Boscawen John: Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Boscawen John: Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:669;Page:16406] 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I will take a brief call in particular on clause 27 of the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill. Clause 27 deals with the transitional provisions relating to donations. We had a contribution from Metiria Turei from the Green Party on the issue of donations; this clause raises the issue of why we actually disclose donations at all and as a consequence why we need clause 27 or any provisions relating to donations. 
I am surprised that National members did not take the opportunity to speak on the first part of this bill because in the last week we have seen a classic instance relating to donations. We are arguing whether a party should have to disclose donations of $10000 or more or of $15000 or more. But what have we had from the Labour Party? Its candidate for the Auckland mayoralty has disclosed in the last week that his funds were paid into a separate trust and that trust wrote a cheque. It was not for $10000 or $15000. How much do Labour members think it was for? It was for half a million dollars. 
Hon Judith Collins 
: No! Big business. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: We would not know whether it was big business. We would not know whether it was 100 people putting in $5000 each. Who knows? It could have been that Mr Owen Glenn wrote a cheque for $500000. Perhaps Mr Owen Glenn wrote a cheque for $250000. How do we justify that? 
Let us put on the record the fact that the ACT Party believes in privacy. The ACT Party believes in people being able to spend their own money. The ACT Party believes in political parties being able to raise money and it believes in the right of third parties to go out and raise money. 
Let us look at the justification. What did Mr Brown say when he was asked about the cheque for half a million dollars that was written from his trust? One of his staffers was reputed to have said that their support has come from across the political spectrum—some left some right—and they all believe in the vision of Mr Brown and they would like privacy. They want the right to donate money to Mr Brown’s campaign. They do not want to be disclosed; they want that right. 
The reason I raise this issue is that clause 27 specifically deals with the issue of donations. You may not have read clause 27 Mr Chairperson—you have a big job—but it talks about transitional provisions for donations. Essentially in voting against this clause the ACT Party is saying that it should not be there at all. We actually support the spokesperson for Mr Brown. We support Len Brown the Mayor of Auckland selected by the Labour Party whose spokesperson said that their supporters come from across the wide political spectrum and they are entitled to their privacy. That is what he said. He said that they were entitled to their privacy. They went out and raised that money and paid it into the “Support Len Brown for Mayor” trust and the trust wrote a cheque. The ACT Party does not disagree with that. In fact Mr Banks did the same thing—let us acknowledge that. Let us acknowledge that both Mr Banks and Mr Brown had supporting trusts that wrote cheques for a substantial sum. 
I am very conscious of Labour. It often puts up speakers who say: “There is a word for that. One cannot say it in this Parliament but it starts with ‘h’.” That is what we object to in this bill. Yes there are restrictions on donations and there are restrictions on what one has to disclose but the ACT Party makes this point. The supporters of Mr Brown believe they should be able to support Mr Brown whether they are from the left or the right because they believe in Mr Brown’s vision for Auckland and we think other New Zealanders should have the same right. If they support the vision of the Labour Party they should be able to support the Labour Party and have their privacy protected. It is the same for those who support the vision of the Green Party the National Party the ACT Party or the Maori Party. People are entitled to their privacy. 
We will be voting against this part—[ 
Interruption 
]—and for the same reason we will be voting against the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I have not called the member again. I say to the member that despite my request for people to focus on the bill the member ranged over a whole range of things. Yes the member mentioned clause 27 but even I can see past that. I say to the member that I will give him the call again if he is going to focus on this part of the bill. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: Thank you Mr Chair. I conclude by saying that the ACT Party is opposed to this part of the bill as it is opposed to the whole bill. 
We acknowledge the work that Mr Power has done and we certainly acknowledge quite genuinely Mr Power. I am sure Mr Power is well aware that this bill is a million miles away from what Labour at the last election inflicted on the people of New Zealand and he is to be congratulated at least on that. Thank you.