Key John: Electoral Finance Bill Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 3) Electoral Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Key John: Electoral Finance Bill Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 3) Electoral Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:644;Page:14031] 
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 “If you’re in favour of free speech then you’re in favour of freedom of speech precisely for the views you despise. Otherwise you’re not in favour of free speech.” They are not the words of a random right-winger. They are not the words of a former treasurer of the ACT party. They are not the words of the media for whom Helen Clark no longer has any respect because according to her they are too young to understand history. They are the words of Noam Chomsky a man who is not from the left but from the far left. He is somebody with whom Helen Clark probably used to agree before she totally lost all objectivity. 
Today Helen Clark against the wishes of the majority of New Zealanders is passing legislation that threatens our democracy. Years and years of bipartisan support of electoral reform will be sacrificed for one reason and one reason alone: so that Helen Clark can try to cling on to power. I say her actions cannot go unrecorded. They threaten the rights of New Zealanders to participate in elections while at exactly the same time extending the rights of those in a political party. This law is not designed to strengthen our democracy. It is deliberately designed by Helen Clark to weaken our democracy. 
In much of New Zealand’s history we have enjoyed a full democracy—a democracy that has seen universal suffrage where free and fair elections are held where there is a freedom of association and where there is freedom of speech. One of the key planks of our democracy is the freedom to participate—to speak out when one is in agreement with the Government and to speak out with abhorrence to the Government to speak out when one agrees with the Opposition and to speak out with abhorrence to the Opposition. It is the freedom to make one’s case on the strength of one’s argument and to let others judge it for what it is worth. Our democracy is not weaker because of the scrutiny; it is stronger because of its democracy. 
Healthy democracy does not tolerate dissenting voices it demands them because when they are silenced slowly but surely we are all silenced. Democracy is about participation for everyone but it comes at a price. We have to be prepared to hear opinions that we do not like from people we cannot stand on topics we might not want to debate. That is what participation in a democracy is all about. 
This legislation today is designed for one reason alone and that is to silence democracy reduce participation and put a legalised gagging order on the people that Helen Clark and her travellers do not like. There can be no other explanation for a law that will see New Zealanders spending one-third of their adult life subject to a law that is so bureaucratic where the hoops are so bad and that is so muddled that the Prime Minister has told people to consult a lawyer if they want to try to understand it. The Government cannot explain the legislation. What sort of democracy are we creating in this country when we are creating law so muddled that the Electoral Commission is confused by it the Law Society is against it former Prime Ministers have come out speaking against it and the Minister has said the only hope for it is to apply common sense to law that has no fundamental common sense in itself? 
Helen Clark does not care. She does not care for one reason: for blatant self-interest she will pass this law because she thinks nobody will notice. According to Helen Clark when issues get tough they are inside the beltway and nobody notices. Well I have news for Helen Clark. Everybody has noticed and the vast overwhelming majority are opposed to this legislation. The only thing Helen Clark has been able to hide behind throughout this entire debate is some sinister kind of plot that is all about big money. 
If there is big money involved in New Zealand politics it is the big money of the Labour Party. These are the people who spent $50 million through Government agencies in a non - election year but nearly $70 million when an election was under control. That is the reason they no longer care about neutrality of the Public Service. You see with Labour and an election the role of a communications manager is a political appointment. That is why Madeleine Setchell’s face did not fit. That is why Clare Curran’s face did fit. That is why Erin Leigh was defamed in this House by a Minister who used advice for which that ministry has apologised and for which he will not. That is the reason why. And this—the audacity of this—from a party that got caught in the last election flogging $800000! It has the audacity to lecture New Zealanders about big money. Labour did not break the law once— 
Jill Pettis 
: Pay back the GST! 
JOHN KEY 
: Actually I say to Jill Pettis Labour broke the law twice. It broke the electoral cap as well. If anyone is involved in big money it is the Labour Party. 
So there can be only two explanations for this legislation and they are quite simple. One is desperation and the other is breathtaking arrogance. One of them is a good reason to boot Labour out; with both of them combined it is a necessity. 
Let me say this to the people of New Zealand who are engaged in this debate and who are interested: National will repeal this legislation. We will go back to basics. We will go back to the way it was. We will ask independent people to go out there and come up with electoral law. You see electoral law is not owned by the Labour Party for the benefit of the Labour Party. Electoral law is owned by the people of New Zealand so that we can have a democracy. 
This is a sad day for New Zealand. It is the day the Labour Party admitted publicly and through legislation that it cannot win unless it changes the law. That is what happened today. National will repeal the law. We will go back to a bipartisan basis where independent people will come up with some recommendations. I say this and this alone: history will mark this day. This is the day when Helen Clark arrogantly inflicted anti-democratic legislation upon the people of New Zealand and when the collective voters of New Zealand know once and for all that it is time for a change.