King Annette: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
King Annette: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13486] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I begin by thanking my colleague the Associate Minister of Justice Rick Barker for shepherding through the first part of this bill. I was unable to participate in the debate on the first part because I was returning from the far north where I have just opened the new Kaitaia hospital. It was a great day I have to say because it was in the 1990s that the previous National Government said it would close that hospital and 7000 people marched. I went back to honour that promise today. 
John Hayes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. None of this speech has anything to do with the part of the bill under consideration. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: They were remarks that the Minister used by way of introduction. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Thank you Mr Chairman. I went back to honour that promise that was made and that is what Labour is doing with the Electoral Finance Bill which is before this Committee today. We promised to bring in a fairer more transparent election financing approach to do away with the sneaky approach and the backroom deals we have seen in the past and to stop the National Party members from screwing the scrum—and they are old scrum-screwers from a long way back. There is not a trick that they have not tried. The latest one—in an effort to get themselves a few more votes before this bill is in place—is to bring out a shonky DVD that breaches copyright. We want to shine the light on those who believe that money can buy anything including democracy. We want to give clearer rules. 
What members have heard are the protests from the self-interested. National Party members have shamelessly used organisations like the Human Rights Commission and the Electoral Commission in their adverts and in their speeches and not once have they acknowledged that the Human Rights Commission and the Electoral Commission have said that changes made to this bill have considerably improved it and that they support most of this bill. Those members never mention that. That is how dishonest they have been. How could anyone trust them to bring in such a bill? I have been very disappointed with what I have heard in this debate today as I travelled around. The debate has not been about the bill except perhaps for Christopher Finlayson’s speech. It has been about making political points. 
We are discussing Part 2 which deals with election campaigns. It contains the financial rules proposed for candidates political parties and third parties. It contains the key definitions and general provisions relating to the disclosure of donations. It establishes a new regime for protected disclosures which enables donations over $1000 to be made to political parties or third parties via the Electoral Commission. It sets out general rules relating to all election advertisements whether published by candidates political parties or third parties. Part 2 sets out the regime for election expenses of candidates political parties and third parties. The Justice and Electoral Committee made some very important and far-sighted changes to the donation regime. The overwhelming message in the submissions to the select committee was that the public wanted stricter rules in this area. That is what the public said they wanted. 
I listened to Nicky Wagner tonight. She said that we need to have people power. She said we need to listen to what the public say. Well the public said they wanted stricter rules in this area. Why is the National Party opposing stricter rules in this area? If it really believes in people power and in listening to the public why does it not listen to those submissions on this bill? The public wanted greater transparency about the source of political funding. Being transparent about where one gets one’s money from must be an absolutely basic element in a decent and proper democracy. Why would we not want people to know where our money comes from? Why would people want to hide where they got their money from unless they have something to hide? 
Members of the select committee listened to submissions and increased the threshold for those who are listing as a third party from $5000 to $12000. People do not need to list if they want to spend under $12000 in the campaign. So if a person wants to spend less than $12000 promoting a particular party he or she is able to do so without listing as a third party. A third party can also be a lobby group. It can be an individual. It can campaign for an individual member or on behalf of a party and it can spend up to $120000. Every member of a family could be an individual who could spend money if that individual wanted to as a third party. 
Part 2 also deals with anonymous donations. There were a large number of submissions around anonymous donations. The candidates wanted anonymous donations dealt with—anonymous donations to candidates to political parties and to third parties. Do members know what they said? They said they should be capped at low levels. That is what the people power said. That is what the public said. They wanted anonymous donations capped at low levels. Why do the National Party members not want to listen to the people? Why do they not want to have an anonymous donations regime in the bill? They do not want it because that is where they got most of their money from and they do not want any fetter on their ability to buy the next election. 
Part 2 also deals with the issue of Government advertising. Some submitters raised concerns that Government departments would engage in election advertising. It is very clear now in this bill that they cannot. 
I want to mention clause 80(d) which covers a member acting in his or her capacity as a member of Parliament. The Electoral Commission has asked Parliament to give it some clarification as to how we interpret that. We are not going to put it in law; the commission has asked for an interpretation. That is what it has asked for—it wants an interpretation. 
Well I gave my view 2 weeks ago. I gave my view and my view I have to stress is my view. But what the Electoral Commission is interested in is what this Parliament thinks what the members of this Parliament think and it wants to be guided. The Electoral Commission said that it wants to be guided by what this Parliament says. I am prepared to say that my interpretation could be wrong. I might be wrong. In fact I am prepared to admit that I could be wrong. I read the comments of Bill English today in a question to the House. He might be right in terms of that interpretation. 
What this Parliament needs to do now in the Committee stage of this bill is to give its views which will be listened to. Of course Bill English is very worried. He said about the interpretation I gave that political parties would be suspicious of my definition because it would mean that Government members will be allowed to talk about what the Government is doing but Opposition members will not be allowed to talk about what they would like to do if they become the Government. He said: “How ridiculous is that?” 
I am prepared to listen to the views of this House. Of course the members opposite do not want to listen to anyone else’s view but I am prepared to listen—and not only to the noisy National Party. I welcome comments because there are other parties in this House and they deserve to have a say as well. 
I also want to mention an amendment to clause 22A. This is a National Party amendment because this clause will make it clear that one has to include one’s GST. Which party did not pay its GST? The National Party. It has squirmed and wormed its way around that issue. It did not pay its GST and it is very clear that it will not be able to blame it on the publishing company or the publicity agent because it is in the bill—National pays GST just like everybody else. 
These are important amendments in this bill. Part 2 is an important part and I look forward to the debate on it.