Brownlee Gerry: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13488] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 What an utter disgrace it is and what an incredible admission it is for the Minister of Justice to come down to the Committee at 20 past 9 at night after almost 12 months of consideration of the Electoral Finance Bill and after standing in the House for a couple of weeks and putting in the  
Hansard  
record a view that was designed to give judges who ultimately will have to determine many aspects of the bill some clarity—that Minister went on the record and put her views with regard to what an MP may and may not do according to clause 80—and say: “I might be wrong. I might be wrong and I am prepared to listen to the views of the other side of the Committee.” Well I ask the Minister where the ministerial Supplementary Order Paper is that sorts that out. It is non-existent is not there will not be there and Labour does not care. 
We have had the ignominy today of the Prime Minister standing in the House and saying that if a candidate is not sure what the new electoral law means he or she should consult a lawyer—go and consult a lawyer. So Queen’s Counsel up and down the countryside will be advertising their services as election consultants while poor old candidates out there try to work out what all this means. 
It is worse than that. We have had the particular Minister who just spoke saying that many of the interpretations in this bill if they cannot be sorted out by common sense will be sorted out by the courts. Worse than that we had the Attorney-General stand in the House today and say that the Electoral Commissioner was now happy enough with this bill. Having seen it move from being completely unworkable to now being somewhat unintelligible she is happy enough to call all the parties together for a seminar after the bill has been through the House after it has had this mickey mouse consideration to work out what it all means—a bit of a handholding gathering where those who consider themselves to be tinpot experts on this matter decide with the Electoral Commissioner what the law means. Well the law should be very clear about what it means when it leaves this Parliament. 
I want to make this comment to you Mr Chairperson and I intend it to also be a message to others who might sit in the Chair tonight. On the last part there were some 33 speeches in total. The National Party got only 11 of those 33 speeches. That is hardly proportionate it is hardly fair and it is hardly reasonable. Although I am a great subscriber to the view that anyone elected to this House—no matter how he or she is elected—is no more or less elected than anyone else I want to make it clear that it is unacceptable for the Government to run the jackboot over this Committee on a bill of such constitutional importance as the Electoral Finance Bill; a bill that the Acting Minister of State Services is uncertain about what it means a bill that the Attorney-General is uncertain about what it means a bill about which the Prime Minister is saying “I don’t know what it means; just consult a lawyer.” and a bill that the Committee itself is struggling to work out what are the good aspects of it and what are the bad. The reality is that the vast majority of it is bad. 
I make this observation: this week in Venezuela the home of President Hugo Chavez a vote was taken among the people as to whether he could stay in power for longer than the constitution currently allows— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: For life. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Could he stay there for life? Well by a narrow margin he was prevented from doing that. But the interesting thing is that in this country if this bill was about whether the Labour Party could stay in Government forever the margins that we are seeing in the votes tonight would be enough to carry it through. There are no constitutional thresholds in this country. We simply have the tyranny of the majority. It is a disgrace for Helen Clark to be exercising that principle on a bill like this. 
We see the member over there exiting the Chamber screaming at the top of his voice. I do not doubt that he is off to circumvent the provisions of this part of the bill by picking up another brown paper bag full of cash over a lovely tea of fish and chips with one of that party’s great funders. 
A number of things in this bill are utterly ridiculous. We know through the political process that many people in this country have interests that prevent them from expressing a political view in a public way—hundreds of people. We are a small country. We have recently seen a debacle over the State Services Commission and the horrible politicisation of Government departments. We know and accept that many people who do good work for a Government have a view that is politically different from that of the Government of the day. But this bill makes it clear that they cannot exercise their right as a citizen in this country to make any sort of substantial donation to a political party without their name coming into the public arena. 
We see the provision for anonymous donations. The word “anonymous” means that no one knows. Someone might anonymously choose to go along to the Labour Party perhaps to Mr Owen Glenn and say to him: “Owen I want to support the Labour Party. I want to support Helen Clark.” Actually it would be a very short queue; none the less it is possible. He or she goes along to Owen Glenn and says: “I want to make an anonymous donation.” He will now be required to say: “Well thank you for your money. I’m going to have to record your name I’m going to have to record your address and I’m going to have to record the amount that has been given to the Labour Party and I’m going to have to put that into the mix so that a number of people know about it.” I would ask this simple question: if no New Zealander goes to the ballot box having to declare how he or she votes why should any New Zealander have to say what small amount he or she wants to give to any particular political party? 
Lynne Pillay 
: What about the trusts? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I have a question for that member: “What about the unions?”. [ 
Interruption 
] The brains trust from Wanganui says: “Well the unions have to declare who they are.” So we see the Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union up there and apparently that gets past the anonymity thing. Well I do not know and no one in this Chamber knows where that union gets its money from. No one knows that. No one dives in behind that union and says “We want to know where you got your dough.” Well hang on here we go. 
Jill Pettis 
: Got it from the members. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Mrs Pettis says that it got it from the members. I apologise for the damage I have done to the walls in impersonating Mrs Pettis. She says that it comes from the members. Well what is wrong with individual people unnamed as union members are making a donation to a trust? Oh here she goes. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What about your cake stalls? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The outgoing member for Waitakere has just said “What about your cake stalls?”. The classic example was given in the select committee of a cake stall that raised $1800. That member said: “Oh my goodness. How does anybody raise $1800 from a cake stall?”. That is the sort of anonymous money we are trying to get to. 
Tonight we see a bill before the Committee that is driven by the paranoia of the Labour Party. It is not paranoia about where the money comes from but paranoia and fear that Labour may be tipped out of Government at the next election. There is no doubt that that is where it is heading. Mrs King said: “What about people power?”. I tell her to go and look at the opinion polls go and look at what the focus groups are telling the Labour Party about this bill. No one likes it. No one in this country likes the idea that any single politician is going to create advantage for himself or herself through the laws of this country. That is what this bill does. 
The members on the other side talk about wanting to stop wealth from being a big factor in the coming election. What about the wealth of New Zealanders that the Labour Government is going to put its hands on to promote its programmes quite legally if this bill passes to convince New Zealanders that they should vote for it? Does anyone in this Chamber think that New Zealanders will be happy that $15 million of taxpayers’ money is used to promote Labour Party policies?