Turei Metiria: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
Turei Metiria: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13609] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I want to talk to the Committee about the Supplementary Order Paper the Greens have put forward on this part. It is the only Supplementary Order Paper we have on this bill and it is a shame that Bill English is not able to address directly why he attacked the idea so fiercely—the idea that the citizens of our country should have a say in how our electoral campaign law should be determined. 
Our Supplementary Order Paper establishes a Citizens’ Assembly that would begin its work before the next general election. It is a process similar to a jury whereby a number of citizens are randomly selected from each electorate so the idea is not completely unusual in New Zealand. The assembly would include the Maori electorates and in our Supplementary Order Paper we have left it open so that at least two people from every electorate—a man and a woman we would expect—would be on the assembly. It could be opened up for possible Treaty implications that might be involved as well. 
Those people would be brought together by the panel that we have also established in our Supplementary Order Paper and that would do a great deal of work preparing information and support systems for the Citizens’ Assembly. [ 
Interruption 
] National is not going to support it and I would really like to hear why it is so opposed to this idea. 
Our citizens would then work with the secretariat. They would get the information about the different kinds of electoral campaign from across the globe as well as here in New Zealand; look at all the issues; and determine what they believe would be the best kind of election campaign financing system that our country should have. 
This is exactly what we need—a mechanism for our citizens to be the decision makers. The assembly would report back to the Minister on its findings and the Minister and the Government would then be expected to enact those findings. I do not understand why the National Party could be so fiercely opposed for no good reason to citizens having a say. Could it please please let us know. National Party members have said they would like greater public involvement and then at the first opportunity they get to allow that they say no. 
This assembly model was used in Canada. I will briefly read from— 
R Doug Woolerton 
: A well-known Communist country! 
METIRIA TUREI 
: That is right; Canada is a well-known Communist country! The chair of the Citizens’ Assembly George Thomson who worked on that electoral system said: “The Assembly members constantly amazed me with their enthusiasm and deep commitment to the task they were given. Throughout the eight-month process not one member withdrew from the Assembly. Members applied themselves to learning about electoral systems. They talked to people in their communities about the work of the Assembly and chaired public consultation meetings. Some members read hundreds of written submissions. Others participated on working groups to advise on the Assembly process or to do more research in specific areas. Many used an online forum to share information and discuss issues between meetings. By the time the Assembly began its deliberations in February it had become a community of people who cared about one another and never lost sight of their common objective … Assembly members approached their deliberations with open minds respect for different points of view and in the spirit of the best kind of collective problem-solving. They inspired the members of the public who came to see them at work and they inspired me.” That is from the chair of the assembly from Canada. 
It just goes to show that we can have faith in the community to make these decisions. Canada is a great country—and clearly the Citizens’ Assembly worked brilliantly for them—but New Zealand is better. I believe that New Zealand is a much better country than Canada. I reckon it is the best country in the world and if Canadians can do that kind of work and come up with the best kinds of options then our citizens can as well. 
Why does National not trust New Zealanders? [ 
Interruption 
] My colleague Nandor Tanczos is quite right; why do National members not trust New Zealanders to make these decisions? Why do they feel despite everything they say about the public having a say that they cannot trust New Zealanders to have a say about their own electoral system? Is it because the National Party has something to hide? I suspect that is the case. 
The National Party has a lot to hide. It has a lot of fat back-pocket wallets to protect. National members do not want the public to have a say about how the National Party can raise money. They do not want the public to have a say about what the National Party can spend its campaigning money on or when it can spend it because they are pretty frightened about what the public would say. The public would say they want transparency. The public would say they want a level playing field. The public would say they want controls on big money. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: They want the Business Roundtable to make the rules. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: That is exactly right; the National Party wants the Business Roundtable to make these decisions and to be able to provide it with all of that money. It does not want New Zealanders to make that decision. What is the National Party’s problem?