Power Simon: Electoral Finance Bill — First Reading 
Power Simon: Electoral Finance Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10781] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 One thing that the motion Mark Burton will seek the leave of the House for later today does not deal with is replacing the chairperson of the committee that will hear submissions on the Electoral Finance Bill. After listening to that speech I say that one thing is for sure: the current chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee Lynne Pillay will be completely out of her depth when it comes to dealing with those complex and technical issues. National will be making sure that I and Tony Ryall are on that committee for the hearing of submissions on the bill. 
National has some major concerns about the way that this particular bill has been put together. Many of those concerns have been outlined by the Hon Bill English. I have spent some time over the last 24 hours on thinking about why Labour would take such a partisan approach to what has historically been a bipartisan topic—that of electoral reform. Yesterday when we were in the general debate I was thinking to myself as a former chief National Party whip and as someone who has been on some of the more bipartisan committees that exist in this Parliament that generally speaking senior Labour members who have been on those committees have been thoughtful about the way legislation is enacted and about the way the rules and conventions about Parliament are developed. They have been careful about that because they realise that at some point Labour will be in the Opposition and will have to deal with the convention rule or legislation that has been put in place on that basis. So I got to thinking about why Michael Cullen and Helen Clark would want to pass legislation that would in future limit and restrict Opposition parties as blatantly as this bill does. 
Then the answer came to me. Actually Helen Clark and Michael Cullen do not care about the Labour Party after they have finished with it; they are not in the slightest bit interested in the rules regulations and legislation that future Labour caucuses will have to work under. They are not in the slightest bit concerned about what will happen to the Labour Party in future if Labour members are sitting on the Opposition benches. All that Helen Clark and Michael Cullen are worried about is creating a legislative environment that regulates opinion that could in any way disagree with their programme leading into this election. Those senior Labour politicians who have historically seen rule making and convention setting as being enduring and going beyond the next two or three Parliaments because of the fact that those that fill the Treasury benches move back and forward would have looked at this legislation and said it would disadvantage any Opposition party no matter who was in Opposition. 
But Helen Clark and Michael Cullen do not care about the Cunliffe-Cosgrove years to come. They do not care about whether Shane Jones will cope with this issue when he is in Opposition. Helen Clark and Michael Cullen do not care about Maryan Street and other MPs of the same intake having to deal from the Opposition with what this legislation does. They are regulating and legislating for one election and for themselves. That is what makes this legislation not only partisan but incredibly short-sighted in respect of the enduring life of Parliament. It should not be about just the political careers of Michael Cullen and Helen Clark. That should concern those members of the Labour Party who will inevitably end up in Opposition at some point. 
I am deeply concerned about the partisan approach that this legislation has taken when historically electoral reform has been negotiated and shared between the major political parties and the other parties in Parliament and has operated in an enduring way. The curious thing about this legislation is that on the substantive issue there has been no consultation and no discussion with the major political parties but when it comes to the procedural matter of the make-up of the select committee that is a different kettle of fish altogether. All of a sudden the Minister of Justice is very interested in having conversations about how those matters can be expedited. 
What this bill will do apart from the matters pointed out by my colleague Bill English is to have Greenpeace the anti-whaling lobby the battery hen lobby Amnesty International the Post Primary Teachers Association the New Zealand Educational Institute the Council of Trade Unions and the Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union all limited in any one calendar year in terms of what they can say what they can print and the message they can convey even to the Labour Party. Expression of the political opinions of those organisations will be severely restricted and regulated. Do those groups understand that? This legislation is not just about shutting out Opposition criticism of Government policy; it is also about saying to third-party interest groups who seek to influence Government policy that they will be limited in the way they put out those opinions as well. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Hear hear! 
SIMON POWER 
: Well I am sure that those parties that seek to influence Government policy would be very interested in that approach. This bill says to those parties and to Opposition parties that from 1 January there are limits and that they will be regulated in what they say or do. 
But in the meantime Government departments and ministries will continue to spew out so-called education campaigns about Government policy over which this legislation funnily enough does not have any authority whatsoever. We know that for the last 12 months or so with regard to the issue of KiwiSaver for example across the areas of TV press and online advertising the advertising campaigns in respect of that Government initiative have cost just under $1.3 million. We know that there will be no problem in advertising for just under $500000 the issues relating to the educative aspects of the so-called 20 free hours of early childhood education. We know that the $16000 spent in recent months on advertising and promoting Working for Families will not be caught by this legislation. What do we know? We know that a Government has an unlimited capacity through ministries and departments to promote and advertise Government policy but that when it comes to Opposition parties or for that matter to any interest groups that want to convey a position on a particular issue their opinions will be regulated. Their opinions will be regulated but as far as Government initiatives go there will be no such limitations at all. The New Zealand public should be deeply concerned and worried about that. 
I would ask the next Labour speaker one simple question: what happened to the tub-thumping around anonymous donations? Let us hear from the Labour members who stood in this House for 6 months in general debates banging the table and saying they would deal to anonymous donations and expose the funders who are supposedly behind other political parties—except allegedly the Labour Party. What happened to that tough rhetoric? Perhaps the next Labour Minister or member to speak could let the public know where that particular point is contained in this bill. I am just a simple boy from the provinces but I could not find any reference in this bill to the hard-line rhetoric we have heard from Labour members on that issue. 
If the Government thinks it will refer this bill to the select committee and get away with the Opposition parties rolling over on those technical and thematic issues then I say that that will not happen. The playing field in every democracy should be level and this Government is trying to tilt it in a way that excludes not only political parties but also interest groups with genuine policy concerns and issues that they want to put before the public. We must remember that this bill is not for the benefit of the Labour Party; it is for the benefit of Michael Cullen and Helen Clark.