Ryall Tony: Electoral Finance Bill — Second Reading 
Ryall Tony: Electoral Finance Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13386] 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 The effectiveness of Lynne Pillay as chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee will be measured by the amount of amendments that will be tabled by the Government during the Committee stage of the Electoral Finance Bill. I can tell the House that as we speak the Government has the Ministry of Justice going through this bill with its closest advisers to find all the problems loopholes inconsistencies irrelevancies and mishaps that the member put into this bill as chair of the select committee. I think the House will be stunned at the amount of amendments this Government will be forced to bring to this bill. 
I must say that the speech made by the Minister of Justice proved that this bill is drafted on a few empty slogans. It is all about the preservation of a Government that will do say and spend anything to preserve its own existence. This Government is cementing in the interests of big union money in the running of elections in this country. It is cementing in the interests of big union money because all the exceptions in this law will allow unions to spend whatever they like during the election. We know that the Service Workers Union spent close to $300000 at the last election. We know that because someone spilt the beans on Darien Fenton trying to do that for the Labour Party. 
We know that the New Zealand Educational Institute came before the select committee—did they not Mr Finlayson—and admitted to spending $150000 of its money in the run-up to the last election. We have written to all the unions in New Zealand asking them to tell us how much money they spent in the last election. None of them has replied with the numbers. We have written to all the big unions in New Zealand that have the money asking them to confess how much they spent in the last election. Not one of them has told us how much it spent. This bill cements in the interests of big union money in the running of elections in favour of the Labour Party. 
But here is the other big money that got cemented in. Lynne Pillay would not tell the House. The select committee and the Labour members spent hours and hours on the overseas donation prohibition so that Owen Glenn can give them another half a million dollars for this election. It is the “Owen Glenn clause”. I sat on the Justice and Electoral Committee. The committee spent hours and hours getting the definition of a foreign donor right so that Owen Glenn could make another half-a-million-dollar donation. 
The original definition stated that one could donate only if one was registered on the New Zealand electoral roll. Then there was a coffee break. Then committee members came back and said that we need to change that definition. Then we spent another couple of hours on the definition. Then there was a lunch break. When the committee members came back they said that we will have to make more changes to the definition of what an overseas person is. It was all about cementing Owen Glenn’s ability to give half a million dollars to the Labour Party for the coming general election. 
That is what this bill is all about. It is about cementing the interests of big union money and about the ability of the Labour Party’s half-a-million-dollar overseas donor to contribute again. That is what this bill is all about. It is about tilting the playing field in favour of the Labour Party. 
I was on the select committee during 1993 and 1994 when the MMP legislation was drafted and subsequently amended following the 1993 general election. I can tell the House that that committee worked in a multiparty way to ensure that the interests of New Zealanders were served and that the law would endure. We did that because we simply cannot have a voting system whereby the victor gets to change the rules every election to suit itself. Working against that system is what has preserved fair and democratic electoral law in New Zealand. 
We have seen across the Tasman what Governments in Queensland have done to advantage themselves election after election. Governments in Queensland used to give rural voters five times as many votes as urban voters. They had a majority in Parliament and were able to entrench themselves in power for 30 years because they changed the rules to suit themselves every election. That is what is happening here. Labour is changing the rules to help itself. I think it will rue the day. 
Labour Party front-benchers do not care that the rules will change next election. They are not worried about the 2011 election because they will not be here. But the members on the backbenches who look to have some sort of career in Parliament have to ask themselves whether they are inviting the National Party to change the rules next election to suit the National Party. I think they are inviting the National Party to do that. Do they want National to do to Labour what Labour plans to do to the people of New Zealand with this bill? I think they are inviting that. 
The National Party stands for a tradition of respect for our democratic values. This party believes in the democratic values that have underpinned this Parliament for well over 100 years. That is why our leader John Key has given a commitment to repeal this legislation. The easy option would have been to say that we will keep this bill but remove the Owen Glenn donation exemption and put in restrictions on unlimited big union money. We could do that but we are not going to. John Key has made it clear that National wants to respect the democratic values and tradition of this country. 
I have to agree with Bill English on this bill. What an incredible performance we saw in the Chamber today by the Minister of Justice during question time. In one answer she said that if people have questions about the bill then they should go to the Electoral Commission. Mr English told her that the Electoral Commission does not know what answers to give. And what did the Minister then reply? She said that people should go back to the Electoral Commission. That is what she said—that people should go back to the Electoral Commission. 
It is quite clear that the Government has no idea of the problems that the Justice and Electoral Committee has given to this Parliament with this legislation. This bill is full of innumerable problems inconsistencies and difficulties that the law of common sense will not fix. The law of common sense—that new theme of jurisprudence of the last 48 hours—will not fix the issues that Helena Catt the independent public servant in charge of the Electoral Commission has highlighted in the last 24 hours. Helena Catt is the person who has made it quite clear that she has no idea what this clause about members of Parliament acting in their responsibility as members of Parliament means. The Minister of Justice came to the House and said that if she gives a speech in the House giving an indication then the judges will take notice of it. She said that if she gives a speech in the House then the judges will take notice of it and that judges will take notice if there is a comment in the commentary of this bill. It is nonsense. 
Hon Bill English 
: You’ll have to go to court to find out. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: We will have to go to court to find out. Honestly if people thought the Florida election in 2000 was all about “hanging chads” they will see that this bill will lead to endless litigation about the roles and responsibilities of members of Parliament. This bill will be a fiasco of the standard of the Florida recount in the 2000 US presidential election. It will be fought on minute details political meanderings and understandings of rules that have been drafted solely to cement Labour’s political advantage: complete unrestricted big union money being allowed to be spent in the next election; and a specific exemption so that a foreigner Owen Glenn can make another half-a-million-dollar donation to the Labour Party. 
This bill will face pages and pages of amendments when it comes back to the House during the Committee of the whole House stage in 2 weeks’ time. It is simply appalling that members from Government parties who like to stand on their hind legs and lecture Parliament regularly about the rights and wrongs of constitutional process as they sweep their cowlicks from side to side are prepared to stand up and support this legislation which is a complete contradiction to the democratic values of this country. 
Debate interrupted.