I would also like to talk about the donation regime but before I do I would just like to assure the Hon Pete Hodgson that I look forward to being involved in this debate on a multipartisan basis, but he made the comment: “Let us be clear that the Electoral Finance Act did not set out to damage free speech;”. I campaigned against the limit that restricted third parties to spending just one-fortieth of what the Labour Party was allowed to spend. The Human Rights Commission said those parties should be allowed to spend up to $25,000 to $30,000—
Charles Chauvel: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt a new member, but I think you might like to consider giving some guidance to the member about matters that are relevant to the part that we are actually debating.
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I am sorry, I have been reading a note that has been passed to me and I have not been as diligent as I should have been. Part 2 is on page 51 of the bill, so it will be the clause that pertains to that part that the member should address his comments to. I am sorry; I was diverted by another matter.
JOHN BOSCAWEN: Thank you, Mr Chairperson. I will come straight to the point then.
Part 2 deals with donation returns. I say, let us have some honesty about this. As part of my campaign I travelled to Hamilton to talk to Doug Woolerton about this bill. I thought it was a private meeting, but, subsequently, Doug Woolerton discussed it quite openly with members in this Chamber, and it is recorded in Hansard. So I feel no compunction whatsoever to say that one of the first things that Doug Woolerton said to me was that “the Electoral Finance Act doesn’t concern us. It doesn’t concern New Zealand First. We can get our money. It’s not a problem.” That is the reality of it. We talk about transparency but there is absolutely nothing in the Electoral Finance Act that requires a person to make a declaration of a donation that cannot be circumvented. If someone wants to give a large donation to any political party, it can be structured in such a way that it is not disclosed. People can stand in the Chamber and talk about transparency but the reality is that if people want to circumvent these provisions, they can and very easily.
One of the issues that possibly led to New Zealand First’s downfall was the so-called disclosure of donations by Simunovich Fisheries in the late 1990s and early 2000s. That featured in the Dominion Post during the course of the election campaign. I famously gave a speech at the Rotary Club of Newmarket where I said there was nothing that the Dominion Post was disclosing that was illegal in 2000; and Mr Peter’s partner, Jan Trotman, was at that meeting. I said not only was there nothing that was disclosed by the Dominion Post that was illegal in 2000, but nothing in the Electoral Finance Bill, as it was at that time, would require those donations to be disclosed now. The Simunovich family gave a number of donations of $10,000 to New Zealand First, and provided those donations continue to be given by various subsidiaries using their own money, they can continue to do it. All I say is let us be honest with the people of New Zealand. Let us be honest; the transparency that this bill supposedly has is a mirage. Thank you.