Brown Peter: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
Brown Peter: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13659] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I was not going to take a call until the member alluded to the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill that we passed last year in this Parliament. I know that we are debating the Electoral Finance Bill but I want to clarify a few things that went on with regard to the other bill. The member alluded to documents like the pledge card that are meant to be illegal such as this National Party pledge card which was put through the letterboxes of just about everybody in the country in 2002. The rules did not change between 2002 and 2005 and I cannot see for the life of me any difference between this card and the Labour Party’s pledge card. But I can see a lot of difference between both of those cards and this. This is a policy document that outlines New Zealand First’s policies and the Auditor-General would ping us for $159000 in large measure over it. 
I just happened to meet the Auditor-General on the plane last week. He came up to me and we had quite a cordial discussion which in some way surprised me. 
Phil Heatley 
: Did he know who you were? 
PETER BROWN 
: Yes he did. He knew exactly who I was. I asked him one or two questions. He said that he is very very pleased that Parliament has passed the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill. The Auditor-General told me personally that he is very pleased that we passed that bill because it sets down in law what we have been doing under Speakers’ directions for many a year. That party over there the National Party has taken more advantage of the rules and regulations in this place than any other political party has by a country mile. 
We need the Electoral Finance Bill. New Zealand First will support this bill because we are well on record as saying that we want politicians to be honest. We are honest and we want to keep politicians honest. That used to be our campaign slogan. This bill makes the process honest and we are going to support it. I know what is upsetting the National members: they cannot get their mates as they did in 2005 to invest in brochures in a de facto way. There was $1.2 million spent on producing brochures in support of the National Party. 
Chester Borrows 
: Is that OK? 
PETER BROWN 
: It is not OK and the member knows that. It is a long way from being OK. 
New Zealand First has no opposition at all to third parties—people who do not want to be part of a political party—getting involved in the process. It has no objection to that at all. But we want there to be controls. There are caps on individuals. There is an election campaign cap of $20000 per candidate and of $1 million for a party. It is only right and proper that other parties—not political parties but other outside organisations—that want to play a part in the election process should be financially capped as well. The debate should have been about whether that limit is adequate too much too little or what have you. I think that the amount was $60000 in the original version of the bill and it was doubled when the bill came back from the Justice and Electoral Committee. The National members should have argued about whether that was enough or not enough. I could see some merit in doing that but I cannot see merit in saying we are going to have an uncapped system and let an outside organisation put as much money as it wants into influencing the way that New Zealanders vote. That is why New Zealand First is supporting this bill. 
I have said before in this Chamber that that issue was recognised by the Royal Commission on the Electoral System which stated: “It is illogical to limit spending by parties if other interests are not also controlled. Supporters or opponents of a party or candidate should not be able to promote their views without restriction merely by forming campaign organisations ‘unaffiliated’ to any party. … Nor should powerful or wealthy interest groups be able to spend without restriction during an election campaign while [the parties] are restricted.” That was stated by the Royal Commission on the Electoral System. Members opposite may not like MMP but we have got it. The public voted for it we have got it and it will be honest.