Hide Rodney: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hide Rodney: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13535] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I will be quick because with the way this is going through I am not sure we will get a second chance to speak to this part. I want to speak to two things. The first is my amendments to increase the limits that candidates are able to spend from $20000 to $30000 in an election and from $40000 to $60000 in a by-election. I put those amendments forward in the hope that they will get support. I have calculated what the limits would be if adjusted by the approximate purchasing power parity from what they were when first set in 1995. It is no aim on my part given the will of Parliament to increase the amounts; it is actually just to adjust them for inflation to be exactly equivalent to what they were in 1995. Quite frankly the $20000 limit is a bit ludicrous when we think of what things cost now compared with what they did in 1995. I look to the Minister in the hope that we can gain some support for those amendments. It certainly would have made a difference to me in the last election campaign when I was up against it in Epsom. 
I have a point of clarification. I think it is fair to say that I do not like this bill. The ACT party does not like this bill and we struggle to grasp it fully. With the Supplementary Order Papers we struggle to grasp it fully. I am not ashamed to admit that and I think everyone will be struggling with this bill for some time. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: My Supplementary Order Papers are OK. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Yes; I trust Mr Finlayson with my life! I refer to page 3 of Supplementary Order Paper 162 in the name of the Hon Annette King where it is proposed that the word “person” in clause 53(1) be changed to “promoter” as though that helps in any way. But I still think the provision affects any citizen because “promoter” under paragraph (a) of the definition “promoter” in clause 4 “means a person on whose initiative an election advertisement is published;” and includes ya-di-ya. It seems to me that it is not just promoters who will have to state their names and addresses but also the general public. The actual Supplementary Order Paper then has no real effect. It seems to me that if for example someone sent out a mass email asking people to vote for parties that supported tax cuts or flat taxes then he or she would be defined as publishing and under this legislation he or she would have to state his or her address. 
Here is an interesting case which I am sure every MP is familiar with. As a matter of safety women who take out protection orders against abusive husbands and who may be staying in a women’s refuge are entitled to be off the electoral roll. It is quite conceivable that such a woman would want our laws toughened up or have a political view she wanted to express. The absurdity of it is that if that woman said anything to the public such as asking people to vote for parties that would get tough on family violence or whatever then under this legislation she would have to publish her full name and address. She would not have to publish her full name and address to vote because we are offering her that protection but if she wanted to be a promoter of a particular policy in election year then she could not do it. 
It seems to me that we are denying people left right and centre an opportunity to express their political views but inadvertently in our rush with this legislation we are overriding other provisions Parliament has legislated for to protect people’s identities so that they can take part in the democracy of this country—that is to say to vote without revealing where they live for reasons of self-protection. With this bill if they want to express their political views on something they have deep experience of and feel passionate about the very legislation we are passing requires them to publish their names and addresses. That is clearly not the will of this Parliament and I ask the Greens New Zealand First the Minister and the Labour Party first of all hopefully to address my concern and explain whether I have it wrong and if I have not—and I am sure that that is the case—to fix it please.