Ryall Tony: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Ryall Tony: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13492] 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 What an amazing admission was made by the Minister of Justice in the Committee not 20 minutes ago. Two weeks ago the Minister of Justice took particular pains to read into  
Hansard  
her definition of an MP’s activities that would not be covered by the spending rules. She specifically said that for the avoidance of doubt and so the judges know she would outline the activities of members of Parliament that would not require them to declare their spending to be for election purposes. She came down to the Chamber not 20 minutes ago and admitted that what she had said was wrong that it did not count and that she was now open to further discussions about what that would mean. 
So there she was 2 weeks ago trying to instruct the judges by way of  
Hansard 
 and there she was 22 minutes ago saying that she was completely wrong that Bill English has a point and that now she wants us all to talk about it. She said we should have a seance and try to get it right; that is what she said in this Chamber 22 minutes ago. And Anne Tolley is dead right to try to get the  
Hansard 
 because I bet when we ring up and ask the Minister’s office for it at 8.30 we will not get it. The Minister said she was wrong and the Government was going to have to rethink what she had said. Even though she had tried the gimmick of reading the legislation into  
Hansard 
 2 weeks ago in order to try to guide the judges she has had to stand in the Chamber today and say that she had got it wrong that Bill English has a point and that we need to work on it. 
Well that is what we said to the Government when it first brought this loathsome legislation to the House. We asked why we did not do what parliaments have done for generations and try to get agreement from the major political parties about how the matter should be dealt with. But instead we have had the remarkable sight today of the Minister of Justice coming down to the Chamber and admitting that the advice she tried to give the judges 2 weeks ago was wrong—and that is summed up even further by the 150 amendments that she tabled only hours before this debate began earlier today. She has been in the Chamber together with the outgoing member for Taupo trying to justify all the provisions in this bill yet 150 amendments have come through. And the Minister came down 24 minutes ago and admitted that the advice she gave to the judges was absolutely wrong. 
Then we listened to the debate of Marian Hobbs. Well Marian Hobbs does not want to tell the Committee that she was elected to Parliament on the back of over $800000 of anonymous donations to the Labour Party in 1999. What did the donors get from Marian Hobbs in return for that? And she did not talk about the fact that she was re-elected in 2002 on the back of $350000 of anonymous donations to the Labour Party— 
Anne Tolley 
: Plus the unions. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: —plus the big union money. But she stood up in this Parliament and said such donations buy influence and that all that money has to be controlled because it buys influence. Well she was a Cabinet Minister; she was the Minister for the Environment. So what about the money that the big forestry companies donated to the Labour Party? Did she change her actions as the Minister for the Environment because of the money that forestry companies donated? Did she do that? Oh there is silence from that member. So that is the question. Marian Hobbs can stand up and say that people are bought because of donations but she was a Minister so let us hear her explanation of the $800000 of anonymous donations that Helen Clark pocketed at the 1999 election in order to get herself elected—$800000 from what New Zealand First says are the secret manipulators of New Zealand politics. 
The Labour Party received $800000 of anonymous donations yet we sat for days in the Justice and Electoral Committee as Labour members tried to say that people knew who the anonymous donators were. It was amazing. Lynne Pillay would sit in the select committee and say that we needed to make sure that people really knew they were anonymous. Well Mike Smith general secretary of the Labour Party signed off that the $800000 of anonymous donations that Helen Clark received in 1999 were completely anonymous and once we had pointed that out to Labour members they never said a word again about that—never said a word again. 
Let us also talk about the really “honest” Labour Party and ask about the “Owen Glenn clause”. It is clause 25C(1)(a). Into the select committee those members came on their little ponies being really tough and saying they were going to stop foreigners donating to political parties. They were going to stop foreigners donating to political parties said Lynne Pillay Charles Chauvel David Benson-Pope and the rest of the lefties on that select committee. So they proposed an amendment they brought forward that said any individual who is not a registered voter in New Zealand may not donate money—that every person who lives overseas and who is not a New Zealand - registered voter may not donate. Do members remember that the whole debate centred on Chris Finlayson’s brother in Germany and whether he could make a donation? So those members decided that anybody who is not registered as a New Zealand voter would not be able to donate to parties. 
Then we asked how that left Owen Glenn the man who has donated over half a million dollars to the Labour Party. 
Judith Collins 
: What does he get for that? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Well I ask Mrs Collins what he gets in return for that because Marian Hobbs says that if people donate to political parties they expect something for that. Let me tell members about the “Owen Glenn amendment”. Mrs Pillay and her friends came into the select committee and said they would stop foreigners donating money. They said that because foreigners were not on the electoral roll they could not donate to parties. Then we said: “Well what about Owen Glenn?” Within minutes a coffee break was announced. Those members said they would just break the committee and deal with that. 
Fifteen minutes later came the announcement that some amendments would have to be made to that provision. 
Lynne Pillay 
: That is such a story—yeah right! 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Every member opposite on that committee knows that is exactly what went on. All of a sudden what happened? Well the Labour members must have gone to check on the residency status of Owen Glenn because what came back was the wording that an overseas person is “an individual who—(i) resides outside New Zealand;”. That is Owen Glenn. He lives in Australia and he gave the Labour Party half a million dollars. I do not know whether he gave it any of the $800000 of anonymous donations in 1999. Here is the “Owen Glenn clause”: “and (ii) is not a New Zealand citizen or registered as an elector”. Everyone knows that Owen Glenn is a New Zealand citizen so that provision will allow him to make his big donation to the Labour Party again even though Labour’s original proposal would not have allowed him to do that. 
So I tell members opposite not to give us the high and mighty stuff from Marian Hobbs about Labour not wanting there to be any money in politics. The fact is that Labour Party members wanted the big money when they were trying to get elected in 1999 and Helen Clark pocketed $840000 of anonymous donations. It was $340000 at the next election. Hundreds of thousands of dollars came from Owen Glenn. So let us not start all that nonsense about what Labour is trying to do. 
The fact is that this legislation is all about skewing the playing field in favour of the Labour Party to give it every advantage in the run-up to the next election. It is absolute hypocrisy for anyone to stand up and say the things that have been said by Labour Party supporters not only in this House but around the country about this issue. This bill is an abomination. It is a breach of democratic principles in this country. It is based on the political manoeuvrings and scheming of the Labour Party because if it really did want to stop anonymous donations it would have prevented Owen Glenn from giving it another half a million dollars. And if those members opposite really wanted to stop anonymous donations they would have made other movements. 
In fact did members hear the Minister of Justice say that Labour wanted to stop anonymous donations? The bill as introduced was silent on anonymous donations; there was not a word in it on anonymous donations. Labour members decided they wanted to put a provision about anonymous donations in the bill because someone else pointed that issue out to them. There was not a word in the bill about anonymous donations when it was introduced but they subsequently decided they wanted to put a provision about anonymous donations into the bill because someone else pointed that issue out to them. Although there was not a word about it in the bill as introduced they brought amendments to the select committee and now in the Committee of the whole House they have come in with another 150 amendments. 
The failed Minister of Health who is the short-term Minister of Justice came into the Chamber not half an hour ago and announced that what she gave to the House 2 weeks ago was absolutely wrong and that the judges should ignore it. That is what she said—that the judges should ignore it. That is simply no way for a Minister of Justice to treat the House. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Before I call the next speaker I ask the member who has just resumed his seat whether he used the word “hypocrisy” in relation not only to people outside the Chamber—he mentioned it in relation to supporters which he is entitled to do—but also to members in the Chamber. Did he mean to include members in the Chamber? 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: That would have been unparliamentary Mr Chairperson. It was certainly not my intention. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Thank you Mr Ryall.