Hobbs Marian: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hobbs Marian: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13491] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I rise to address the issues raised in Part 2 of the Electoral Finance Bill which is about election campaigns candidates’ election expenses parties’ election expenses and third parties’ election expenses. It is not third parties’ advocacy expenses but third parties’ election expenses and there is a difference. For me this is an essential part of the bill. 
Many of us have been invited to meet with women from the United States of America who are involved in politics. Some of us have been delighted to meet with the women who are involved in Emily’s List and they say to us so often that it is extremely hard for a woman to stand for Congress in the United States. To stand for Congress in the United States one has to earn millions of dollars. Women do not have access to millions of dollars so we immediately—[ 
Interruption 
] I am quoting from Emily’s List and that is exactly what Emily’s List says. I am sorry for Opposition members if they have never met the women from Emily’s List who describe that that is why they have raised money as women—because women are not able to get corporate money and support. 
However those people who do get corporate money and support find that they become lobby fodder that they are there to support the cigarette companies that they are there to support the National Rifle Association and that they are there to support abortion or not abortion. They are lobby fodder. That is one thing this bill and this part is about—it is about stopping the buying of votes. It is about stopping the buying of elections. 
The Opposition has been calling out for freedom of speech. I support freedom of speech probably more than anyone on that side of the Chamber. I have been arrested for exercising my freedom of speech. But I do not support the freedom to buy speech and this is what this bill is about. 
I very much support one person one vote and not $1.2 million one Government. I support one person one vote. The Opposition supports $1.2 million equalling one Government. That is the difference and that is what I stand here for. [ 
Interruption 
] I do not care who is doing the buying. I want to say this again because I have heard this conversation come up before: I do not care who is doing the buying. If it were the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society or my friends the Society of Friends the Quakers I would be just as angry as if it were the Exclusive Brethren. I do not care who is buying the election. What I care about is that one group puts itself above the law puts itself above human rights and says “Because we have money we have the right to buy an election.” It is not who the buyer is. It is the fact that someone is trying to buy a Government rather than vote for a Government. 
Mr Hide argued earlier this evening that it was the right of the Brethren to spend their money in order to have their say. He might have said that it was the right of the Society of Friends or the right of the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society. He added that he defended the Brethren’s hiding who they were. I so disagree with that; that is so anti-democratic. If a group wants to buy an election or support somebody it should put its money on the table put its real name on the table and put its real address on the table—be honest be brave be upfront be democratic—and that is what I am here to support tonight.