I will comment on the comments that have just been made by Metiria Turei. She said that people should not be able to give money in secret to political parties to get policy in exchange. All I can say to her is that she must have a very poor view of her fellow human beings. She must believe that the only—

Hon Ruth Dyson: For goodness’ sake!

Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN: No, I say that very sincerely. The implication is that the only reason a person would give money to a political party or to a cause is that that person wants something out of it. That is what Metiria Turei is saying. She is saying that people should not be able to give money to political parties to buy policy.

I have fundraised for a political party over the last 10 years, and I would say that the proportion of people who want something in exchange is very, very tiny. My experience with human nature is that people who give of their own money and time do it for the community interest and not because of what they can get out of it themselves.

I find it very interesting that in the last week the candidates in the Auckland mayoral election have disclosed how much money they raised and how much they spent. We now know that the two leading candidates, Mr Brown and Mr Banks, had trusts set up for them into which donors paid money, and then each of those trusts wrote cheques of approximately $500,000 to fund those campaigns. There was no transparency, which is fine, because the ACT Party supports the rights of privacy of those individuals who make donations.

I relate to the House the comment of David Lewis, the spokesperson on behalf of Len Brown. He said of the people who had paid into Len Brown’s trust that the campaign raised money from hundreds of people from across the political spectrum who supported the mayor’s vision. Most wanted anonymity, as per the current laws, simply because they are private persons with no interest in being in the media. There we are, I say to Metiria Turei. Those people supported the vision of the mayor. I suggest to Ms Turei that the people who support the Green Party—and I do not know the financial backers of the Green Party—are perhaps different from the people who back the ACT Party. The people who back the ACT Party support the vision of the ACT Party, and I would have thought that the people who fund, donate to, and work towards the Labour Party would support the Labour Party for its vision, and not for what they could get out of it.

I now come to the issue of third parties. It is interesting that Lianne Dalziel has once again brought to the House the issue of the Brethren campaign in 2005. It is also interesting that that campaign came to the public’s attention. The media ferreted it out. It was known. It may well have had an impact on the election—I suspect it did—but it came without any requirement for disclosure of donations. In actual fact, it works when the system is left to work, as evident from the fact that the Brethren involvement was reflected in the media.

It is interesting that Amy Adams acknowledged this afternoon the issue of whether it is philosophically reasonable for a political party or a candidate for election to have a limit on what it can spend, while a third party has no limit. She concluded that, philosophically, she does not have a problem with that. Clearly, National does not have a problem with that, which is why it is voting for this legislation this afternoon. She said that the limit of $300,000 is perhaps too low; she thought that $500,000 was more appropriate. In respect of that issue my colleague Hilary Calvert yesterday promoted an amendment to increase that cap to $500,000. It is a pity that that amendment was voted down.

Why would we look to increase that limit? I repeat that each of the major political parties in this House is entitled under this legislation to spend more than $5 million in next year’s election. I repeat that the figure is $5 million. We are restricting the rights of ordinary individuals, organisations, and associations who want to come together to form a campaign. They can spend no more than $300,000, or one-sixteenth of what each of the two major political parties will be entitled to spend in this campaign. I remind the House once again that both Labour and National spent more than $4 million in their campaigns at the last election, and under this legislation they will be entitled to spend more than $5.5 million.

I acknowledge the work of the Electoral Legislation Committee and its chair, Amy Adams. As I said earlier in this debate, I acknowledge the contributions of Lianne Dalziel and, in particular, Pete Hodgson, whom I got to know better through interacting with him through the work of the committee.

It interests me that Pete Hodgson referred again to being distressed or surprised that organisations such as the New Zealand Listener, which he referred to this afternoon, and the , whichhe referred to in last week’s debate, would actually express opposition to a limit. I say to Mr Hodgson that it should not surprise him, because they are standing up for the right of New Zealanders to speak out and be involved in an election campaign.

Mr Hodgson referred to people who do not physically put themselves up for election as the non-participants. That is what he called them. We have 122 successful MPs, and probably fewer than 1,000 people who physically put their names on a ballot paper, but Mr Hodgson referred to other New Zealanders as the non-participants. I say that the people of New Zealand have every right to have a say in how this country is run and to participate. They can participate by being involved in the election campaign of a particular individual or a party. They can throw their weight behind a campaign and deliver brochures and make phone calls, or they can form separate lobby organisations.

There is all manner of third parties. There are trade unions, business associations, and lobby groups that support a particular cause. I think of the Sensible Sentencing Trust, of Family First, and of the various trade unions. Each of those organisations should be able put out its case at the 3-yearly general elections. With this bill we are restricting them to spending no more than one-sixteenth of what the two major political parties in this Parliament can spend. Those two parties are using their voting strength to put those restrictions in place.

It is not the only restriction that the two major political parties impose on the smaller political parties in this House. It might surprise New Zealanders to know that it is illegal for a political party to use its own money to buy broadcasting time. As political parties, we cannot go out to the public, raise money, and buy television advertising. We have a broadcasting allowance. Each of the two major political parties gets $1 million worth of broadcasting time. The smaller parties at the last election—the Greens, the Māori Party, and New Zealand First—were given just over $240,000. The ACT Party was given $100,000. We do not have a level playing field. None of the smaller political parties is entitled to go out, raise money, and try to compete on an equal footing with the major political parties in this Parliament. Once again, the ACT Party thinks that is a disgrace.

Finally, I acknowledge that the process adopted by Simon Power was a far, far better process than that adopted by his predecessor in the Labour Government.

The ACT Party will not be voting for this bill; we will vote against it. One of the fundamental reasons we are doing that is that it puts restrictions on freedom of speech, which the New Zealand Herald, the , and most New Zealanders can see. It is a pity that Parliament is going to do that.

I sadly come back to the comments made by Metiria Turei. How tragic and how sad that a leader of a political party thinks so little of her fellow New Zealanders that she thinks that a party would give money to a cause only because of what they could get out of it. Thank you.

The first point we would like to make is that we congratulate National and the Hon Simon Power on the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill. Let us acknowledge that absolutely up front, because the provisions in this bill are a very, very far cry from Labour’s original Electoral Finance Act. Let us not forget the history of the Electoral Finance Act; I noticed that Lianne Dalziel was happy to talk about the unpleasant 2005 election campaign, which I will come back to later, but the genesis of this bill was the moves by Labour prior to the last election to put in place a new regime on electoral finance and the conduct of elections. We should not forget the fact that one of the fundamental provisions of the original Electoral Finance Bill, when it went out to the public for submission, was a requirement that if any single person or organisation other than a candidate or a political party wanted to speak out in opposition to any other political candidate, before they so much as spent a single dollar, they had to sign a certificate before a justice of the peace. That is hard to comprehend, but that is what the Labour politicians in this Parliament prior to the 2008 election voted for when they voted for the first reading of the then Labour Government’s Electoral Finance Bill. They said to the people of New Zealand that if they wanted to have any right to free speech and to participate in the election, they had to make a submission. The Labour Government said that as a very minimum it wanted those people to sign a certificate before a justice of the peace. There was a very significant demonstration of objection to that bill.

Hon Judith Collins: You were there.

Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN: I am reminded by the Minister of Police, the Hon Judith Collins, that she was there marching down Queen Street with me when I was simply a member of the public speaking out about an issue that was very important to me and many, many other New Zealanders.

Let us look at some of the provisions of this bill and contrast it with what the previous Labour Government proposed—and in actual fact did. I acknowledge that, as a result of that widespread public opposition, the requirement for people to sign a certificate before a justice of the peace before they so much as spent a single dollar was modified, and I think the limit was increased to $5,000. So the legislation as passed was not as bad as promoted, but certainly when it was put out for public discussion, it showed the contempt—the complete and utter contempt—with which Labour treated the people of New Zealand when it first promoted the legislation.

The Electoral Finance Bill as passed prior to the last election had a regulated period that applied from 1 January. For practical purposes, that could have been 10 or 11 months. We all know now that the election was in November 2008 and the legislation put restrictions on New Zealanders to speak out and criticise the Government of the time for 10½ months. One of the significant changes provided for in this bill is that that regulated period will be approximately 3 months. That is a very significant change. However, this bill still carries across the provisions from the previous Labour Government’s electoral finance legislation that restrict the rights of ordinary New Zealanders to participate in the election by limiting what so-called third parties can spend. Lianne Dalziel this afternoon talked about the use of vast sums of money. In her second reading speech she talked about “paid speech”. She talked about how people can go out and spend their own money and buy advertising.

Let us put those restrictions in context. This bill seeks to restrict the right of ordinary New Zealanders, either by themselves or in organisations, to spend no more than $300,000 running a campaign or being involved in an election campaign—that is, $300,000 for a third-party organisation. I do not care whether it is the Exclusive Brethren, the Catholics, the St John Ambulance, Family First, the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions, or the New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union; it restricts the right of those individuals to spend no more than $300,000 of their own money. But let us put that in context. Under this bill, the two major political parties and their candidates are able to spend more than $5 million. In fact, it is about $5.5 million. But ordinary New Zealanders are restricted to spending less than one-sixteenth of what political parties reserve for themselves the right to spend.

I notice that Lianne Dalziel talked about the very, very unpleasant election campaign in 2005. Well, she may have unpleasant memories of 2005, but I have my own unpleasant memories. I recall, as I am sure many New Zealanders do, the very condescending remarks of the then Prime Minister, Helen Clark, as she looked down her nose on national television during the final debate of the election campaign and said goodbye to Mr Hide. She was trying to tell New Zealanders that the ACT Party was beaten for all money and would not be returning to Parliament. Mr Hide proved to Prime Minister Helen Clark and a lot of other members of the Labour Party how very, very wrong she was.

Lianne Dalziel talked about the perception that vast sums of money can influence an election. Once again, I put that $300,000 limit in the context of what we the politicians and political parties reserve to be able to spend ourselves. We are happy to pass legislation. Today we are passing legislation that will increase what a political party can spend—it will actually increase it. A formula currently set down in legislation allows a political party to spend just over $1 million plus $20,000 for every electorate in which it stands a candidate. That amount is being increased to $1,032,000 plus $25,000 per electorate in which it stands a candidate. So for National and Labour, with their broadcasting allocations, the figure will rise to some $5.5 million. Later on in this debate, ACT will be moving amendments to increase third-party spending limits, and I look forward to discussing those later in the debate.

I conclude by summarising what I have said on this part. The ACT Party strongly opposes the restrictions on third parties, and certainly the restriction that means they are allowed to spend only $300,000, or less than one-sixteenth of what the major political parties have the right to spend

Part Two:

I will take a brief call, in particular on clause 27 of the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill. Clause 27 deals with the transitional provisions relating to donations. We had a contribution from Metiria Turei from the Green Party on the issue of donations; this clause raises the issue of why we actually disclose donations at all and, as a consequence, why we need clause 27, or any provisions relating to donations.

I am surprised that National members did not take the opportunity to speak on the first part of this bill, because in the last week we have seen a classic instance relating to donations. We are arguing whether a party should have to disclose donations of $10,000 or more, or of $15,000 or more. But what have we had from the Labour Party? Its candidate for the Auckland mayoralty has disclosed in the last week that his funds were paid into a separate trust, and that trust wrote a cheque. It was not for $10,000 or $15,000. How much do Labour members think it was for? It was for half a million dollars.

Hon Judith Collins: No! Big business.

Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN: We would not know whether it was big business. We would not know whether it was 100 people putting in $5,000 each. Who knows? It could have been that Mr Owen Glenn wrote a cheque for $500,000. Perhaps Mr Owen Glenn wrote a cheque for $250,000. How do we justify that?

Let us put on the record the fact that the ACT Party believes in privacy. The ACT Party believes in people being able to spend their own money. The ACT Party believes in political parties being able to raise money, and it believes in the right of third parties to go out and raise money.

Let us look at the justification. What did Mr Brown say when he was asked about the cheque for half a million dollars that was written from his trust? One of his staffers was reputed to have said that their support has come from across the political spectrum—some left, some right—and they all believe in the vision of Mr Brown, and they would like privacy. They want the right to donate money to Mr Brown’s campaign. They do not want to be disclosed; they want that right.

The reason I raise this issue is that clause 27 specifically deals with the issue of donations. You may not have read clause 27, Mr Chairperson—you have a big job—but it talks about transitional provisions for donations. Essentially, in voting against this clause the ACT Party is saying that it should not be there at all. We actually support the spokesperson for Mr Brown. We support Len Brown, the Mayor of Auckland, selected by the Labour Party, whose spokesperson said that their supporters come from across the wide political spectrum and they are entitled to their privacy. That is what he said. He said that they were entitled to their privacy. They went out and raised that money and paid it into the “Support Len Brown for Mayor” trust, and the trust wrote a cheque. The ACT Party does not disagree with that. In fact, Mr Banks did the same thing—let us acknowledge that. Let us acknowledge that both Mr Banks and Mr Brown had supporting trusts that wrote cheques for a substantial sum.

I am very conscious of Labour. It often puts up speakers who say: “There is a word for that. One cannot say it in this Parliament, but it starts with ‘h’.” That is what we object to in this bill. Yes, there are restrictions on donations, and there are restrictions on what one has to disclose, but the ACT Party makes this point. The supporters of Mr Brown believe they should be able to support Mr Brown, whether they are from the left or the right, because they believe in Mr Brown’s vision for Auckland, and we think other New Zealanders should have the same right. If they support the vision of the Labour Party, they should be able to support the Labour Party and have their privacy protected. It is the same for those who support the vision of the Green Party, the National Party, the ACT Party, or the Māori Party. People are entitled to their privacy.

We will be voting against this part—[Interruption ]—and for the same reason we will be voting against the bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I have not called the member again. I say to the member that despite my request for people to focus on the bill, the member ranged over a whole range of things. Yes, the member mentioned clause 27, but even I can see past that. I say to the member that I will give him the call again if he is going to focus on this part of the bill.

Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN: Thank you, Mr Chair. I conclude by saying that the ACT Party is opposed to this part of the bill, as it is opposed to the whole bill.

We acknowledge the work that Mr Power has done and we certainly acknowledge, quite genuinely, Mr Power. I am sure Mr Power is well aware that this bill is a million miles away from what Labour, at the last election, inflicted on the people of New Zealand, and he is to be congratulated at least on that. Thank you.

Before I do that, I reiterate some of the comments that have been made in this House this afternoon. I congratulate Amy Adams, the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee, on doing a very good job. I say that very genuinely to Amy. I also acknowledge the contribution of Pete Hodgson. He said things in this House this afternoon that I totally disagree with. However, I have to say that having been involved in that committee over 2 or 3 months, I got to know Mr Hodgson better and I thought that the comments and contributions from the other side of the room, so to speak, were very positive in a general sense. I also acknowledge the officials.

One person spoke this afternoon who was not involved in the sittings of the committee, and that person was Mr Hipkins. I found his contribution this afternoon disappointing, because he ridiculed National for its efforts initially to reach a multipartisan approach, and then to reach a bipartisan approach. There are huge advantages if we can get a bipartisan or multipartisan approach. Amy Adams this afternoon talked about the overarching desire to reach consensus. Yes, a consensus was reached, but I ask at what cost.

Mr Hipkins drew the comparison between this legislation and the previous Labour Government’s Electoral Finance Bill. I remind Mr Hipkins of some of the provisions of that bill when it was first introduced. It put a requirement on any New Zealander who wanted to speak out and criticise any party or any person seeking election to first of all go to a justice of the peace and sign a certificate if they wanted to spend so much as a single dollar. Labour’s contribution to this debate was to put a proposal out to the people of New Zealand that required every single person or third party who wanted to participate to go along first of all to a justice of the peace to seek approval to spend so much as a single dollar. Treating the people of New Zealand with such utter contempt drew widespread protest throughout the country.

I go back to the submission from the Human Rights Commission on that bill. It said: “A human rights approach to democratic government requires genuine participation. Genuine participation, in turn, requires an informed electorate. By limiting freedom of expression and creating a complex regulatory framework in the way it does, the Electoral Finance Bill”—that is, Labour’s Electoral Finance Bill—“unduly limits the rights of all New Zealanders to participate in the electoral process”. The commission concluded by saying: “The bill in its current form represents a dramatic assault on two fundamental human rights that New Zealanders cherish, freedom of expression and the right of informed citizens to participate in the election process.”

The legislation before the House this afternoon is a lot better than Labour’s bill. I acknowledge that it is significantly better. Labour sought to eventually put restrictions on third parties and individuals to limit them to spending no more than $120,000 in the year of the election. It is New Zealand’s electoral history that elections generally fall towards the end of the year, in September, October, or November. Labour sought to put restrictions on third parties by allowing them to spend no more than $120,000 for, essentially, the full year.

One may think that $120,000 is a lot of money. One may even think that the National Party’s so-called bipartisan proposal to allow third parties to spend $300,000 is generous, particularly when that $300,000 is limited to only the last 3 months before the election, but let me put that $300,000 in context. What do we as politicians get to spend? To use Lianne Dalziel’s terms, what do we get to spend on paid speech? Lianne Dalziel would criticise people’s going out and spending their own money, as if it were dirty money—as if it were dirty for people to fund-raise and be involved in the political process in the way that the Human Rights Commission says they should be encouraged to do.

What do we get to spend? The rules for what a party and its candidates can spend are laid out in this legislation. Essentially they prescribe a formula that will enable the two major parties in this Parliament, National and Labour, and their candidates to spend more than $5 million. That is right: under this legislation they will be entitled to spend more than $5 million each. What do these two parties say to people in New Zealand? They say that they are allowed to spend $300,000, which is one-sixteenth of what they can spend. They do not want their fellow New Zealanders to criticise them on the election trail or to put up arguments against their policies; they want to limit their rights. Lianne Dalziel had the audacity to stand up in Parliament today and say that she does not want to restrict people’s right to speak out—they are entitled to speak out—but they cannot spend their own money, or, if they do spend their own money, they need to be restricted to spending less than one-sixteenth of what the major parties spend.

Lianne Dalziel, I, and the other politicians in this Parliament this afternoon have a very special privilege. We can speak to the people in the gallery and to the people at home watching television. Who knows how many people are involved in listening to this debate right now? There could be a few hundred or there could be a few thousand. What about the rights of ordinary New Zealanders? We have rights and privileges that no other New Zealanders have. We have the right to be in this debating chamber and to go around the press gallery.

I look at a press release put out this afternoon by Family First, which is a so-called third-party organisation, criticising this bill. Does Family First have the right to come into this House? Does Family First have the right to speak to the people watching television right now? No, it does not. It relies on the media to pick up press releases such as this one, or it relies on the financial contributions of its members to fund the advertisements to go in the newspapers, which it seems the Labour Party and also, sadly, the National Party would choose to deny them.

I pay tribute to Mr Bob McCroskie of Family First, who joined me on the campaign trail against Labour’s Electoral Finance Bill. I will do something in this Chamber right now that he cannot do. I will read part of his press release. I will read the story that the politicians in this Parliament would seek to suppress. What does he say? He says: “The politicians are effectively restricting non-political groups to $300,000 while they can spend millions of dollars and get free television advertising as well … This is not a triumph for democracy. It is an act of arrogance and paranoia on behalf of the politicians and shows utter contempt for voters who may be members or supporters of non-political groups who wish to highlight certain issues during an … election year.”

What does a political party get to spend? The formula prescribes that we can each spend $1 million—in fact, $1,030,000 under this legislation. For every candidate we put up, we can spend a further $25,000. For a party like the Labour Party or the National Party, which would stand a full slate of 70 candidates, that is a further $1.75 million. If we add that together, it comes to $2.75 million. On top of that, each of those two major political parties will get $1 million each in broadcasting—that comes to $3.75 million—and on top of that, the individual candidates who stand for each of those parties can spend a further $1.75 million in total. All up, that comes to $5.5 million. What are the politicians in this House prepared to allow ordinary New Zealanders to spend? They will allow them $300,000. As Mr McCroskie says, Family First will not spend anything like that, but this Parliament is restricting the rights of New Zealanders to participate.

Mr Hodgson cannot understand why the New Zealand Herald  would stand up for the rights of ordinary New Zealanders to speak out in an election year. I pay tribute to the New Zealand Herald . I have here a scrapbook of clippings, under the heading “Democracy under attack”, from the months when the Labour Party tried to impose its will on New Zealand. It is a tribute to the New Zealand Herald and the other members of the media who stood up for the right of free speech. It is a pity that the politicians in this Parliament are not prepared to do the same. The ACT Party will oppose this bill. Thank you