Hodgson Pete: Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Hodgson Pete: Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:669;Page:16459] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I will probably not take my full 10 minutes. I do not want to repeat a lot of stuff that has been said on the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill but I want to repeat a little bit which is that the process worked and it need not have. It worked I think for just about everyone. When some minor parties in contributing to this debate say they are very distressed about this or that aspect of the outcome I think they may also say that the process was none the less a valuable one. In respect of the major parties which were the ones that had to put together the deal on third-party expenditure the $300000 figure came about because Labour and National talked to one another. It was a deal from which Labour and National emerged near enough to equally unhappy. That is what negotiation is like. The people who made it happen were the folk on the Electoral Legislation Committee who have been mentioned by Amy Adams as well as the Minister of Justice. 
It need not have happened. It need not have happened because there is an awful lot of bad blood going back to the 2005 election. Lianne Dalziel put that on the record firmly again. I think she did it really well and I am glad she did it but it does not need to be done again by me. I will not do it afresh. What happened is we moved from that point of very serious disagreement over the years to the 2008 legislation being repealed and an interim regime being put in place and now we have the third reading of legislation that will have some durability. So I thank colleagues from other corners of the House including the Minister. 
I am still distressed that and do not easily understand why some of the media think this bill is a bad thing. Some of the media think Simon Power is a disappointment. 
Hon Simon Power 
: It’s not just relating to this bill; it’s very wide. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The Minister is a modest man. The 
 Listener  
surprises me. I read  
Listener  
editorials. They are usually a good read. I find them informative I find them educational I agree with them more often than I disagree with them but this one I disagreed with. It started off by saying that yes it is true that money can buy elections absolutely it is true. It gave the argument away at the beginning. But it then went on—and I thought it rather specious logic—to suggest that because we would all know who these dastardly people were we the public would rail against their unregulated expenditure and the money would be wasted. That is tantamount to saying that the advertising industry is a joke. The advertising industry probably does not think that is the case. It probably thinks that expenditure on good careful marketing makes a difference to the product being backed. That was none the less the approach taken by the 
 Listener.  
The 
 Listener  
did not submit on the bill. The 
 Listener  
did not appear before the select committee. It did not have to—of course it did not—nor did the  
New Zealand Herald 
 which made similar comments. But I am surprised that they would support a situation in which candidates as Amy Adams has said and parties are rule bound during the regulated period but any other third party seeking to influence the outcome is not similarly regulated. If they want to argue that the figure is wrong that is fine. If they want to argue that some of the other detail in the legislation is wrong that is fine too; I have no doubt that we have not perfected it the first time round. 
But boy we have agreement across the House. The Greens wanted it to be tighter and the ACT Party wanted it to be looser. They will speak for themselves and I acknowledge the different positions they have. But across the two main parties the ones that are called the old parties by the third parties we now have agreement on a regulatory regime for third-party expenditure. What caused that was as Lianne Dalziel pointed out the involvement of the Exclusive Brethren. We had had some third-party involvement in elections before a little bit here a little bit there—nothing too bad. I can remember the SPCA deciding that Michael Laws was a good guy—or something equally unlikely. I think it was in 1987 or 1990—something like that. It was a long time ago. It did not need to be regulated. It was just a bit unusual. But now it is clear that we have reached a point in our history where some regulation is needed. 
That concludes my remarks. I will finish where I began by saying that for me the process has been a very good one and I would like to thank all of my colleagues who took part in it.