Catherine Delahunty: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think it is quite offensive to say that we spent that money to distort the truth.

Hon Members: You did.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Catherine Delahunty: No—and I think it is a really offensive comment.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member has taken offence. Under Standing Order 116 I ask the member to withdraw that comment.

Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN: Because the member has taken offence, I withdraw that comment.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, you do not need to qualify it. I ask the member to continue.

Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN: Let me clarify what I was saying. The member talked about organisations—individuals grouping together—raising money and spending money. As I said, I am quite keen to listen to that speech again, because I am sure I heard the word “distort”; I am sure I heard that word. If the member is suggesting that individual groups and organisations that want to participate in the electoral process want to distort the truth, then how do we know that the Green Party did not spend $1.5 million to also distort the truth? That is all I am asking. What makes the paid messages of the Green Party any different from the paid advertising messages of any other party or any other organisation that wants to participate in the electoral process? I note that the member referred to the late Rod Donald. He was a person who wanted to encourage New Zealanders to participate in the process.

Catherine Delahunty: But not the rich buying it up.

Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN: Let us look at this $300,000 limit, because we have just heard another interjection from the Green member, who said “But not the rich.” I think that was the point that Pete Hodgson was trying to make. He asked why the ACT Party has such an objection to restricting people to $300,000. Well, it is not as though it is one individual; organisations can be formed to push one or more of the particular four electoral options. I think Mr Hodgson conceded that a group of people could be clubbing together—I think he used those words.

I express the ACT Party’s objection to the $300,000 limit in the context of what the major political parties could spend in their own campaigns. I noticed that in Mr Hodgson’s response he said that one could spend that but that, possibly, in reality one would spend substantially less. It might surprise Mr Hodgson to know that if one looks at just the core spending of the Labour Party at the last election—ignoring the broadcasting, and ignoring what the party spent—one would see that the Labour Party was entitled to spend $2.4 million, yet it spent $2.271 million. So it was within $130,000 of the maximum.

Let us come back to this $300,000 limit, but let us also come back to the reason we are having this referendum. I think Amy Adams put the reasons for having the referendum very, very well. She said that most New Zealanders had a perception that there would be a second referendum. Most people, if we asked them honestly, would say they were going to get a second vote. But she said that people had not looked at the fine print and the little asterisks on the footnote that said: “only if Parliament agrees.”

National promised at the previous election to put this issue to the vote, and I say: “Good on them for doing just that.” Labour asked why. Well, this bill is enabling New Zealanders to express a view on their electoral system. Ultimately, that is the reason that the ACT Party is supporting this legislation. We support the right of New Zealanders to be involved and to express a view. We do not support the fact that an artificial limit has been put on the amount that groups that club together can spend. Nevertheless, we support this referendum and we will be voting for it, despite that reservation.

Interestingly, Steve Chadwick said that $300,000 will buy a reasonable campaign. I would like to remind Steve Chadwick that the contestants in the mayoral campaign for Auckland were entitled to spend $500,000—$500,000—to put their message across. What did we see in the weeks leading up to the Auckland vote? We saw Len Brown on television every night, night after night for 3 weeks. I congratulate Len Brown. I thought the television advertisements he did were very good, and he certainly got the jump on his principal opponent, Mr Banks. Len Brown was entitled to spend $500,000 to communicate with the people of Auckland, but we are going to restrict the amount of money that can be spent by people in New Zealand who want to club together to form an organisation, a support group, in favour of one or more of the various options. We will restrict the amount to just $300,000.

I also thought Steve Chadwick made another very interesting comment. She said the public information campaign that is budgeted to cost $5 million probably will not be sufficient. So she and the other Labour members are prepared to say that the State can go out and spend $5 million educating the public but that the State will restrict to $300,000 the spending of any group of people who want to club together to vote for and promote one or more of the options.

Earlier this afternoon Mr Hodgson made a reference to the 1986 Electoral Commission. He correctly recorded the fact that the Electoral Commission said that if we are going to restrict political parties, why would we not restrict third parties? He also said that the Electoral Commission in 1986 put up the proposal that there should be State funding of political parties. I would like to remind Mr Hodgson that we already have massive State funding when we travel around our electorates. Members of Parliament are paid salaries. In essence, they are funded to campaign.

What else did that Electoral Commission say? That Electoral Commission, in recommending MMP, said there was no reason for the Māori seats. There is no reason for the Māori seats, because if we have an MMP vote that is strictly proportional, each party will have in Parliament its share of the party vote. The Electoral Commission in 1986 said there is simply no need to retain the Māori seats. The ACT Party strongly opposes electoral seats based on a racial basis, and we will be putting forward an amendment in the Committee stage to have a referendum on that very issue. If we go to a great deal of expense to conduct a referendum on MMP, the ACT Party says we should actually be holding a referendum on Māori seats at the same time. We should let the people of New Zealand express a view.

Mr Hodgson earlier this afternoon asked why we are having a referendum. He actually queried whether it was in the National Party manifesto. The Minister of Justice said that, yes, it was. Mr Power said: “Yes, it is in the National Party manifesto.” I would like to remind the National members in the House this afternoon that there is actually something else in their manifesto, and that is an intention to abolish the Māori seats; to abolish seats that were based on a racial divide, if you like, or that were created along racial lines.

The ACT Party strongly believes in one law for all. We do not believe that we should be having those electoral seats. This is a tremendous opportunity, if we are going to the expense of having a referendum, to put that vote to the people of New Zealand, and to give them a chance to express an opinion. Thank you.

It has been quite interesting to listen to the last three or four speakers. We heard from Lianne Dalziel a clear personal support for MMP, and a criticism of the supplementary-member representation system. It is interesting that the Hon Pete Hodgson drew the conclusion that Lianne Dalziel was personally supporting MMP. He made the comment that Labour has never supported a political system, but that it has always believed it was the right of the people to decide on what political system politicians should be elected under, and that it is simply not the role of Labour to be advising, lobbying, or campaigning for one system over the other.

It is very interesting to compare that approach with the approach of the Green Party. Metiria Turei said that the Greens think it is very, very right for the Green Party to get out there and promote one political system over the other. Of course, the Green Party owes its existence in this Parliament purely and simply to the MMP system, as I do myself. I am a list MP here, and I am here as a consequence of MMP, and, of course, Green Party MPs are elected entirely under the MMP system. But in outlining the case for MMP in the way that Metiria Turei did, she showed New Zealanders why we should not have restrictions on third-party participation. As a member of Parliament, she can use this venue, and she can use the media coverage that she attracts as co-leader of the Green Party to put the case for MMP. She can do that entirely free of charge. There is no cost to her in standing up in Parliament this afternoon and putting the case for MMP, and having journalists and New Zealanders around the country listening to this broadcast on television and actually hearing that case. Metiria Turei says that by putting a cap on expenditure we are ensuring a level playing field, but we are doing exactly the opposite. We are not ensuring a level playing field. What about people who support first past the post? Where are they in Parliament this afternoon? From where are they getting the free publicity that Metiria Turei has received this afternoon? The Green Party owes its existence to MMP. It has clearly signalled that it will campaign strongly for MMP. It will be required under the rules of the referendum to register and to spend no more than $300,000 on advertisements. But it will have an advantage that is not available to other New Zealanders who want to form themselves into groups to support or oppose one of the four different types of electoral systems. The Green Party will have that advantage.

Interestingly, Lianne Dalziel quoted the Prime Minister, John Key, as perhaps suggesting we should be moving in the direction of the supplementary-member representation system. That is also free publicity that he gets as a Prime Minister.

The ACT Party is voting for this legislation. We think the public of New Zealand deserve to have the right to have a say on the way that politicians are elected and the way that this country is governed. But we would much prefer that there are no restrictions, which would enable New Zealanders to form lobby groups and support groups, or whatever, to get out there, to get involved, and to try to inform their fellow New Zealanders about the different options and promote any particular option that those support groups wanted. Thank you

I will respond to the comments of Lianne Dalziel and Metiria Turei, but before I do so, I will place something on record. The Hon Lianne Dalziel keeps asking why we are discussing these bills individually and not as a group of three. Let me advise her and the rest of the Committee that the ACT Party had no objection to discussing the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill and the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill together. All we asked was that they not be discussed at the same time as the Electoral Referendum Bill, which we saw as a totally separate bill. We wanted it discussed in a totally separate debate, as had been proposed prior to 2 o’clock this afternoon.

Let me come back to the comments of Metiria Turei. Lianne Dalziel referred to the fact that Metiria Turei had used the opportunity of speaking on Part 1 to engage in quite a wide-ranging debate. She related the history of MMP. I will come back to the history of MMP and the reason why we are having this referendum, but this afternoon Metiria Turei made comments that simply astound me. I cannot believe what she has said.

Metiria Turei said that there would not be the opportunity to have the best possible information. Those were her words. She said that there will not be the opportunity to have the best possible information. She said that we have taken from the community the chance to have the best possible information. What, she asked, is more important than informing people about, and voting on, the system that elects their politicians—not so much the politicians themselves but the options for our electoral system. She criticised the fact that people will be denied that information. Well, the reason I find those comments absolutely astounding is that I suspect the Green Party and other members of this House are voting for provisions that will restrict that very information and deny groups the opportunity to pull together and form organisations to stand up and speak for or against a particular electoral system.

The reason this bill is so flawed is that it restricts the rights of ordinary New Zealanders to spend more than $300,000 promoting a particular system. They can spend no more than $300,000. Metiria Turei should be taking a good, hard look at herself and at her party’s position. She criticises the fact that the people of New Zealand will be denied the opportunity to have the best possible information, yet Metiria Turei and other members of this House are doing exactly that, because they are restricting the right of third parties to be involved in this debate.

I come now to the comments of Lianne Dalziel. I think she made some very important points. Lianne Dalziel and the Labour Party are another group of people who have argued that we need to restrict the rights of people to put their position. I think that the Hon Lianne Dalziel has explained very well this afternoon why we should not in fact put on that restriction. She has just quoted a statement that our Prime Minister made when he was the Leader of the Opposition. She said—and I have no reason to disbelieve what she said—that John Key, who is now the Prime Minister of New Zealand, said that he thinks people will vote MMP out and that they will not vote for first past the post but for a new proportional system.

The reason I make those points is that the Prime Minister was making a comment. He was giving the public a steer. He was indicating that maybe it is not such a good idea to have MMP, but that if we are to vote out MMP, then perhaps we need to vote in a new system that is proportional—or, as Lianne Dalziel would argue, only slightly proportional. The Prime Minister’s view has huge weight. Just by the very manner of his position, his view has huge weight. If one takes the position of the Labour Party and is opposed to what the Prime Minister is saying, then one will find that we are restricting the right of ordinary New Zealanders to stand up and speak out against the Prime Minister.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: And spend $300,000. How many ordinary citizens have access to $300,000?

Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN: Yes, they have $300,000, but they have $300,000 in the context of a general election where the Labour Party will spend close to $5 million and the National Party will spend close to $5 million. The Green Party spent $1.8 million at the last election, so we have no reason to believe that it will not do the same thing again at the next election. So in the context of political spending, whether it is $10 million, $12 million, $15 million, or maybe millions more dollars, people who want to put the alternative view to the Prime Minister’s—and I am not saying whether the Prime Minister is right or wrong—are restricted to spending no more than $300,000.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: So is the Prime Minister.

Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN: I say to the Hon Lianne Dalziel that the reason why it is important not to have those restrictions is that the Prime Minister is in a very powerful position. He can make comments, which are carried in the media, that favour one particular voting system, and he can steer the public in a particular way. That seems to be what Lianne Dalziel is criticising.

So if people strongly support MMP—and there are people in this country who do—how do they counter the Prime Minister’s comments? How do they counter the free publicity the Prime Minister gets when he goes on national television and says: “Look, these are the faults of MMP, but we’ve got a better deal for you.”? The only way people can counter those comments is to try to get into the media, to try to get a campaign going, and to try to put up arguments so that the people of New Zealand are informed and can be in exactly the position that Metiria Turei wants them to be in—informed, and with very best possible information.

The ACT Party will be supporting the Electoral Referendum Bill. We think that the people of New Zealand should have that opportunity. It is a very, very sad day for New Zealand when we pass a bill that restricts the right of New Zealanders to participate in this referendum and denies New Zealanders the ability to get the best possible information, in the way the Green Party says they should be able to. Thank you.

Part Three:

I will respond to those comments from the Hon Lianne Dalziel because, like the Hon Lianne Dalziel, I was expecting a debate about the expenditure limits—the limits on the amount promoters will be able to spend for or against any particular electoral system—specified in Part 3 of the Electoral Referendum Bill. I was somewhat surprised that the Chairperson put the amendments from Hilary Calvert to the vote in the previous part. The ACT Party promoted an amendment that would allow third parties to spend up to $750,000; if we could not get Parliament to agree to a $750,000 limit, we suggested $500,000.

It is interesting that Lianne Dalziel criticised the fact that we put forward an amendment that would allow a third party the ability to spend $500,000, because she would call that paid speech. Yes, it is paid speech: it is buying advertising. It is what political parties do. Earlier this afternoon we voted on a bill that would enable the two major political parties in this Parliament to spend over $5 million—$5 million in paid speech, I tell Ms Dalziel.

Hon Member: How much?

Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN: Five million dollars. Yet we will restrict the right of an organisation that wants to be involved in this referendum to try to sway the votes of New Zealanders one way or the other to the sum of no more than $300,000.

That is not the only thing Ms Dalziel misrepresented. She derided my contribution by asking which ordinary New Zealander has $300,000 to spend. We are not talking about individual New Zealanders; we are talking about organisations. We are talking about organisations that want to get involved in this election campaign.

I sat on the Electoral Legislation Committee that considered this submission, as did Ms Dalziel. She will be well aware that an organisation came along and submitted on this bill—an organisation that had formed to promote the MMP option. It was not one person; it was a group of people who purported to represent a much larger group of people, and they sent their spokespeople along. I do not know the name of the organisation; I cannot recall it—it may have been “Promote MMP” or “Pro-MMP”—but certainly an organisation had formed for the purposes of promoting MMP. That is right: it is not one person, but a whole series of people, an organisation—a grassroots New Zealand organisation. So for Lianne Dalziel to stand up and suggest that the ACT Party is talking about one New Zealander having the right to spend $300,000 misrepresents our position. Worse than that, she actually knows that she misrepresents our position.

The other point Lianne Dalziel made was that under the provisions of this bill, third parties—organisations such as the one that appeared before our select committee—will have access to television. They will have access to television to promote their view one way or the other in support of or against one of the four different systems that are being put forward.

It is interesting that she finds the use of television particularly obnoxious. The reason Labour finds television obnoxious is that it is powerful. One can actually persuade and influence people through television. We know that one of the reasons Len Brown’s committee put down for their success in Auckland was the early use of television.

Television is also denied to the smaller political parties in this Parliament; they are denied the chance to spend their own money on television. Another major failing of this Parliament is that it has not taken the opportunity to correct that problem.

Amy Adams: This is the referendum bill; it’s not the finance bill.

Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN: This is the referendum bill, and I explain to Ms Adams that under the referendum bill people can form organisations for or against one or more of the electoral systems that have been promoted. They can spend their own money, they can spend it up to $300,000, and they can spend it on television. It is a pity that parties in this Parliament are denied the opportunity to do that.

Notwithstanding the fact that the limit is set at $300,000, the ACT Party will be voting for this bill. We support the right of New Zealanders to have a say on their electoral system; we think it is important. But also we think it is important that the people be informed and that they understand what is being offered to them. It is a tragedy that by putting limits on organisations such as the one that appeared before our Electoral Legislation Committee in Wellington—I think it included academics from Victoria University—we deny New Zealanders the opportunity to be fully informed.

I note that Lianne Dalziel referred to the supplementary member system. She called it first past the post with a winner’s bonus. I could take issue with that description of it, too, but I will not do so.

The other amendment that Hilary Calvert put before Parliament this afternoon was to do with the actual voting form that appears in schedule 1. I thought that I might have had an opportunity to speak to that before it was put before Parliament. Earlier this afternoon, the ACT Party put forward an amendment that would have provided for a vote in the referendum on the existence of the Māori seats. We did that because in the 1986 Royal Commission on the Electoral System the commissioners in recommending MMP also said that once there is a proportional system, there is no longer any need to have electoral seats set up on a racial basis.

Hone Harawira: They were joking.

Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN: Mr Harawira may well say they were joking, but they were not. The record shows that the royal commission in recommending MMP said if there is a proportional system, a system where every vote counts, there is simply no need for the Māori seat option. It is a pity that Parliament took the opportunity of voting down that amendment this afternoon. Thank you.

Part Four:

Amy Adams said to give those members a chance, but National has taken just one call, I think, in this debate—one call since quarter-past 3. We have heard from Lianne Dalziel that MMP is flawed. Well, who says it is flawed? Yes, some people say it is flawed, but I ask what right the Labour Party has to pronounce that MMP is flawed. Who says so? Where is those members’ evidence? Where is the overwhelming evidence it is flawed?

Lianne Dalziel talked about fixing the problem. Well, there is no need for a review, and the ACT Party will be voting against her amendment. However, Lianne Dalziel raised a very, very good point. She has just told the public of New Zealand, notwithstanding the consultation and the extraordinary effort the Minister has made to reach agreement—and he has conceded a number of points, not least of which is a $300,000 limit on the right of free speech—that if Labour wins the next election, all bets are off. All bets are off. She said: “We have reached consensus, we have reached agreement, but if Labour wins the next election, we will screw you.” That is exactly what she said. She said that if Labour wins the next election in 2011, Labour will not proceed down the second referendum road unless the Government goes and fixes the system—the system that we do not even necessarily know is broken.

I put it to National members in the Chamber this afternoon that Mr Power is a gentleman. Mr Power is a gentleman. He has gone along to the Labour members and has consulted with them, but I say to my colleagues on this side of the Chamber that they have been screwed. They have been screwed because they are being told this afternoon that, rather than trust their judgment, allow third parties to campaign for what they believe, and put the Minister’s bill through in the way that he had originally presented it, they have fallen for a trap. That is one of the reasons the ACT Party strongly opposes the $300,000 limit. Let me simply say to Mr Mallard and Ms Dalziel that a further reason for the National-led Government to be re-elected in 2011 is so that it can give effect to the compromised agreement that this bill represents. Thank you.