Electoral Finance Bill

When the House rose last evening the Committee of the whole House was considering new Part 2B, on Chris Finlayson’s Supplementary Order Paper 166. This part is about the indexation of the amount allowable in the reconciliation of costs leading up to an election. I wish to speak in support of this provision, as it is a fundamental issue in the democratic process of the way this bill will impact on the election process.

The reason why it is important that the Committee considers and votes in favour of Mr Finlayson’s Supplementary Order Paper is the limitations that will occur in the democratic process if this provision is not put in place. As an example I will cite what actually happens. We have a $20,000 limit. When I first stood for Parliament in 1993 the limit was $20,000. What has happened since then? There have been some elements of inflation. It was generally reckoned in 1993 that it cost 50c to put out a letter. That is the cost of the paper, the envelope, the packaging, and the stamp. Today it is generally reckoned that that cannot be done for less than $1, so that limits by at least 50 percent a candidate’s ability to communicate with voters in an electorate.

The first issue is that we have had a significant increase in the cost of communication. The second thing that has occurred since 1993 is MMP. In 1993, when I first stood, there were some 16,500 houses in the electorate in which I stood. In the electorate I represent today, with the new boundaries that have just been locked in for 2008, there are 27,000 houses. Again, that diminishes by another 50 percent one’s ability to communicate today in comparison with 1993. So if candidates want to communicate, as they should do, they cannot send out even one letter. If the only single thing that candidates are to do is to post a copy of the party’s manifesto to every home, or to go to every home in the electorate, $20,000 is not enough. To do that would completely rule out any other form of advertising, be it billboards, radio advertising, newspaper advertising, or any other single thing. It is hugely important that this issue now be addressed.

I wish to make another point in connection with this. During the process of this bill the National Party has made several claims that the process was flawed in that we were excluded from the development of this policy. Therefore, one can assume that the promoters of this bill—the Government—actually have some reason for wanting to limit anybody other than Government members from being involved in the democratic process. That is why I say that this bill not only is flawed but also is tipping the playing field directly in favour of those who are elected. How can it be a fair and equitable democratic process if an already elected member, who has the profile and opportunity that surrounds all of that, is favoured? One need only make the comparison with buying advertising. We could compare the column inches that are available in an editorial in any newspaper or publication in an electorate with having to purchase that space in the paper. There would be a significant cost difference between buying that newspaper space and having editorial space generated from press releases or from any other means and put in daily newspapers.

There is a serious flaw in this whole process in terms of the democratic process. We are curtailing and limiting spending for anybody who is not currently an elected member who might be standing and challenging an elected member. I say that that is flawed and it tips the balance considerably in favour of those who are already elected.

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 $20,000 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 $25,000 and $30,000—about $27,000, as the MP from Napier mentioned—or in present times that would buy us about $13,000. 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 $20,000, 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.

I move, That the question be now put.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I would like you to reflect on Standing Order 137(3). It is very, very important. This is a hugely contentious bill that is in front of Parliament this afternoon, and we have members seeking to take a call on this. As you have seen, many of our colleagues still want to make a contribution. We have been mindful not to be repetitive; we have been sticking to the clause by clause nature of the debate in focusing on clause 117D. This clause concerns one of the most important matters of this bill, and members on our side are still seeking to take a call. So I urge you, Madam Chairperson, to reflect in your ruling that we still have some valuable new points to make in consideration of clause 117D in Part 2B.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I thank the member. The National Party has had seven speeches on this matter and I consider that it is fair and proper to take the closure at this time.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. I will not take a point of order on the matter I have just ruled on. If the member is raising a point of order on the matter I have just ruled on—on the closure—he cannot do that. I have ruled.