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:16403] 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The ACT Party will be opposing the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill at the Committee stage but I will start by acknowledging that there was a proposal that the three bills to be discussed today should have been debated together. Although the Hon Lianne Dalziel referred to the fact that she and Labour would have preferred the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill and the Electoral Referendum Bill to be discussed together I will put on the record that the ACT Party was the party or one of the parties that objected to that. We see a very big difference particularly between the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill and the Electoral Referendum Bill although there are some issues that relate to both bills. 
The first point we would like to make is that we congratulate National and the Hon Simon Power on the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill. Let us acknowledge that absolutely up front because the provisions in this bill are a very very far cry from Labour’s original Electoral Finance Act. Let us not forget the history of the Electoral Finance Act; I noticed that Lianne Dalziel was happy to talk about the unpleasant 2005 election campaign which I will come back to later but the genesis of this bill was the moves by Labour prior to the last election to put in place a new regime on electoral finance and the conduct of elections. We should not forget the fact that one of the fundamental provisions of the original Electoral Finance Bill when it went out to the public for submission was a requirement that if any single person or organisation other than a candidate or a political party wanted to speak out in opposition to any other political candidate before they so much as spent a single dollar they had to sign a certificate before a justice of the peace. That is hard to comprehend but that is what the Labour politicians in this Parliament prior to the 2008 election voted for when they voted for the first reading of the then Labour Government’s Electoral Finance Bill. They said to the people of New Zealand that if they wanted to have any right to free speech and to participate in the election they had to make a submission. The Labour Government said that as a very minimum it wanted those people to sign a certificate before a justice of the peace. There was a very significant demonstration of objection to that bill. 
Hon Judith Collins 
: You were there. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I am reminded by the Minister of Police the Hon Judith Collins that she was there marching down Queen Street with me when I was simply a member of the public speaking out about an issue that was very important to me and many many other New Zealanders. 
Let us look at some of the provisions of this bill and contrast it with what the previous Labour Government proposed—and in actual fact did. I acknowledge that as a result of that widespread public opposition the requirement for people to sign a certificate before a justice of the peace before they so much as spent a single dollar was modified and I think the limit was increased to $5000. So the legislation as passed was not as bad as promoted but certainly when it was put out for public discussion it showed the contempt—the complete and utter contempt—with which Labour treated the people of New Zealand when it first promoted the legislation. 
The Electoral Finance Bill as passed prior to the last election had a regulated period that applied from 1 January. For practical purposes that could have been 10 or 11 months. We all know now that the election was in November 2008 and the legislation put restrictions on New Zealanders to speak out and criticise the Government of the time for 10½ months. One of the significant changes provided for in this bill is that that regulated period will be approximately 3 months. That is a very significant change. However this bill still carries across the provisions from the previous Labour Government’s electoral finance legislation that restrict the rights of ordinary New Zealanders to participate in the election by limiting what so-called third parties can spend. Lianne Dalziel this afternoon talked about the use of vast sums of money. In her second reading speech she talked about “paid speech”. She talked about how people can go out and spend their own money and buy advertising. 
Let us put those restrictions in context. This bill seeks to restrict the right of ordinary New Zealanders either by themselves or in organisations to spend no more than $300000 running a campaign or being involved in an election campaign—that is $300000 for a third-party organisation. I do not care whether it is the Exclusive Brethren the Catholics the St John Ambulance Family First the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions or the New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union; it restricts the right of those individuals to spend no more than $300000 of their own money. But let us put that in context. Under this bill the two major political parties and their candidates are able to spend more than $5 million. In fact it is about $5.5 million. But ordinary New Zealanders are restricted to spending less than one-sixteenth of what political parties reserve for themselves the right to spend. 
I notice that Lianne Dalziel talked about the very very unpleasant election campaign in 2005. Well she may have unpleasant memories of 2005 but I have my own unpleasant memories. I recall as I am sure many New Zealanders do the very condescending remarks of the then Prime Minister Helen Clark as she looked down her nose on national television during the final debate of the election campaign and said goodbye to Mr Hide. She was trying to tell New Zealanders that the ACT Party was beaten for all money and would not be returning to Parliament. Mr Hide proved to Prime Minister Helen Clark and a lot of other members of the Labour Party how very very wrong she was. 
Lianne Dalziel talked about the perception that vast sums of money can influence an election. Once again I put that $300000 limit in the context of what we the politicians and political parties reserve to be able to spend ourselves. We are happy to pass legislation. Today we are passing legislation that will increase what a political party can spend—it will actually increase it. A formula currently set down in legislation allows a political party to spend just over $1 million plus $20000 for every electorate in which it stands a candidate. That amount is being increased to $1032000 plus $25000 per electorate in which it stands a candidate. So for National and Labour with their broadcasting allocations the figure will rise to some $5.5 million. Later on in this debate ACT will be moving amendments to increase third-party spending limits and I look forward to discussing those later in the debate. 
I conclude by summarising what I have said on this part. The ACT Party strongly opposes the restrictions on third parties and certainly the restriction that means they are allowed to spend only $300000 or less than one-sixteenth of what the major political parties have the right to spend. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 197 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 12A to raise the expenses limit to $500000 be agreed to.