Dalziel Lianne: Electoral Referendum Bill — In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Electoral Referendum Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:669;Page:16416] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I will take just a brief call on Part 3. This part deals with the total referendum expenses of a registered promoter in respect of the regulated period not exceeding $300000. I presume that there are also amendments to this part from the ACT Party—it just seemed odd to be dealing with them in respect of Part 2. 
The only point I want to make is that the citizens initiated referendum limit is $50000 and as this is a citizens initiated referendum masquerading as a Government referendum I think the amount should have been the same. This however was a negotiated settlement as it were between the political parties. We have swallowed some dead rats on both sides and we are not going to have a debate about who swallowed the bigger rat—the Minister in the chair is looking vaguely uncomfortable. The reason this figure was settled on was that it represented the lowest end of a range that represents a medium-level campaign spend in the retail sector. We are talking for example about something that would include some television advertising print media advertising in the newspapers and brochures being delivered to people’s houses. That seemed to be an acceptable level at which to resolve the matter. 
Access to television was the one area where I felt there was an incredible sense of disquiet and that was the reason there were so many more submissions to the Electoral Legislation Committee on the third-party campaign expenditure limits in the Electoral Referendum Bill as opposed to the other legislation. Everyone knows that television advertising is very powerful. Companies would not use it if it were not as powerful as it is and it can be used in a way that I think is unfortunate in that we could see a campaign of deliberate misinformation about the effect of the supplementary-member representation system. 
I know that every speech I will be giving between now and when we hold the referendum will refer to the supplementary-member representation system as first past the post with a winner’s bonus because that is what it is. I will just put on record how that would have worked in the last election and fortunately the  
New Zealand Herald  
columnist John Armstrong put it all together in a nice little piece. I will quote that into the record: “And before anyone mouths the words ‘supplementary member’ let’s beware of false prophets in sheep’s clothing. No doubt those wanting a return to those dark ages will seductively offer the supplementary member system as a halfway house between FPP and MMP. That system is in part proportional. It might look like a compromise. It is not. It is nothing short of snake oil elixir. Had last year’s election been fought under that system with a Parliament made up of 90 constituency seats and 30 list seats National would have won 67 of them compared with its current 58. That party would have had an absolute majority of 14 seats with just under 45 per cent of the vote. The Greens’ current entitlement of nine seats would have been slashed to just two. So much for proportionality.” 
I wanted to read that into the record in Part 3 because I want the public of New Zealand to know that they are not being offered a straight choice between proportional representation and a non-proportional system. They are being offered proportional representation in exchange for a version of first past the post which looks as if it might be a compromise but which is nothing of the sort. I think that with the campaign expenditure limits we have some hope for ensuring the public education campaign run by the Electoral Commission has some chance of success in respect of ensuring the real messages get out there and ensuring people understand what the choices are. 
The last point I make is in response to one of the comments made by the ACT Party: this is not a debate about freedom of speech. It is not about free speech; it is about paid speech. That ACT member said that he is championing the ordinary New Zealander who wants to speak out against the Prime Minister’s position on supplementary-member representation or against MMP but that member is not championing their cause at all. He is not championing their cause one bit. Which ordinary New Zealander has access to $300000 in order to promote their particular view? There are those of us who will continue to express those views and the expression of opinion is perfectly valid. But paid advertising should be accurate and it should not misrepresent the importance of this referendum to the people of New Zealand.