Wagner Nicky: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Wagner Nicky: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13471] 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 We have already heard from my colleagues that National considers election time to be the time of people power not political control. It is the one time in the election cycle when politicians can be held to account by the people. At election time politicians should be listening to the people. It should not be the people being dictated to by the politicians. 
But here in clause 18 of the Electoral Finance Bill is a set of rules that determine when the listing of a third party must be refused. These third parties must be refused by the Electoral Commission the very commission whose chief executive officer has already expressed concerns that it will not be able to understand the Electoral Finance Bill’s rules and that it may have to refer cases to the courts for judgment. 
The whole principle that this Government is creating legislation that must refuse to allow individuals or organisations to be involved in political debate is repugnant. Labour constantly pays lip-service to encouraging public participation and consultation in political discussion but shuts down debate when it really matters—in election year. This bill and its regulations make a mockery of democracy showing up this Government’s arrogance and its refusal to accept any sort of accountability during election year. That is almost a third of the election cycle. 
National is not the only organisation to believe these provisions are unacceptable to the public. The Law Society has made it very clear that the third party regime unduly restricts participation in elections. Clause 18 states that unless individuals or organisations are prepared to fill forms make statutory declarations and appoint financial agents who must sign consent forms they must be refused the opportunity to have their say. Clause 18(1)(c) focuses on the names of third parties. Unlike Shakespeare’s declaration “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” it seems that for this Government it is all in the name. The right of free speech is prohibited if the Electoral Commission finds the name offensive if it could lead to confusion or if it could mislead members of the public. I see plenty of problems here. What say the third party was called “The Tax is Too High Party”? Would that be offensive to Labour? Probably it would. Could it be challenged by the Labour Party for instance with the argument that tax is not too high? Possibly it could. Could Labour declare it misleading to the public by even considering such a thing? Well maybe. 
This all goes to highlight the concerns of Helena Catt the chief executive officer of the Electoral Commission who fears having to interpret the law. She says that everywhere that we have areas where interpretation is not clear parties will start using that as part of their attack on each other and that will not do anything to encourage public interest in politics or trust in the electoral programme. 
I am concerned about an existing lobby group in my city Noise Off. They are passionate about changing the legislation around noisy vehicles. They are angry with Labour because Harry Duynhoven promised at the last election to fix the noise laws within 6 months but has done nothing since to solve the problem. No doubt this group will want to campaign in 2008 but will its name Noise Off be considered offensive? Could it be refused the opportunity because of its name to tell this Government just how unsatisfactory it has been? 
Shakespeare figured that a name mattered little. Not this Government! Someone might be refused the right to have his or her say if the Electoral Commission does not like that person’s name. Could it be that this rose has the sweet smell of incumbency arrogance or the sickly scent of nanny knows best—political interference?