Copeland Gordon: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Copeland Gordon: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13466] 
GORDON COPELAND (Independent) 
: 
 I want to speak to the purpose of the Electoral Finance Bill and particularly to clause 3(b) which states that the purpose of the bill is to “promote participation by the public in parliamentary democracy;”. This bill does not achieve that purpose; rather it introduces new and—in my view—totally unnecessary restrictions and roadblocks that inhibit New Zealanders from maintaining even their present ability to participate in our democracy. 
It is a deeply flawed and dishonest bill. I say “dishonest” because the only need for such a bill which the Government has consistently appealed to as a justification for this Draconian complex bureaucratic interventionist bill coming into a perfectly satisfactory electoral finance situation comes from the involvement of the businessmen who spent from their own pockets money in the last election and who happened to be members of the Exclusive Brethren. As Doug Woolerton has just informed the Committee their involvement did not work. It did not actually have much effect on the final outcome of the last election so this whole bill is based on a foundation that is shaky and that does not stand up to any analysis whatever. I know for sure that people actually turned off voting for National when it became clear who was behind the leaflets that came through letterboxes telling people to bring the Labour Government’s reign to an end. In fact Labour was re-elected and therefore the argument is surely self-fulfilling. 
There was no problem and there was no mischief that needed to be fixed. This whole bill is really predicated on ensuring that in the future any advantage that parties other than National might have enjoyed in terms of financial support is actually removed. I think that this is the action of a Government that is desperate to stay in office. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
GORDON COPELAND 
: In the 1990s Bob Jones spent a considerable sum of money in Nelson trying to unseat Nick Smith but in fact Nick Smith was re-elected with an increased majority. I think that just goes to show that once New Zealanders know who is behind leaflets and other material they are quite capable of making up their own minds and they do not need to be treated like children. 
This bill is badly drafted. The Minister in charge of the bill Annette King tries to reassure the nation that that does not matter because the law of common sense will apply. In the 2002 election the Hon Peter Dunne gained quite some traction around the notion of common sense but I would say that Annette King has single-handedly given common sense a bad name. If we want to promote public participation in a parliamentary democracy common sense says that we should make it easier not harder for that to happen. Common sense means that we write a bill that is comprehensible clear and user-friendly if we genuinely want to promote greater participation in democracy and not write gobbledegook. Common sense would mean that we give third party trusts a ceiling above $120000 for advertising when it costs much more than that simply to make a single national letterbox drop. 
The whole way in which this bill has been put together is nothing but a complete breach of common sense. Common sense would conclude that an extension of the 3-month electoral period right back to 1 January in election year restricts rather than promotes participation in New Zealand’s democracy. That is completely obvious. Would not common sense conclude that this bill should be ditched? It is unnecessary and more important it has a negative impact on the likely participation of New Zealanders in our democracy which is the best democracy and the oldest I would say in the world. Our democracy has been robust. It is tested and it is tried. There is no justification or necessity for this bill. It is a solution seeking a problem that does not actually exist in the real world—a world sadly that this Government has become more and more out of touch with as the years have gone by. 
Let me say that it is time to bin this bill. It is time to assign it permanently to the rubbish bin. I will be voting against this bill and I urge other members of the House to do likewise.