Brown Peter: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Brown Peter: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13473] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I say to the member who has just resumed his seat that either he is being deliberately mischievous or he clearly does not understand the bill. I will give him the benefit of the doubt. He clearly has not read the bill and does not know why we need it. The question that should be answered is why do we need this bill? Why do we need this purpose clause as we are dealing with Part 1? The answer is in the  
New Zealand Herald  
that National members displayed some time ago. It was in that paper. Let me read from the article in the  
New Zealand Herald— 
oh they will love this. It is written by Audrey Young and she is talking about the email sent to the former Chief Electoral Officer David Henry by the Exclusive Brethren. 
In case members over on the Opposition benches have not read this article or heard of it let me read the email: “We represent a group of Christian businessmen concerned as to the course and direction of the current Labour-led Government. Accordingly we have put together an election programme with a budget of $1.2 million with the goal of getting party votes for National as this is the only way that change will come about.” It goes on to say: “Our programme involves extensive publications throughout the country with a theme showing and demonstrating mistrust in the current Government and building trust in a Brash-led National Government. We write seeking clarification and direction re the election funding issue specifically that anything we do does not compromise National’s funding position.” 
Then typically it asks a few questions. Firstly: “Does it compromise National’s position if we communicate to MPs and candidates our strategy?”. Secondly: “Does it compromise National’s position if we show them draft publications before they are published?”. Thirdly: “Is there any legality prohibiting us from printing ‘vote National vote Brash’ and including a photo of Dr Brash on the advertising? Can this be done without compromising National’s funding position?”. Fourthly: “To what extent can we legally advise direct assist communicate or other with National MPs and candidates?”. That is why we need this bill. But what did the  
New Zealand Herald  
say? It did not pull this email apart. Can members imagine what it would have said if New Zealand First had sent that email? What would that paper have said then if Winston Peters had been the author? We can imagine it. 
I ask those members over there whether they honestly believe that this is an honourable tactic. National had $1.8 million in donations from sums over $10000 plus funds raised from membership and fund-raising activities plus the $1.2 million it was getting from the Exclusive Brethren. That made over $3 million or $4 million. National was trying to buy the election; I have no doubt about it. What did the royal commission state? It is in the report of the select committee in the commentary on the bill: “As the Royal Commission on the Electoral System wrote: ‘It is illogical to limit spending by parties if other interests are not also controlled. Supporters or opponents of a party or candidate should not be able to promote their views without restriction merely by forming campaign organisations “unaffiliated” to any party … Nor should powerful or wealthy interest groups be able to spend without restriction during an election campaign while [the parties] are restricted’.” That is what the royal commission stated. This is why we need this bill. 
The National Party had one attempt at the last election to buy itself into power. I guess its members thought they could get away with it. Bill English and John Key knew all about this—I have no doubts about it. [ 
Interruption 
] Those people on the backbenches did not have a clue. I know that they did not have a clue but Dr Brash and John Key knew all about it.