Auchinvole Chris: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Auchinvole Chris: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13474] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 Expressing a view on a critical opinion is not immoral any more than it is a crime to have created and earned wealth. Yet this Government treats both as obnoxious. It does not want views and although it fleeces the wealth generators for tax it holds them in disdain. It is frustrated by the reality that private enterprise is a more positive force for progress than is big Government bureaucracy so it despises private enterprise as a consequence. 
New Zealand is a liberal centrist community best arrived at by mature observation of real life and human nature. This bill reflects a completely immature lack of observation maturity and real-life consideration and embodies the worst aspects of human nature. 
I am speaking in the Committee stage of Part 1 with particular reference to the interpretation of “third party” in clause 4. Few clauses emphasise more the Labour Party’s apprehension fear and phobia that others might exercise an influence on the public beyond its own. I reflect on the comments of the first true speaker during the Committee stage—those of the leader of the National Party John Key—who emphasised that the whole purpose of this legislation is to screw the scrum to set favourable conditions on a partisan basis and to hang with the view of the general public and to hang with democracy. 
What is it that gives Labour and the cling-on parties such a strong sense of apprehension? I think I know what it is. I think Rick Barker got it right—it is the only thing he got right—when he introduced the Committee stage and inadvertently said it all. He said that the genesis of this bill—and I think he was actually quoting from Mr Benson-Pope—was the 2005 election. I recall during my maiden speech when I became a member in September 2005 saying that I was at a loss to understand why Labour members looked so miserable—and they still do look miserable. They had won the election and they had formed a Government of sorts. They should have been magnanimous in victory. Were they? No they were defiant. National on the other hand was magnanimous because in many ways when we consider how close it got to being the elected Government it had had a tremendous victory. It had had a tremendous reversal of previous misfortune. This was in spite of Labour having a very favourable economic circumstance to campaign in. The sweet scent of National’s success quickly became a stench in Labour’s nostrils. The sweet scent of others success becomes a stench in Labour’s nostrils. 
And so we look at this particular definition of “third party”. What do third parties say about it? What does the New Zealand Law Society—a relatively prestigious body I would have thought—feel about it? It considers that the bill fails in almost every respect. It states that “accountability rules are so complex that volunteers in political parties face a discouraging degree of complexity and prospects of prosecution” in terms of trying to promote participation by the public in democracy. The third party registration limits the public role and some cannot even register. 
Clearly the Government thinks that members of the public are only observers to a process where candidates and political parties are the principal parties. Indeed they are treated like interlopers who must be controlled. The public interest is in transparency not in shutting down the free range of ideas that may be the effect of a third party regime as it has been written. 
Let us look at the chiller effect of this bill. I have heard the present Minister of Justice say that it will be just a matter of common sense. I think she said that in response to one of Mr English’s questions when he asked how people would feel free to discuss politics with this sort of legislation and penalty hanging over them. The response from the Minister of Justice the Hon Annette King was that it was perfectly easy to follow. All they had to do was to read the Act from one end to the other. This is a whole new scenario that is totally foreign to New Zealand politics. 
As the Law Society says the third party regime unduly restricts participation in elections. If participation of those not directly standing for election is to be regulated it should be done carefully and to the least degree practicable to achieve the desired outcomes. Let us reflect on that: the third party regime unduly restricts participation in elections.