Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:669;Page:16399] 
Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to principal Act 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I thought I would take an initial call on the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill. Obviously it probably would have been more convenient to deal with the three pieces of legislation at once because there are some particular issues that relate to all three bills. When we get to the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill I think that will be dealt with relatively quickly since we were not able to join them up together. 
The two major issues in respect of the electoral finance legislation are in relation to the question of third-party limits on expenditure. It was very important to this side of the House that some movement was shown in that regard. There was some debate at the Electoral Legislation Committee about whether advertising made a difference in terms of the outcomes of elections and we were referred to a number of pieces of research that have been done in this particular area. The statement that the royal commission made back in 1986 I think is as valid today as it was then. It said that the question is not so much whether third-party expenditure is entirely responsible for the result of the vote; the real issue at the end of the day is whether there is the perception that the use of vast sums of money in order to influence the outcome is sufficient. Is the perception sufficient to give the impression that the outcome of the election has been affected by the spend and does that lead to a lack of confidence in the integrity of the electoral system itself? I am very strongly of the view that it is important to have third-party expenditure caps because it does not make it effective for the caps that apply to political parties and to candidates if a third party can simply enter into the fray with negative advertising against the other side without any limitation on what it is that it could do. 
We had quite a lengthy debate about what the cap would be and not many submissions on this bill related to third-party expenditure. It was interesting because the real debate was around the lack of a cap on the third bill which is why it would be more convenient to debate all three bills together but there you go. I think the reason that the focus of the submissions was on the referendum legislation rather than on the electoral finance reform legislation was that in the referendum situation there is access to television advertising. That is where that uncapped expenditure would come into play. I think it would not take much for people to work out how much association between the political party advertising and the referendum advertising could be made to look like an extension of a political party’s campaign. When we think about it in terms of some of the interests of those who will be entering into the debate on the electoral system itself we see that obviously some parties have a greater interest in the MMP outcome being retained. 
Moving back to why it is important to have spending caps on registration but more so on third-party expenditure we need to go back to the 2005 general election. That is one that obviously I campaigned in and it was one that I found to be an extremely unpleasant election campaign. In fact in all of the election campaigns that I have stood in that is the one that really will go down in my memory as the most misogynist and self-interested campaign. There was the promotion of self-interest that I never came across on street-corner meetings in all the years that I have stood. I have been a member of Parliament for 20 years this year and I have never apart from that election had people on street-corner meetings asking what was in it for them. That was the only time. 
It was generated out of a campaign that had been run on three different levels. The first level was designed to make sure that the campaign expenditure fell outside the regulated period. That was number one. They were the billboards. I do not know whether colleagues remember the billboards but the one that sticks in my mind—sticks in my throat actually—was the one headed up “Iwi/Kiwi”. All of the billboards were designed to send a message to the public of New Zealand to create a sense of division—“them and us”. Everyone was exposed to “them and us” all the way through that year and it started at the beginning of the year with the campaign billboards. Who designed those? Was it Steven Joyce before he came to Parliament? [ 
Interruption 
] Yes and who were those people from Australia—Crosby/Textor that is right. They were responsible for developing this campaign which set off the year with a real antagonistic view—“us and them” and the “Iwi/Kiwi” one was designed to cause the most racial division in our country that I think we have seen for a very very long time. 
We had the photoshopped image the very nasty photoshopped image of the Prime Minister of the day up against this very warm and engaging image of Don Brash—we all remember Don Brash looking warm and engaging—and that was the dichotomy set up through the billboards. That was the groundwork done and it was done deliberately. It set the stage for the rest of the campaign but it was designed to take us into the election campaign period where the expenditure would start to count. National spent a fortune millions of dollars on this campaign all around the country in order to set the scene for what was to come. What was to come also included another deliberate avoidance of our electoral finance laws and that was about National’s engagement with the Exclusive Brethren. We know that because of  
The Hollow Men 
—and I recommend that people read that book again. I have been recommended lately to read it again and I am going to do that over the summer holidays. We need to be reminded about who knew what when how and why and it is very explicit in terms of the trail of emails exposed in that book. 
That is exactly what happened. The Exclusive Brethren went to the Electoral Commission with a design for their pamphlet which had Don Brash’s face on it promoting him as the next Prime Minister of New Zealand. When they found out that that would have to have National Party approval and that it would count against National’s campaign expenditure they went away and designed something that never mentioned National never mentioned Don Brash but attacked the Greens and attacked the Labour Party for its health policies and its defence policies—and it was untrue. But worse than that the names of the people at the addresses given for the promoters of these pamphlets were illusory. These people did not exist; these people did not live at these addresses. I went to one of the addresses in Christchurch; it was an empty house. So the Exclusive Brethren even used—or abused—the existing laws by not being upfront and honest about who they were and what they were trying to do. They were part of a pattern of behaviour in that election campaign that I do not think bodes very well for our country. 
I would be prepared to say that the Labour Government did not get it right with the electoral finance legislation we put in place and it is welcome that the House is now moving into a space where we have general broad agreement. Although Labour does not agree with the whole thing we are supporting a package of reform here. I think that perhaps Labour did go a bit too far with its legislation but it was in response to an extreme example of behaviour. I guess we tried to cover off all of the loopholes that we knew that people would drive a bus through if they were given an opportunity. So I think it is important that we have expenditure caps and that we have legislation that can be enforced to ensure that that practice never happens again. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I will take a quite brief perhaps call on the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill. These issues have been canvassed a great deal in the past with the Electoral Finance Act a few years ago and now with this bill. I thank all of those who worked on this legislation and all of the officials who did a very good job dealing with three lots of bills at the same time. We had the MMP referendum bill this electoral finance reform bill and the Parliamentary Service bill at the same time—so there was a range of officials doing various parts of the work and the advice in the Electoral Legislation Committee was excellent and very helpful. The process itself was very interesting. We had some interesting clauses such as the wood clause in this legislation which means that the wood used for putting up billboards is no longer considered to be an election expense. There was lots of passionate discussion about where the wood for particular hoardings comes from. Sometimes these processes get just a little odd on occasion—that being one example. 
I make particular note of the Supplementary Order Paper that the Green Party has put forward on Part 1 to reduce the donation disclosure limits currently in the bill. The donation disclosure limit is the threshold at which parties and candidates are required to disclose to the public who has given them donations. In previous times it was $1500 for a candidate if I remember rightly—I might have that wrong—but in any event this legislation has increased that threshold. It is now easier for candidates and for political parties to hide the source of the money donated to them for their election campaign. The only argument put forward as to why it was necessary to make it easier for political parties to potentially engage in more corrupt practices—frankly that is what that is—is all of the other financial limits in the rest of the bill like the limit that a candidate could spend for example went up. The logic that everything else went up so why not put this one up as well is ridiculous. It is absolutely irrational. 
The purpose of having a low disclosure threshold for donations is so that the public know who is giving money to candidates and political parties so they can assess whether there is some form of payback likely or possible in the party or candidates’ policy should they be elected to Parliament. It has nothing to do with whether candidates should be able to spend more. We can have that argument over here. It has nothing to do with the fact that the public are entitled to the highest levels of transparency and to a system that is always striving to be the least corrupt that it can be and to have the highest levels of integrity that it can have. What this legislation is doing amongst a number of very good things such as the spending cap for third parties which the Greens support is enabling candidates and political parties to engage in a greater level of potential corrupt practice and that cannot be acceptable. It is not acceptable to the public and it should not be acceptable to this House; we should not be passing legislation that allows this to happen. This is a very very serious concern that was dismissed in large part by the members of the select committee across the board as far as I understand particularly those from ACT and National. Obviously they do not mind that we have a less transparent system and they do not mind that we have a system that has a great deal less integrity particularly when it comes to transparency for the public about where political parties are getting the money from. 
We have also seen recently the same issue being raised at local government level. My colleague Russel Norman has legislation that would require the same levels of disclosure at local body election level as is required for MPs and for parties so that the public know who donates money to local government local body election campaigns and candidates. It is quite right that that happens. I say again that we cannot allow or continue to allow political players to seek and to receive donations from interests that may in fact be paying this money in order to get policy kickbacks later on. That is the threat. That is why we have a significant regime that protects the integrity of the system. We need that in local government as well as at central government level and as I said the Green Party has a member’s bill that will do that. We hope that in time it comes up in the ballot and we can have that debate. 
It makes it very difficult to look at making those changes at a local government level when even at this level in terms of the general election some of the parties in this Chamber appeared to have allowed this change to happen. So the Green Party has put forward a Supplementary Order Paper to reduce the disclosure thresholds from $1500 to $1000 for a candidate and from $15000 to $1000 for a party. We sincerely hope that other political parties support this amendment and make a stand in favour of transparency of honest healthy politics and of a situation where the public can continue to have faith in the integrity of our system. As members of Parliament and as political parties we continually seek to improve the integrity of the system. Unfortunately this legislation fails to do that. It erodes the integrity of the system and erodes the faith and trust that the public have in us to set the rules for how we operate and what benefits us in a way that preferably benefits them more. That is not what we are doing with the change in this legislation. 
I sincerely ask and hope that MPs and parties across the House support the Green Party’s Supplementary Order Paper to lower the disclosure thresholds for transparency of donors to political parties and to candidates. Thank you. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The ACT Party will be opposing the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill at the Committee stage but I will start by acknowledging that there was a proposal that the three bills to be discussed today should have been debated together. Although the Hon Lianne Dalziel referred to the fact that she and Labour would have preferred the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill and the Electoral Referendum Bill to be discussed together I will put on the record that the ACT Party was the party or one of the parties that objected to that. We see a very big difference particularly between the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill and the Electoral Referendum Bill although there are some issues that relate to both bills. 
The first point we would like to make is that we congratulate National and the Hon Simon Power on the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill. Let us acknowledge that absolutely up front because the provisions in this bill are a very very far cry from Labour’s original Electoral Finance Act. Let us not forget the history of the Electoral Finance Act; I noticed that Lianne Dalziel was happy to talk about the unpleasant 2005 election campaign which I will come back to later but the genesis of this bill was the moves by Labour prior to the last election to put in place a new regime on electoral finance and the conduct of elections. We should not forget the fact that one of the fundamental provisions of the original Electoral Finance Bill when it went out to the public for submission was a requirement that if any single person or organisation other than a candidate or a political party wanted to speak out in opposition to any other political candidate before they so much as spent a single dollar they had to sign a certificate before a justice of the peace. That is hard to comprehend but that is what the Labour politicians in this Parliament prior to the 2008 election voted for when they voted for the first reading of the then Labour Government’s Electoral Finance Bill. They said to the people of New Zealand that if they wanted to have any right to free speech and to participate in the election they had to make a submission. The Labour Government said that as a very minimum it wanted those people to sign a certificate before a justice of the peace. There was a very significant demonstration of objection to that bill. 
Hon Judith Collins 
: You were there. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I am reminded by the Minister of Police the Hon Judith Collins that she was there marching down Queen Street with me when I was simply a member of the public speaking out about an issue that was very important to me and many many other New Zealanders. 
Let us look at some of the provisions of this bill and contrast it with what the previous Labour Government proposed—and in actual fact did. I acknowledge that as a result of that widespread public opposition the requirement for people to sign a certificate before a justice of the peace before they so much as spent a single dollar was modified and I think the limit was increased to $5000. So the legislation as passed was not as bad as promoted but certainly when it was put out for public discussion it showed the contempt—the complete and utter contempt—with which Labour treated the people of New Zealand when it first promoted the legislation. 
The Electoral Finance Bill as passed prior to the last election had a regulated period that applied from 1 January. For practical purposes that could have been 10 or 11 months. We all know now that the election was in November 2008 and the legislation put restrictions on New Zealanders to speak out and criticise the Government of the time for 10½ months. One of the significant changes provided for in this bill is that that regulated period will be approximately 3 months. That is a very significant change. However this bill still carries across the provisions from the previous Labour Government’s electoral finance legislation that restrict the rights of ordinary New Zealanders to participate in the election by limiting what so-called third parties can spend. Lianne Dalziel this afternoon talked about the use of vast sums of money. In her second reading speech she talked about “paid speech”. She talked about how people can go out and spend their own money and buy advertising. 
Let us put those restrictions in context. This bill seeks to restrict the right of ordinary New Zealanders either by themselves or in organisations to spend no more than $300000 running a campaign or being involved in an election campaign—that is $300000 for a third-party organisation. I do not care whether it is the Exclusive Brethren the Catholics the St John Ambulance Family First the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions or the New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union; it restricts the right of those individuals to spend no more than $300000 of their own money. But let us put that in context. Under this bill the two major political parties and their candidates are able to spend more than $5 million. In fact it is about $5.5 million. But ordinary New Zealanders are restricted to spending less than one-sixteenth of what political parties reserve for themselves the right to spend. 
I notice that Lianne Dalziel talked about the very very unpleasant election campaign in 2005. Well she may have unpleasant memories of 2005 but I have my own unpleasant memories. I recall as I am sure many New Zealanders do the very condescending remarks of the then Prime Minister Helen Clark as she looked down her nose on national television during the final debate of the election campaign and said goodbye to Mr Hide. She was trying to tell New Zealanders that the ACT Party was beaten for all money and would not be returning to Parliament. Mr Hide proved to Prime Minister Helen Clark and a lot of other members of the Labour Party how very very wrong she was. 
Lianne Dalziel talked about the perception that vast sums of money can influence an election. Once again I put that $300000 limit in the context of what we the politicians and political parties reserve to be able to spend ourselves. We are happy to pass legislation. Today we are passing legislation that will increase what a political party can spend—it will actually increase it. A formula currently set down in legislation allows a political party to spend just over $1 million plus $20000 for every electorate in which it stands a candidate. That amount is being increased to $1032000 plus $25000 per electorate in which it stands a candidate. So for National and Labour with their broadcasting allocations the figure will rise to some $5.5 million. Later on in this debate ACT will be moving amendments to increase third-party spending limits and I look forward to discussing those later in the debate. 
I conclude by summarising what I have said on this part. The ACT Party strongly opposes the restrictions on third parties and certainly the restriction that means they are allowed to spend only $300000 or less than one-sixteenth of what the major political parties have the right to spend. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 197 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 12A to raise the expenses limit to $500000 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 116 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 197 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 12A to raise the expenses limit to $750000 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 116 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 185 in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 20 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 112 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 185 in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 21(1AA) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 112 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 185 in the name of Metiria Turei to omit clause 21(1AA) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 112 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 185 in the name of Metiria Turei to omit clause 21A be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 112 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 199 in the name of the Hon Simon Power to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Transitional provision and consequential amendments to other enactments 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I say to members who will be making a contribution to debate on this part that it is about the nuts and the bolts of the bill. Some speeches have bordered more on being second and third reading speeches but I have been tolerant today. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I will take a brief call in particular on clause 27 of the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill. Clause 27 deals with the transitional provisions relating to donations. We had a contribution from Metiria Turei from the Green Party on the issue of donations; this clause raises the issue of why we actually disclose donations at all and as a consequence why we need clause 27 or any provisions relating to donations. 
I am surprised that National members did not take the opportunity to speak on the first part of this bill because in the last week we have seen a classic instance relating to donations. We are arguing whether a party should have to disclose donations of $10000 or more or of $15000 or more. But what have we had from the Labour Party? Its candidate for the Auckland mayoralty has disclosed in the last week that his funds were paid into a separate trust and that trust wrote a cheque. It was not for $10000 or $15000. How much do Labour members think it was for? It was for half a million dollars. 
Hon Judith Collins 
: No! Big business. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: We would not know whether it was big business. We would not know whether it was 100 people putting in $5000 each. Who knows? It could have been that Mr Owen Glenn wrote a cheque for $500000. Perhaps Mr Owen Glenn wrote a cheque for $250000. How do we justify that? 
Let us put on the record the fact that the ACT Party believes in privacy. The ACT Party believes in people being able to spend their own money. The ACT Party believes in political parties being able to raise money and it believes in the right of third parties to go out and raise money. 
Let us look at the justification. What did Mr Brown say when he was asked about the cheque for half a million dollars that was written from his trust? One of his staffers was reputed to have said that their support has come from across the political spectrum—some left some right—and they all believe in the vision of Mr Brown and they would like privacy. They want the right to donate money to Mr Brown’s campaign. They do not want to be disclosed; they want that right. 
The reason I raise this issue is that clause 27 specifically deals with the issue of donations. You may not have read clause 27 Mr Chairperson—you have a big job—but it talks about transitional provisions for donations. Essentially in voting against this clause the ACT Party is saying that it should not be there at all. We actually support the spokesperson for Mr Brown. We support Len Brown the Mayor of Auckland selected by the Labour Party whose spokesperson said that their supporters come from across the wide political spectrum and they are entitled to their privacy. That is what he said. He said that they were entitled to their privacy. They went out and raised that money and paid it into the “Support Len Brown for Mayor” trust and the trust wrote a cheque. The ACT Party does not disagree with that. In fact Mr Banks did the same thing—let us acknowledge that. Let us acknowledge that both Mr Banks and Mr Brown had supporting trusts that wrote cheques for a substantial sum. 
I am very conscious of Labour. It often puts up speakers who say: “There is a word for that. One cannot say it in this Parliament but it starts with ‘h’.” That is what we object to in this bill. Yes there are restrictions on donations and there are restrictions on what one has to disclose but the ACT Party makes this point. The supporters of Mr Brown believe they should be able to support Mr Brown whether they are from the left or the right because they believe in Mr Brown’s vision for Auckland and we think other New Zealanders should have the same right. If they support the vision of the Labour Party they should be able to support the Labour Party and have their privacy protected. It is the same for those who support the vision of the Green Party the National Party the ACT Party or the Maori Party. People are entitled to their privacy. 
We will be voting against this part—[ 
Interruption 
]—and for the same reason we will be voting against the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I have not called the member again. I say to the member that despite my request for people to focus on the bill the member ranged over a whole range of things. Yes the member mentioned clause 27 but even I can see past that. I say to the member that I will give him the call again if he is going to focus on this part of the bill. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: Thank you Mr Chair. I conclude by saying that the ACT Party is opposed to this part of the bill as it is opposed to the whole bill. 
We acknowledge the work that Mr Power has done and we certainly acknowledge quite genuinely Mr Power. I am sure Mr Power is well aware that this bill is a million miles away from what Labour at the last election inflicted on the people of New Zealand and he is to be congratulated at least on that. Thank you. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
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. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Clause 1 agreed to.  
Clause 2 agreed to.  
Bill to be reported with amendment presently.