in determining who was to govern and what policies were to be pursued. It advised in 1986 that there should be a cap on third parties campaigning in an election. It was 20 years later in 2005 or just after that one of the bigger parties finally saw the validity of that statement—because there was no cap until after 2005. Finally one of the bigger parties saw the validity of that statement because it was subject to a million-dollar uncapped campaign against it. So it was not until it actually felt the pain of that attack that it realised the royal commission had it right. We should have many years before instituted a process of caps on third parties. 
The political consensus we now have which is very good and very valuable that there should be caps on all political players during election campaigns is excellent but it should not have required the 2005 attack campaign to make parties especially National and Labour understand the importance of having electoral law based on sound principles from the start. We had a 20-year gap and the 2005 election before that principle was made apparent to the two older parties. Only then did they feel that they could support what was the only principled and rational change—to have the third-party cap. 
We cannot allow our electoral law to be developed in that kind of way. We should not wait for crises to happen; we should have an electoral law system that is based on principle. A rational approach to a principled and values-based system that supports the public’s right to a fair electoral process has to be the basis of our decisions. Although in the bill we are instituting those caps with a largely across-the-board political consensus which is great we have failed in the bill to apply the same kind of principle or to learn the lesson from 2005 and the 20-year delay in reaching that consensus when it comes to donations and the right of the public to know who is funding political parties. 
This bill makes it easier for political parties to hide from the public those who are giving them money. That is a recipe for corruption. It does not mean that parties are behaving corruptly but it keeps open the door for that possibility. How many more years will we have to wait before some other crisis happens for one of the older parties to understand it is really important that the public know who is giving money to a political party so they can feel confident that no one is giving money to political parties in exchange for policy? That is the inherent evil that we should be trying to prevent. People should not give money in secret to political parties in exchange for policy deals should that political party be successful in an election. 
The public need to know who is funding their political representatives but this legislation will make it much harder for the public to know. That is bad law it is bad principle it is irrational and it fails the test of ensuring that our electoral law is fair and transparent and provides the public with an electoral system in which they can have some faith and confidence that it is fair. So it is just difficult very difficult that in one area we can see that lessons were learnt from the failure to act in the past on a principled basis but at the same time we let the same legislation follow the exact same path of failing to understand that principle in electoral law is absolutely critical. 
The process has been better this time round. We have slightly better law this time round than we did last time and on that basis the Green Party will be supporting the bill. But there remains a genuine and ongoing concern that the bill makes it harder by preventing the public from having the right to know who is funding political parties. That therefore keeps open the door to further corrupt practice in the future and it will require another crisis before we can finally close that door once and for all. Kia ora. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 So far in this debate on the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill we have heard a lot about the issue of spending limits for third parties. I will address that issue in my speech later this afternoon. I also want to focus on the issue of broadcasting limits on television but I will start by addressing the issue of donations and limits on donation disclosure. 
I will comment on the comments that have just been made by Metiria Turei. She said that people should not be able to give money in secret to political parties to get policy in exchange. All I can say to her is that she must have a very poor view of her fellow human beings. She must believe that the only— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: For goodness’ sake! 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: No I say that very sincerely. The implication is that the only reason a person would give money to a political party or to a cause is that that person wants something out of it. That is what Metiria Turei is saying. She is saying that people should not be able to give money to political parties to buy policy. 
I have fundraised for a political party over the last 10 years and I would say that the proportion of people who want something in exchange is very very tiny. My experience with human nature is that people who give of their own money and time do it for the community interest and not because of what they can get out of it themselves. 
I find it very interesting that in the last week the candidates in the Auckland mayoral election have disclosed how much money they raised and how much they spent. We now know that the two leading candidates Mr Brown and Mr Banks had trusts set up for them into which donors paid money and then each of those trusts wrote cheques of approximately $500000 to fund those campaigns. There was no transparency which is fine because the ACT Party supports the rights of privacy of those individuals who make donations. 
I relate to the House the comment of David Lewis the spokesperson on behalf of Len Brown. He said of the people who had paid into Len Brown’s trust that the campaign raised money from hundreds of people from across the political spectrum who supported the mayor’s vision. Most wanted anonymity as per the current laws simply because they are private persons with no interest in being in the media. There we are I say to Metiria Turei. Those people supported the vision of the mayor. I suggest to Ms Turei that the people who support the Green Party—and I do not know the financial backers of the Green Party—are perhaps different from the people who back the ACT Party. The people who back the ACT Party support the vision of the ACT Party and I would have thought that the people who fund donate to and work towards the Labour Party would support the Labour Party for its vision and not for what they could get out of it. 
I now come to the issue of third parties. It is interesting that Lianne Dalziel has once again brought to the House the issue of the Brethren campaign in 2005. It is also interesting that that campaign came to the public’s attention. The media ferreted it out. It was known. It may well have had an impact on the election—I suspect it did—but it came without any requirement for disclosure of donations. In actual fact it works when the system is left to work as evident from the fact that the Brethren involvement was reflected in the media. 
It is interesting that Amy Adams acknowledged this afternoon the issue of whether it is philosophically reasonable for a political party or a candidate for election to have a limit on what it can spend while a third party has no limit. She concluded that philosophically she does not have a problem with that. Clearly National does not have a problem with that which is why it is voting for this legislation this afternoon. She said that the limit of $300000 is perhaps too low; she thought that $500000 was more appropriate. In respect of that issue my colleague Hilary Calvert yesterday promoted an amendment to increase that cap to $500000. It is a pity that that amendment was voted down. 
Why would we look to increase that limit? I repeat that each of the major political parties in this House is entitled under this legislation to spend more than $5 million in next year’s election. I repeat that the figure is $5 million. We are restricting the rights of ordinary individuals organisations and associations who want to come together to form a campaign. They can spend no more than $300000 or one-sixteenth of what each of the two major political parties will be entitled to spend in this campaign. I remind the House once again that both Labour and National spent more than $4 million in their campaigns at the last election and under this legislation they will be entitled to spend more than $5.5 million. 
I acknowledge the work of the Electoral Legislation Committee and its chair Amy Adams. As I said earlier in this debate I acknowledge the contributions of Lianne Dalziel and in particular Pete Hodgson whom I got to know better through interacting with him through the work of the committee. 
It interests me that Pete Hodgson referred again to being distressed or surprised that organisations such as the  
New Zealand Listener 
 which he referred to this afternoon and the  
New Zealand Herald 
 which 
he referred to in last week’s debate would actually express opposition to a limit. I say to Mr Hodgson that it should not surprise him because they are standing up for the right of New Zealanders to speak out and be involved in an election campaign. 
Mr Hodgson referred to people who do not physically put themselves up for election as the non-participants. That is what he called them. We have 122 successful MPs and probably fewer than 1000 people who physically put their names on a ballot paper but Mr Hodgson referred to other New Zealanders as the non-participants. I say that the people of New Zealand have every right to have a say in how this country is run and to participate. They can participate by being involved in the election campaign of a particular individual or a party. They can throw their weight behind a campaign and deliver brochures and make phone calls or they can form separate lobby organisations. 
There is all manner of third parties. There are trade unions business associations and lobby groups that support a particular cause. I think of the Sensible Sentencing Trust of Family First and of the various trade unions. Each of those organisations should be able put out its case at the 3-yearly general elections. With this bill we are restricting them to spending no more than one-sixteenth of what the two major political parties in this Parliament can spend. Those two parties are using their voting strength to put those restrictions in place. 
It is not the only restriction that the two major political parties impose on the smaller political parties in this House. It might surprise New Zealanders to know that it is illegal for a political party to use its own money to buy broadcasting time. As political parties we cannot go out to the public raise money and buy television advertising. We have a broadcasting allowance. Each of the two major political parties gets $1 million worth of broadcasting time. The smaller parties at the last election—the Greens the Maori Party and New Zealand First—were given just over $240000. The ACT Party was given $100000. We do not have a level playing field. None of the smaller political parties is entitled to go out raise money and try to compete on an equal footing with the major political parties in this Parliament. Once again the ACT Party thinks that is a disgrace. 
Finally I acknowledge that the process adopted by Simon Power was a far far better process than that adopted by his predecessor in the Labour Government. 
The ACT Party will not be voting for this bill; we will vote against it. One of the fundamental reasons we are doing that is that it puts restrictions on freedom of speech which the  
New Zealand Herald 
 the  
New Zealand Listener 
 and most New Zealanders can see. It is a pity that Parliament is going to do that. 
I sadly come back to the comments made by Metiria Turei. How tragic and how sad that a leader of a political party thinks so little of her fellow New Zealanders that she thinks that a party would give money to a cause only because of what they could get out of it. Thank you. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 The Maori Party is pleased to support the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill and in doing so we support the reform of the Electoral Act and the associated guidance it will provide political parties our supporters and parallel campaigners regarding the precious issue of funding for spending on election advertising. The really big question we found missing from the bill and the really big question on our mind is how political parties actually go about raising this funding. If we look at the Maori Party we are expected to do amazing things with five loaves and two fishes. It seems to be the same sort of thing amongst our whanau as well. They are used to doing it that way so we are getting used to doing it that way as well. But that aside we want to acknowledge the leadership of the Minister of Justice the Hon Simon Power in establishing this legislation and the reforms it makes in relation to going where there is only broad consensus. 
This year there have been a few occasions across the House where consensus has largely been achieved. In particular I think of the tobacco reforms introduced by my colleague Tariana Turia and of the Canterbury earthquake response when parties across the House worked together for the greater good. I have drawn on that precedent in calling for a cross-party accord on child poverty similar in effect to the one on New Zealand superannuation so that members of Parliament can consider policies on children as sacrosanct as policies for older people are. It is a challenge that I hope all members will consider over the summer break. 
In coming back to this bill the Maori Party is confident that it will establish a regime that is fair and transparent for all groups and individuals as is vital for the operation of democracy. The Maori Party supports the range of electoral finance reforms contained in this legislation including a register that is publicly available to record the contributions of third party promoters in terms of their investment in election advertising. We think this will ensure openness and transparency concerning the identities of third party promoters. We have agreed with the proposed increase in the amount of money that parties and candidates can spend on election campaigning and we agreed that it should be set at the rate of inflation for each general election. In the interests of greater transparency for the general public it would however be useful to know why there needs to be twice as much funding available for by-election campaigns. Given the events of yesterday we would recommend such information be circulated before the 5 March by-election in Botany. We believe that these changes ensure that anything spent on behalf of or towards political parties is above board and open. 
The Maori Party has also supported the public’s call for greater transparency in order to desist from the practice of using trusts or lawyers’ accounts to obscure the identity of donors. The Maori Party supports reforms that ensure greater certainty and transparency in the conduct of the electoral process. We were particularly pleased that the reforms remove the requirement for advance voters to make a written declaration before election day. From an administrative point of view this is helpful in removing another layer of costs from the schedule but more important it removes a barrier to participation. We are hopeful that the Maori voting public in particular will be able to take advantage of that mechanism. 
I want to just touch on the move to introduce more certainty to what counts as election advertising by modernising the definition. But we would like to see the issue of unethical advertising addressed in the implementation of the bill. Consider the appalling way in which some parties and advertisers have used Maori as negative fodder during election campaigning. We should never again return to the era when politicians gambled on national identity and threatened the unity that has been so desperately sought by pitching campaigns to create unnatural divisions between iwi and Kiwi. 
Finally although the Maori Party supported the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper keeping broadcasting out of this bill we are disappointed that there is nothing on the agenda signalling the reform of the broadcasting regime that has existed since 1990. Although we can understand that there were widely held views about this we cannot forget the issues that have arisen in the past over varying interpretations of the rules over the broadcasting period. We thank the Minister of Justice for his leadership throughout this bill. We thank the chair of the Electoral Legislation Committee Amy Adams and we also thank all the members on the committee who made this such an interesting and useful way to deal with this issue. We note that there has been cooperation—mostly—right across the House to ensure that this legislation was able to proceed without further delay. 2011 is just around the corner and I have no doubt at all that the drive for an effective efficient and equitable electoral system will continue to remain a priority for all the parties in this House. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 116 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Bill read a third time. 
Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill read a third time.