Collins Judith: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Collins Judith: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13458] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 When we look at the purpose of the Electoral Finance Bill we need to look no further than at young 16-year-old Simeon Brown of Manurewa who took the time to email Chris Carter Minister for Ethnic Affairs to say that he thought the bill would stop people having their democratic say. And what did Chris Carter do? He emailed back: “Are you an Exclusive Brethren?”. Simeon Brown is not an Exclusive Brethren; the Exclusive Brethren apparently do not use email. 
What would have happened if in fact Chris Carter had emailed back: “Are you a Muslim?” “Are you a member of al-Qaeda?” “Are you a member of the Buddhist religion?” or “Are you a member of New Zealand First?” If he had said anything like that—[ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The Minister in the chair the Hon Rick Barker should know that he should not be interrupting me from the chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I might say that I reminded him of that. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Simeon Brown aged 16 wrote back a very detailed email to Chris Carter. He came to my electorate office yesterday and gave me a copy of it. That email explained why he thought this bill was very bad and he asked Mr Carter to explain his behaviour. 
Mr Carter the Minister for Ethnic Affairs who would be the first to jump down anyone’s throat for saying anything about any group that he might wish to associate himself with said: “Well that is what I always say.” or words to that effect. He always asks whether someone is a member of the Exclusive Brethren. Now we have a Labour Minister of the Crown vilifying people because of their religion. 
Jill Pettis 
: It’s not a religion; it’s a cult. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: It has become an issue only because those people want there to be a change of Government. The previous member for Whanganui Jill Pettis says the Exclusive Brethren are not a religion; they are a cult. Let us just ask ourselves whether if we used the words “Jew” or “Muslim” there would be a problem. Yes there would. 
When we look at the purpose clause we find we need to look no further than that to see this bill is about closing down dissent that does not agree with the Labour Party and its poodles. That is what the bill is all about. 
I was one of the 5000 members of the public who marched in Auckland on Saturday. I can tell the Labour members who dismiss such marches that it was not a march full of National Party people; they were people from completely across the board. It was not the “rent a mob” that the Labour Party normally turns up with for anything. They were good people who wanted to express their view. About 70 percent of them said that they had never marched for anything before. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Grow up for God’s sake! 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: We hear from the member Doug Woolerton. He used to be a National Party member. He would once have thought that democracy was important—and he has still not paid his bill by the way—and we would once have heard from him that that is actually what this issue is all about. 
We need to look no further than the bill itself and particularly Part 1 of it because that part is so riddled with errors that the Minister has lodged Supplementary Order Paper 163 with about 150 changes in it. One of the changes that my colleague Chris Finlayson is promoting is to clause 14. Clause 14(2) states—and I read this directly from the bill—“The following are ineligible to be a third party: (a) a party other than a non-contesting party: …”. What does that mean—a party is not to be a third party other than a non-contesting party? It is absolute drivel! 
Then I thought that perhaps the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 163 might have some clarification of that. Supplementary Order Paper 163 which the Minister has put forward states with regard to clause 14: “To omit ‘non-contesting party’ … and substitute”—members guessed it—“ ‘non-contesting party’.” So now we are to omit the words “non-contesting party” and substitute the words “non-contesting party”? I ask the members of the Committee who can read well to look at that amendment. They will see it states that the words “non-contesting party” are to be substituted for the words “non-contesting party”. I would ask what the Minister of Justice is supposed to be saying there. That is the same Minister who said we do not need to worry about what is in the law because we can just use some common sense and apparently that will rule. 
Well I support the submission of my colleague Chris Finlayson that we should omit the words “other than a non-contesting party” because quite clearly a third party will not be a political party that is involved in the whole process and we should not have to say that it is a non-contesting party. 
We can go further on into the bill and we would suggest that we omit clause 14(3) because that is all about non-contesting parties that are listed as third parties. Either they are political parties or they are not.