Anderton Jim: Electoral Finance Bill Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 3) Electoral Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Anderton Jim: Electoral Finance Bill Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 3) Electoral Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:644;Page:14033] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 My experience in politics is that leaders who need standing ovations— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This may well be the last sitting day for 2007 but no political party should be allowed to show the contempt for a parliamentary officer that the National Party members just did. You had asked them to come to order and they decided to put on a stunt of clapping and applause. That is OK but when you asked them to stop—[ 
Interruption 
] There is Paula Bennett again dressed up in her karate suit and shouting as though she is at a karate lesson. 
Madam Speaker my point is that when you asked those members to sit down they paid no attention whatsoever; they just carried on. If we go into 2008 with that sort of behaviour there will be problems in this House because that is not a fair representation of the Standing Orders when it comes to members of Parliament. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is quite right—that was excessive. Now I am going to ask Paula Bennett to leave the Chamber. She has continually interrupted the member during his point of order and she knows that that is out of order. Please leave. 
Paula Bennett withdrew from the Chamber. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think your ruling is perfectly appropriate but there were about four other members who were talking at the same time. They know precisely who they are and I suggest that if you ask them they will no doubt vacate as well. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I have asked one member to leave and I think that is sufficient at this time. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you might tell us what Mr Peters’ point of order was and where we can refer to the matter in the Standing Orders that he brought to your attention. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member quite correctly raised a point of order about the order of the House. It was my call and my call to order. He was properly speaking to that. Members should always resume their seats when the Speaker stands. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: My experience in politics is that leaders who need standing ovations are usually in big trouble. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I would like to challenge the member speaking to provide the  
Hansard 
 that shows any occasion during any of the five party leaderships he has had when he has had a standing ovation because clearly he has got into a lot of trouble without that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: As the member knows that was not a point of order. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I want to address this debate because I represent the only party in this House that did not breach the electoral expenditure rules and laws at the last election. It sticks in the throat a bit to hear so many people striking a high moral tone when their own hands are not clean in this matter. National members cannot get up in this House and demurely claim they are interested only in democracy when they flouted the electoral laws at the last election. National cannot claim to be pure when it has a record showing it set aside the electoral laws that did not suit it. 
Only one party did not flout the law and I am leading it in this House. We did not use public money for our advertisements we did not run a GST rort and we did not try to use public money voted for one purpose to pay for our own purposes. Undoubtedly the Progressives were disadvantaged when we opted to play within the rules. I have not come into this Chamber and trumpeted that we alone were obeying the laws because we did only what was right. It sticks in the throat to hear the National Party pretending it cares about democracy when its record is sleazy and opportunistic. I say to the National members that they should not get on their high horses about democracy until they have clean hands. This legislation makes a simple choice about our democracy. Who should own our democracy: big money or the people of New Zealand? We cannot have it both ways. Where the anonymous big money goes the interests of the people come second. 
I want to ask everyone who is opposed to this bill a question: why should anyone be allowed to do what the Exclusive Brethren did in my electorate in the last election? They came into my electorate on the Friday before the election the day before that Saturday and they bought a full page ad in the local newspaper. The ad told complete lies about my record in the electorate and my political position on policy matters. They distributed that false advertisement on that Friday night to every household in the electorate. The address given in the ad was fake and the people behind it tried to remain anonymous but we found out that they were church people. That ad was published the day before the election when it was far too late to respond and reply. It was an attempt to buy an election with money instead of with truth and ideas. I want to know how fair that is. How is that democratic? How is it fair and democratic that people who do not identify themselves can spend as much as they like to sway the result of an election? 
I support the Electoral Finance Bill because elections should not be decided by the largest wallet. I support the Electoral Finance Bill because it is about ensuring that no one can buy an election result. I support the Electoral Finance Bill because the best ideas should win not the best-funded ones. I want to remind this House of what happened when money had its way in New Zealand in the 1980s and 1990s. We saw a fire sale of our assets. Was it just a coincidence that the people who were buying those assets at knock-down fire-sale prices were the same people who handed out tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands of dollars to the political parties doing the selling? We saw the interests of New Zealand put in second place and we are still paying the price for it. 
Some of us sat in this Chamber right through that period. John Key might have been offered overseas cocktails parties with the donors he now wants to let buy as many votes as they can afford; some of us were not. We have not forgotten what was done to New Zealand and the enormous cost of it. What an amazing coincidence that the same people who bought the assets were the people who paid enormous sums of money to the political parties of the day. What a coincidence that whatever those donors wanted they got. The interests of New Zealanders were relegated behind the interests of the companies of the rich buyers of our assets. 
Even if one does not believe that the policy was bought look at the perceptions that policy followed money. Look at the damage those perceptions did to the fabric of our democracy and to the respect for the political process. That sort of politics has no place in New Zealand. This legislation helps to erect a wall against the anti-democratic sale and purchase of electoral influence. The bill says that parties that take huge secret donations must tell us to whom they are in hock whom they owe favours to and what they are going to do in order to get the money. 
When Deep Throat exposed Richard Nixon and Watergate he told the reporters at the  
Washington Post 
 to follow the money. This principle is as old as wisdom. We used to say: “He who pays the piper calls the tune.” We want to know who is paying so that we might better understand what the electoral tune is. If Watergate had happened here the  
New Zealand Herald  
would have praised the money that paid for the conspiracy. Instead of Woodward and Bernstein we would have had editorials praising the President for protecting the rights of anyone to buy political favours. Instead of sending reporters out to expose the scandal the  
New Zealand Herald 
’s editor would have sent out a sales team to ask for a cut. 
I wish we could rely on an independent news media to expose the influence of big money in this country but the record shows that we cannot. The record shows that newspapers take the money in advertising and then shut up about it. Look at the  
New Zealand Herald 
 letting its greed get in the way of its objectivity. The  
New Zealand Herald 
 campaigns to let anyone buy elections. The  
New Zealand Herald  
campaigns because it knows what side its bread is buttered on. It knows that it does not raise concerns when its pages are being used to buy votes. It does not object when its own pages are used unfairly. It takes 30 pieces of silver and sits compromised to the core of its soul. If members look at the editorials of the  
New Zealand Herald 
 over 100 years they will find exactly the same kind of stand as now. Members will find that the  
New Zealand Herald 
 was wrong when it did it then and it is wrong when it does it now. 
If newspapers will not do the job of making elections fair someone else has to. We need to limit the role of big money to protect our democracy. This bill puts a cap on the amount of money anyone can spend to lobby for their point of view. So it poses a question to opponents of this bill: how much money is too much to spend influencing an election? Is it $1 million? Is it $5 million? Is it $10 million? Is it $20 million? If there is no cap on the amount that should be spent then we are saying our democracy should be for sale. If there is no cap then we do not have a democracy; we have an auction. If there is no cap on election spending then we might as well turn Parliament over to TradeMe. If we accept that there should be some limit on the amount people are spending then we are merely debating the quantum. 
Members cannot tell me that fundamental issues of democracy are not at stake here. If I say the limit should be $1 and those members say it should be $2 what is fundamental about that? No; the fundamental issue is whether there should be any cap at all. I want National members to state plainly during this debate that they believe there should be no limit on anonymous donations—that there should be no limit to what can be bought with those sacks full of cash. 
I wonder what the National members have in mind. It is no coincidence that National has only announced one policy for next year’s election—selling assets. Here we go again—unlimited money in our politics and an unlimited fire sale of the public’s family silver. The pigs are trying to get into the trough again. They cannot wait to get their noses into it. The National Party has already sold its policy. When National members say they will repeal this legislation what do they mean? Do they mean that National will not have any electoral finance laws at all? Do they mean that people will be able to spend as much as they like? Do they mean that anyone will be able to give any amount of cash to the National Party without declaring it? I wonder what the National Party wants. If National members are saying that there should not be some limit on the ability of anonymous people to buy elections then— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Tell us about Mike Moore’s view. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Yeah—think about it. Yes I have heard Mike Moore. I was in this House when Mike Moore was here. I know about Mike Moore. 
If National members are saying that people should be able to spend what they like in an election then they are saying that people who spend more money should have more say. That is not democracy; that is a disgrace against the most fundamental ideas of civilised organisation. This bill should be supported by all members of this House.