Guy Nathan: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
Guy Nathan: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13602] 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 I wish to take a call on this very important part the new Part 2B to acknowledge the hard work Mr Chris Finlayson has put into his amendments including the new clause 117D. Mr Finlayson has done a great deal of work on this Supplementary Order Paper 166. It is interesting that the Government has decided to pick up a good portion of his hard work and try to adopt it but we in the National Party do not think that that gesture has gone far enough so I need to personally acknowledge Mr Finlayson today and his Supplementary Order Paper. In particular I will talk about the new clause 117D. My learned colleague Eric Roy has made a very valuable contribution to this debate this afternoon and we all know that this bill is a Draconian step away from the principle of freedom of speech. 
The biggest part of this Part 2B which Mr Finlayson has addressed is the indexation of amounts of spending. These amounts have not changed since 1993 so we have seen a cap of $20000 on spending by candidates. That has been at the same level since 1993. If we do the calculations on that it would work out as being somewhere between $25000 and $30000—about $27000 as the MP from Napier mentioned—or in present times that would buy us about $13000. Mr Finlayson’s amendment covers this situation very very well and makes the situation similar to what it is in Australia. We all know that inflation never sleeps. It is a bit like rust is it not? As Mr Roy mentioned it takes a lot of money to buy advertising.  
It is really important for MPs and candidates to be able to communicate with their constituents and their voters. In particular I want to focus now a little bit on clause 22 as part of this. It is really really important that we take particular note that although the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper covers the contributions where the MPs can spend over $20000 I think—and Mr Finlayson has covered it with his Supplementary Order Papers—that donations as well should be allowed to be increased over time. Because we all know as I mentioned that inflation never ever sleeps. 
The model under new clause 117D in Mr Finlayson’s Supplementary Order Paper 166 is simple. It is a simple resolution that is not as cumbersome as the Government’s one where increases in levels have to go by an Order in Council on a triennial basis. Mr Finlayson’s model is a lot simpler. I believe fundamentally that Mr Finlayson has done a great job of covering this very very important part of our democracy. 
That is the really important part. When we look back at 1993 we see that there have been no movements in relation to the consumer price index in terms of what candidates and MPs are allowed to spend. There has been no movement since 1993. We on this side believe that increases in levels should be increased with the consumer price index because fundamentally we all know that this big-spending Government has created a big inflation index. Levels should be adjusted with this very very important new clause 117D that Mr Finlayson has proposed. 
I do not think it is fair that the Government has just come in at this point. We have been through the select committee process. The Government members would not acknowledge Mr Finlayson’s contributions at that moment but when the bill comes back we have 150 Supplementary Order Papers and other amendments dropped in the House from the Government which shows that this process has not been done properly. The bill should have gone back out to the public for consultation. Instead the Government is trying to ram through this process before Christmas when the bill will severely affect the freedom of speech on 1 January 2008. 
I need to acknowledge that one of the most important parts of this is the indexation that the National Party supports. It should be allowed to be moved up with the consumer price index instead of being restricted back to where it was in 1993. 
The other part I want to talk about is how Mr Finlayson’s proposal compared with the Government’s is very very simple and should be supported.