Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2)

When this debate was interrupted, I was commending the Minister of Local Government, the Hon Chris Tremain, for introducing the Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) to the House. This is a bill that amends the Local Electoral Act 2001. Its aim, of course, is to modernise local electoral law and improve transparency, particularly transparency surrounding electoral donations. This legislation is planned to be in force and ready to go in time for the local body elections in October this year. It is part of the Government’s strategy to improve the transparency of democracy and local elections, with particular focus on donations. The main intention is to bring the local electoral law closer into line with the provisions of the Electoral Act.

There are three main aspects to this bill. Firstly, it will improve provisions for the conduct of local elections. Secondly, it will increase transparency and accountability in relation to candidate donations, particularly those that are anonymous donations. Thirdly, this bill strengthens the integrity of the entire local electoral system. As we all know, there is growing public concern about the transparency and accountability of candidate donations, particularly surrounding anonymous donations.

There are a couple of points I would like to make in terms of the donation provisions of the bill. An anonymous donation to a candidate can be retained if it is under $1,500. There are, of course, some other technical provisions in the bill. For instance, the bill will increase the flexibility for city and district councils to set ward boundaries and better reflect communities and geographical features.

The Government has introduced Supplementary Order Paper 198, relating particularly to contributions and trusts. During the Committee stage of the bill, the Government passed a Supplementary Order Paper to bring the bill further into line with the Electoral Act relating to contributions made by trusts. The Supplementary Order Paper amends the bill by replicating the disclosure provisions in the main Electoral Act for contributions, and that, in my opinion, is a very good thing. This change will help make the local authority elections later this year more transparent and more in line with the standards expected of candidates who seek parliamentary election. Candidate profile statements will have to state whether a candidate’s principal place of residence is within the local government area in question, and this applies to all positions for which they are seeking election. Candidates will be required to specify the campaign to which an anonymous donation over $1,500 was designated, and goods and services worth less than $300 will be excluded from the definition of an electoral donation.

This is a good piece of legislation. It is timely, it is appropriate, and I commend it to the House with full vigour.

Talofa lava. I am happy to rise and make some remarks around the Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) and say that Labour supports this bill. For months we have had a similar bill in the ballot drafted by the Hon David Cunliffe to address what many would call the ridiculous situation we have seen regarding John Banks and his so-called anonymous donations. We are pleased that this bill has finally been allowed to advance, and hopefully it will be advanced in time to be used in the upcoming local government elections on 12 October this year. It is a bill that is strongly supported by the professional organisations—namely, the Society of Local Government Managers, or SOLGM, and Local Government New Zealand. There are obvious reasons, which are well-known throughout New Zealand, as to why this is such a critical bill to finally be advanced to its final reading. These organisations and many others that value local government believe that aligning the Local Electoral Act provisions for donations more consistently with those provisions in the Electoral Act 1993, which applies to parliamentary elections, is a great thing. There is general consensus from this side of the House that the amendments this bill provides will enhance transparency and accountability in local elections. All of us who value local government anticipate that these provisions will, hopefully, in turn increase the public confidence and trust in our local electoral system.

The Electoral Act, which provides for parliamentary elections, has been revised three times in the last 5 years, in 2007, in 2009, and in 2010, to strengthen and clarify its provisions—for example, by requiring more disclosure and reporting of donations by candidates and third parties. Another example is in limiting the size of anonymous donations so that there is greater openness about who is financing whom. The Local Electoral Act, however, has not undergone a review of its donation provisions since 2001. In effect, there has been no limit on the amount of money that can be donated anonymously.

But I think what is critical is that the House agrees that the situation that occurred in 2010 with one particular candidate should not ever happen again, particularly when you have a candidate who meets up and engages with a potential donor, receives a donation, asks that donor to then split up the particular donation, and, despite knowing the name of the donor, actually receives and reports as if the recipient of the donation did not know the donor. So I think Labour is very happy to support this bill. We are happy to support also the Supplementary Order Paper that has been introduced to provide more transparency and clarity around trusts that provide donations. I think it is important.

I want to just highlight some of the key things that I think people would appreciate, particularly in the public, and one is that there is going to be a limit to the size of anonymous donations that a candidate can retain. That limit will now be $1,500, as opposed to candidates having unlimited donations. There is going to be a requirement on a third party who receives a donation on behalf of a candidate to disclose the identity of the donor to the candidate, so that there is no excuse whatsoever for candidates who seem to find joy in playing around with the rules and pretending that they do not know who are the donors who made donations to them. There is going to be a requirement for the person administering the affairs of the candidate who receives an anonymous donation of more than $1,500 on behalf of the candidate to also disclose the identity of the donor to the candidate.

I also think it is a good thing that there is going to be a requirement that the candidate’s statement includes whether or not the candidate’s principal place of residence is in the local government area in question. There have been cases where a candidate may not necessarily reside within the electorate boundaries of the electorate where they are standing for either council or mayor or local board, but they will use that for one reason or another, which plainly, I think, many voters understand is just plain wrong and for deception purposes.

I note in particular the ability to now take a prosecution and the ability to include any prosecution “within 6 months of the date on which the prosecutor is satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to warrant the commencement of the proceedings; but not later than 3 years after the offence was committed.” That is a good thing, considering we have also had a case latterly in the last local body elections where clearly there was a breach of the rules and the police were unable to do anything about it because they had run out of time.

So I join with the rest of my colleagues on the Labour Party side to say, yes, it is about time that this bill finally receives its third reading and, yes, we agree that this is a bill that ought to provide security and confidence and more transparency in local government elections. It aligns well with the particular legislation that also administers parliamentary elections. In my view, hopefully, it puts a stop to the kind of candidate whom we have seen in the last local body elections who clearly did care one iota—did not care one iota—about keeping within the rules. So I am hopeful that the new provisions will deter any candidate who might have the “John Banks syndrome” of believing that they are above the law from flouting the law, and that they maintain and keep within the limits that this bill now provides.

But I think the thing that most voters will appreciate, and I hope that they take it on board, is that there is now a greater requirement for any candidate who may choose to run either for mayor or as a councillor or as a local board member to declare the amount of money that they are receiving, particularly identifying who the potential donor is, if that donor happens to be an anonymous donor. There is going to be a greater requirement that they hold on to their financial reporting; they do not destroy that. Clearly, also, the police will have the ability to be able to prosecute any person who is found to have broken the rules and they can do that within a 3-year period, which I think is sufficient time for the public to raise any concerns they may have and sufficient time for the police also, and others, who might want to do some investigatory work to find out whether certain candidates are aware of the donors who are donating money to them, and to ensure that there is openness, transparency, and, I think, some confidence, greater confidence.

This Government keeps talking on. It keeps going on about how trustworthy it is, but we know clearly that by this Government aiding and abetting a certain candidate who is now in this House, I would say this is a good thing. I commend this bill to the House, and hopefully it prevents the likes, the attitudes, and the behaviour that we have seen from candidates, and particularly the certain candidate of 2010.

Tēnā koutou e te Whare. The Green Party has supported this Local Electoral Amendment Bill ( No 2) at all stages, and we will continue to support it today at its third reading. We support it because we support the modernisation of electoral law and greater transparency at a principled level wherever we can. This bill does move our local electoral law in that direction, and, therefore, it is worthy of our support.

We know, of course, what gave rise to the need for this bill, and it has been referred to by previous speakers, and that is John Banks’ questionable conduct in the 2010 local body election and Auckland mayoralty race, particularly regarding the identity of anonymous donations. That case, I think, certainly highlighted the gaps in the current legislation governing local body elections that urgently needed to be closed, and it is good that this legislation closes them. But it is a shame that the approach taken was simply to close those gaps, and not to take a wider view and look at how to bring the legislation governing local elections in line with the legislation governing general elections across the board.

A lot of speakers have referred to this, or talked about this bill as though its purpose is to align those two provisions. I want to set the record straight. Although it does that in a very limited way, unfortunately it is only in a very limited way that it aligns the provisions, and in most aspects there still remain large gaps between the provisions governing local body elections and those governing general parliamentary elections. It does somewhat align the provisions, and, most important, it does so so that anyone who works with a candidate and who knows the identity of someone who makes a donation of over $1,500 must declare the identity of that donor to the candidate. That has arisen directly as a result of the John Banks case. Also, thanks to the Minister of Local Government’s Supplementary Order Paper 198, which we support, the same provisions now apply for donations funded from contributions of over $1,500.

Those are good provisions, but in many other ways this bill is a missed opportunity to more closely align the provisions for local and general elections. For example, it could have included—and does not—a $5,000 cap on donations by any person or group to a candidate, a lower limit for anonymous donations of $500, a ban on overseas donations, and, penalties for avoiding rules related to donations, which is quite important. If there are not penalties for avoiding the rules, then there are not the right incentives in place to comply with them. It could have included regulation of third-party spending in local elections, which is something that is very important and I will come back to that shortly. It could also have included a register of pecuniary interests for elected members of local authorities. If it did that, it would truly be aligning local electoral law with that governing general elections.

All of these measures were included in a Supplementary Order Paper in my name during the Committee stage, and it was disappointing therefore that the House did not take the opportunity to adopt these measures to increase transparency in local democracy and to actually align the provisions of local body elections with those governing general elections, as many have said they would like to see us do. Fortunately, the measures that I have outlined are also contained in a member’s bill in the name of my colleague Denise Roche, and, so, for now we will have to hope that her bill is drawn from the ballot so that the House will have the opportunity to revisit these measures in the future.

In considering this bill, some have put the argument to me that local body elections are lower profile and less likely to attract high levels of attention, less likely to attract high levels of anonymous donations and third-party spending, and that, therefore, there is no need to further align the rules of local elections with those governing parliamentary elections. I think this is a very flawed argument, and I want to address it now briefly by focusing on the issue of third-party spending, which this bill fails to regulate. It is a glaring omission that this bill does nothing at all to regulate third-party spending in local body election campaigns.

To give you a practical example of that, we know, because of media coverage and reports, that there is a wealthy individual in Hamilton who intends to spend a large amount of his own money to actively campaign against every single incumbent councillor on the Hamilton City Council. There is nothing at all in the current provisions, nor in this legislation, that would in any way restrict or regulate how that individual can campaign. Because he is not campaigning for any particular candidate, he is unrestricted in what he can spend and unrestricted in what he can say in his efforts to campaign against the incumbents, even though there are numerous restrictions on how the candidates themselves can campaign, what they can spend, and what they have to disclose in local body elections. Clearly, this example highlights the unfairness of not regulating third-party spending at the same time as we regulate what candidates do.

We are also seeing the increasing use of joint campaign tickets or platforms in local body elections, and, even now, established political parties are standing candidates for local body elections on a ticket or in a platform manner. Again, there is nothing in the current provisions nor in this legislation to limit how much someone can donate to a platform or a ticket, or to regulate in any way the requirements of disclosure of those donations, because provided it is not allocated to an individual candidate on that ticket, there is no need to disclose those donations and no limit on what they are, and no limits or requirements on how that money can be spent. In an era of increasing professionalisation of local government, which is a good thing, given its vital role in the governance of our communities, and in an era of increased amalgamation of local councils, meaning very high-profile, high-spend contests, like the Auckland mayoralty, this gap in failing to regulate third-party spending needs to be rectified as soon as possible. It is a serious omission, and this bill really should have addressed it.

To its credit, the Justice and Electoral Committee must be commended, I think, for its very constructive work on this bill. I very much enjoyed being a part of the discussions on this bill in the select committee, notwithstanding that the amendments did not go far enough. The select committee did actually identify third-party spending as a gap in this legislation and recommended that the Minister consider bringing amendments to this effect at the Committee stage. Unfortunately, this did not eventuate, but I do take some hope from the support of the committee that there will be some attention paid to this issue in the near future because, clearly, it does need to be addressed.

Meanwhile, the other area of concern for the Green Party in this bill is the provisions that give the Minister of Local Government the power to postpone or adjourn local body elections. Our concern on this front comes from, unfortunately, the general disregard that has been shown by this Government for local democracy, including not only sacking the democratically elected councillors of Environment Canterbury but twice postponing their elections. This provision seems rather dangerous. It gives, once again, a dangerous amount of power to the Minister to postpone local body elections. We do recognise that there may be—and, indeed, likely will be in future—some situations in which it is necessary to adjourn elections, such as in the aftermath of a natural disaster, but in our view it should be the electoral officer and not the Minister who makes that decision. There is no need for that decision to be made at the political level—at the ministerial level—when it is a practical decision about whether a community is able to hold an election in the aftermath of a natural disaster. So, again, we put a Supplementary Order Paper at the Committee stage in the name of my colleague Eugenie Sage to this effect, which would extend the same powers but give them to the electoral officer not the Minister. Unfortunately, that was not supported by the Committee, either.

These concerns notwithstanding, this bill is, broadly speaking, a good one, albeit a missed opportunity to make more of the changes required to laws governing our local body elections. So the Green Party supports this bill, and we look forward to it being in place in time for the 2013 local body elections later this year to ensure that we do not ever see a repeat of the situation that we saw in Auckland in 2010.

It is my pleasure to take a call on this bill, the Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2), tonight. I would just like to acknowledge the Ministers of Local Government and the work they have done on this bill; the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee, Scott Simpson, and the way he chaired the select committee deliberation on this bill—getting it back into the House was fantastic—and also the officials and the time and effort they put into this bill. We kept on sending them away for more information, and they kept on coming back. It was fantastic to see the level of detail they got for us during the deliberation on this bill.

We had 32 submitters come and submit to the select committee on this bill. Fifteen of them were supportive of the bill, and 17 provided comments but did not indicate a position on the bill. In the case of most of those submissions, we made changes to the bill while it was at the select committee, to address those concerns that were raised. So I would like to thank the submitters for the time and effort they put into their submissions, especially those who travelled long distances to get to Wellington to see us.

What we have currently is a piece of legislation from 2001 that appeared to be insufficiently transparent in relation to campaign donations, particularly with the anonymous donations, which we have heard so much about. The definition is actually amended in this bill, and it is amended to be in line with the Electoral Act. It is saying that candidates must disclose the identity of a donor if they reasonably should know who that donor is and can identify them, and also a third party or other people administering the campaign are also obliged to disclose the identity of that donor as well. So that is principally the first big part of this piece of legislation. The second one is the size of the donation. Once again, we are mirroring the Electoral Act in limiting the size of the donation to $1,500—that is increased—and if you get over that amount, the additional that you get over that amount will have to be paid to the authority administering the election, whatever that will be at that time. The third area I want to touch on is where people live. There was concern about the initial bill. Submitters came in and said that if they disclosed where they live, they might be in danger and they might have safety concerns. So the bill was changed to say that you have to show only where you live, not actually your address, to alleviate some of those concerns.

I suppose the big thing about this is that it is about ensuring that we have a transparent donations system in the local body elections coming up in 2013. As with all elections, it is very important that there is transparency, that the people of New Zealand can have faith, that they understand what is happening, and that it is legal, so I commend this bill to the House.

New Zealand First supports the Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2). We acknowledge the many small but valuable amendments that are made by the bill, which will assist in the better administration of local democracy for the local government elections later this year. Although New Zealand First supports the bill as is, we do not think that the work, however, is finished, and after these elections there will need to be a further review and follow-up legislation. I will come to that later. As the bill now is, it is just enough and it is just in time.

New Zealand First identifies four major issues with the bill. Firstly is an issue concerning candidate profile statements, in clause 15, which inserts new section 61(2)(ca), which will require a candidate profile statement to include whether or not the candidate’s principal place of residence is in the local government area in question. That is a desirable provision, something that voters ought to be aware of, but this does not preclude a candidate from living outside the area and does not preclude him or her stating what connections he or she has with the area. Living within a local authority area, though a relevant matter for electors to consider, is not always so important. Some people who do live within the area may in fact have been there for a very short time and not have much of a genuine connection with it, while others who live outside the boundaries may have very strong connections with the area. It is, of course, over to the candidates to emphasise that. The point here is that a few people who do stand live a long way away from the area they are standing in, and so that does need to be transparent, but voters do need to be aware that just living within an area does not necessarily mean a genuine, longstanding connection with it.

New Zealand First’s second area of concern is the several long-needed, new provisions concerning anonymous donations. The need for these provisions has been demonstrated by the John Banks issues in relation to his last unsuccessful Auckland mayoralty campaign, and they concentrate on showing the identity of a donor where substantial donations are made. The Government, in this bill, attempts to address future abuses of the law by improving the rules around donations and, especially, anonymous donations. But the Government still has a Minister, a person whom the vast majority of people in this country consider to have carried out just such an abuse. The Government has done nothing about that except, of course, to maintain the fiction that this Minister has done nothing wrong under the law—the very law that the Government now seeks to improve so that in future people in Mr Banks’ position could not get away with what the Government is tacitly conniving with Mr Banks to get away with currently. The Government has been saved in this only by the failure of the police to bring a prosecution, and that is now left to one good citizen to do by way of private prosecution. This is an important issue for transparency and local democracy, and it is such a shame therefore that the Government will look only to the future, as it is doing with this bill, and not to the current situation with Mr Banks. I think that is a great shame.

The bill does address the matter that the John Banks’ electoral return from the 2010 local body elections has highlighted, and that has revealed a gap in the existing legislation, which was allowing candidates to call donations “anonymous” that they did know, or ought to have known, were not anonymous donations. Section 103F in clause 27 will say: “If any person involved in the administration of the affairs of a candidate in relation to his or her election campaign knows the identity of the donor of an anonymous donation exceeding $1,500, the person must disclose the identity of the donor to the candidate.” So it will be necessary to prove actual knowledge under this section, and I think that may be difficult because the section, as drafted, relies on the term “knows the identity of the donor”, so the prosecutor will need to prove actual knowledge, and that is not always easy. It is, in fact, the same issue that is likely to face the court in cases under the current law. I tried to persuade the Justice and Electoral Committee to add the words “or ought to have known”, so that knowledge could then be inferred from the totality of the surrounding circumstances, but, unfortunately, the committee did not agree with me on that. Nevertheless, the new section is an improvement that will help solve the Banks problem, at least until the electorate solves it more comprehensively at the next parliamentary election.

The bill also provides in section 103H that an anonymous donation may not exceed $1,500. It says that “If an anonymous donation exceeding $1,500 is received by a candidate in relation to an election campaign, the candidate must, within 20 working days of receiving the donation, pay to the electoral officer responsible for the conduct of the election to which that campaign relates the amount of the donation, or its value, less $1,500.” And also: “If an anonymous donation exceeding $1,500 is received by a candidate who is seeking election to more than 1 office, the candidate must (a) designate 1 election campaign for election to 1 office for which the donation will be used;”. Section 103I provides for offences relating to contravention of section 103H and says: “A person who enters into an agreement, arrangement, or understanding with any other person that has the effect of circumventing section 103H(1) or (2) commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000.” New Zealand First firmly supports these new sections. They will solve some of the issues surrounding the Banks situation.

Thirdly, the bill provides for the postponement of a local election, which many members have expressed concerns about. The new powers given to the Minister of Local Government to adjourn elections in the case of natural disasters would cover situations such as the earthquakes in Christchurch. The bill would now allow the whole election to be postponed by Order in Council by up to 6 weeks at the discretion of the Minister. So I understand the concern that some members have expressed about that. The provision actually says in section 73A(1) in clause 21 that “The Governor-General may, by Order in Council made in accordance with this section, specify a later date for 1 or more of the” situations that are then listed. I understand the concerns that some have expressed about that, when one considers the disgraceful situation that currently prevails in Christchurch with local government having been excessively diminished, especially concerning Environment Canterbury. But for the purposes of this bill, section 73A(6) does say that this can be done only on reasonable grounds, and the section provides for comprehensive provisions about that. I think that those are quite adequate, remembering that they would be legally enforceable.

Fourthly and lastly, the bill is very defective in respect of third-party expenditure, as one member has already mentioned. It leaves a potential gap for third-party campaigners to receive donations and use funds without a candidate’s permission or knowledge. That is a complex area. We do not have the time before the next local government election to deal with it now, but I express the strong expectation that the Government will address that in the next 3 years, before the 2016 local government elections, because it is a very important matter.

Overall the bill is a good one. It deserves support. It is still a work in progress, but New Zealand First will be happy to support it.

Kia orana, Mr Assistant Speaker. Meitaki maata, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise and take a call on this third reading of the Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2). First, I want to acknowledge the Minister of Local Government, the Hon Chris Tremain, for his fine work and his leadership, and also I want to acknowledge the two chairs of the Justice and Electoral Committee, the honourable member Tim Macindoe, who handed over the baton to the honourable member Scott Simpson. It is great that we have had great leadership. I think, just as the honourable member Denis O’Rourke said, it was a good working party and a select committee that worked well together—hence the reason why we have got overwhelming support for the bill, bar the Greens, who, we know, will not be supporting it. But overwhelmingly there is support for this bill.

This Government bill is improving transparency of local electoral donations and bringing the local electoral law closer in line with the Electoral Act. It is improving transparency and will help build public trust. We know that it is important that constituents out there are keen to ensure that they can trust both the process and also the people whom they would like to elect into those leadership roles. The local electoral reforms are in tandem with National’s Better Local Government reforms, and we are modernising how local government is run and how it is elected.

The purpose of this bill is threefold. It improves the provisions for the conduct of local elections, increases transparency and accountability in relation to candidate donations and particularly anonymous donations, and strengthens the integrity of the local electoral system. There were some comments about this being the “John Banks Bill”, but we do know that both major Auckland mayoral candidates were able to receive substantial anonymous donations under Labour’s legislation. These changes will improve transparency.

The changes introduced last year around the setting of ward boundaries, information provided by candidates, streamlining of vote processing, and other areas reflect the recommendations from the Justice and Electoral Committee’s inquiry into the 2010 local elections. Just a minor technical issue that we did have some debate about in the select committee was around the provision that candidates for local elections must provide more information, including whether they live in the area or are seeking election to more than one position. This becomes important in that it allows for constituents to be aware of the candidates and whether they are local candidates. But the debate was also about acknowledging their residential address, and we were clear that we needed to provide protection as well as raising awareness. We think we have come to a good balance.

This is a good bill. We think it does address the issues of transparency, and, most important, it gives trust to the constituents. We look forward to the elections in October for all local bodies up and down the country. I commend this bill to the House.

This is a Government that has made a habit of attacking local government over the last 4½ years. Local government—councils—have been the whipping boy of choice for this John Key - Peter Dunne - John Banks - National Government for the last 4½ years. I want to say that because I think it is an important context for considering this bill, the Local Electoral Amendment (No 2) Bill. The reason I say that is this Government has ripped the guts out of democracy in Canterbury, and we still have a situation in Canterbury where the regional council is effectively suspended and commissioners run Environment Canterbury.

The Government has consistently accused councils of irresponsibly borrowing and running up huge debts—this from the Government that has borrowed more than any other Government in recent history. It has accused councils of poor financial management—again, that is a bit rich. It has put pressure on councils to sell publicly owned assets, because this Government believes in flogging off anything that is not nailed down. It has accused council planners of trying to wreck the macroeconomy, as Bill English said the other day, and, in fact, this Government is blaming local government for the housing crisis, which is a direct result of this Government’s policy settings. So it is not, I think, putting too fine a point on it to say that this Government has consistently waged a campaign against local government since it was elected in 2008, and it has systematically chipped away at the powers and freedoms of local government on all those issues that I mentioned. I say that because there is an irony that this Government would bring a bill to this House that seeks to lecture and mentor local government on ethical standards and accountability. I find it heavily ironic that this Government would set itself up to be a model of accountability and ethical standards, and would tell local government what to do in those areas.

My colleagues have made it very clear that Labour supports this bill. It is an overdue clean up and upgrade of the electoral law—in particular, the rules relating to campaign finance in local government elections. We support it. It is a no-brainer. There are a number of things in here that significantly improve local government law, but, nevertheless, it is ironic that this Government would seek to set itself up as some kind of mentor to local government on ethics and accountability. Nothing makes that clearer than the fact that this bill really is the “John Banks Memorial Bill”. That is what it is. I am quoting my fine colleague Carol Beaumont, who coined that name for the bill. If it was not for the fiasco around John Banks and his self-induced political amnesia, this bill probably would never have made it to the House. So we can thank John Banks, actually, for the service that he has done for democracy in this country by forgetting the name of one of his most important political donors. I am talking about Kim Dotcom, the man who hosted John Banks at his house, the man whose wife John Banks complimented—I think he said she was the most beautiful woman in the world. John Banks was there at Kim Dotcom’s birthday party. He made the toast in front of dozens and dozens of guests. He was flown in from Mechanics Bay to the Chrisco mansion in the Prime Minister’s electorate, in Kim Dotcom’s helicopter. You would think he would remember that, but, no, Mr Banks has a very, very poor memory.

All this came out, as students of politics will remember, when it emerged that John Banks had received a hefty donation for his mayoral campaign in 2010 from Kim Dotcom. I think one of the most poignant images that I remember from this whole saga is when Kim Dotcom, sitting in his jail cell at the Mt Eden Corrections Facility, phoned up the Minister in the Government to whom he had made a generous political donation only a couple of years before—to Mr Banks’ mayoral campaign. Kim Dotcom, using his one phone call a day, was calling from the Mt Eden Corrections Facility, and he dialled the mobile phone number of Mr Banks—his good friend, the person he had entertained in his mansion in Coatesville—and what did Mr Banks do? He refused to take Kim Dotcom’s call. He refused to even talk to the man who contributed—how much was it? Was it $15,000? How much was it? It was thousands and thousands of dollars—$50,000.

Hon Annette King: 50, in two lots.

PHIL TWYFORD: That is right. Two lots that amounted to $50,000, and poor old Kim Dotcom could not even get through to Mr Banks. Mr Banks would not even take his call. What an indignity! What an absolute indignity! How humiliating that the Hon John Banks, who sits in this House as a Minister in the John Key - led Government, would not even take the call of a man who gave $50,000 to his mayoral campaign. What an extraordinary act of bad faith. I mean, he could have at least taken Kim Dotcom’s call and had the gumption to tell Kim Dotcom that no, he was not prepared to help the man who wrote two $25,000 cheques to help his campaign. That is a very telling insight into the character of John Banks, a Minister in this John Key Government.

I think that says it all. Not only did John Banks refuse to take the call from Kim Dotcom, languishing in the Mt Eden remand prison, but somehow he then forgot, when he went to fill out his donations return for the 2010 mayoral election campaign, that it was Kim Dotcom who made those donations, even though he was in the helicopter, even though he toasted Kim Dotcom’s wife at the party at the Chrisco mansion, and even though John Banks himself solicited those donations. In fact he asked Mr Dotcom not to write a cheque for $50,000 but to write two cheques for $25,000. That says a lot about the character of John Banks. He was prepared to circumvent, if not the letter, certainly the spirit of local government law. It is that cringing embarrassment that he inflicted on the John Key - Peter Dunne - John Banks Government that really is the genesis for this bill. We on the Labour benches are glad to see that there are some sensible limits on campaign finance improvements in terms of disclosure and transparency.

I want to use my remaining couple of minutes just to note my disappointment that John Banks, who has done so much for democracy in this country, who has done so much by being the inspiration for this bill coming to the House, could not bring himself to vote for my Supplementary Order Paper 252 in the Committee stage, which would have plugged a glaring omission in this bill, and that is that this bill allows candidates in the Auckland mayoral election to spend around $600,000 to get elected. It will make the Auckland mayoralty a rich man’s club. John Banks, in 2010, is on the record saying that that should be reduced to no more than $100,000. Len Brown is on the record saying it should be either $150,000 or $200,000. Both the mayoral candidates from 2010 said that the $600,000 limit that National put in place in the Auckland super-city legislation was way too much. It will deter any future candidates who do not have deep pockets. It is an offence to the democratic spirit. John Banks supported lowering that limit to $100,000, but he could not bring himself to vote for that very sensible amendment in the Committee stage, and that, I think, was a real disappointment.

I am not surprised that the National members did not support the amendment. They do not want to do anything that might clip the wings of some deep-pocketed corporate candidate in future mayoral elections. That is their form; I would expect that. But it was a shame and very disappointing to see that John Banks was not prepared to vote in line with principles that he had already expressed. Thank you.

It is a pleasure to rise and speak in support of the Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) in this third reading debate. I would firstly like to congratulate the Minister of Local Government, the Hon Chris Tremain, on this amendment to the Local Electoral Act 2001, as it will modernise our electoral law and improve the transparency of local electoral donations in New Zealand. I would also like to acknowledge both the current chairman of the Justice and Electoral Committee, Scott Simpson, and the immediate past chairman, Tim Macindoe, for the work that they have done and the leadership they have shown. I would also like to congratulate the deputy chair Alfred Ngaro.

So the three key changes that this bill brings in will include improving the transparency over local electoral donations, to bring the Local Electoral Act into greater alignment with the Electoral Act of New Zealand. Improving transparency will also help build public trust in local elections, and these local electoral reforms are taken in tandem with the Government’s Better Local Government reforms, which will modernise how local government is run as well as how it is elected. I think this bill strikes a very good balance between running transparent and open elections that the public of New Zealand can have confidence in, without getting into too much bureaucracy and a large amount of expense around the management of the election process.

The donation provisions limit the size of an anonymous donation that a candidate can retain to $1,500. I think this is a very reasonable amount. You do not want to get down to the level where you are having to account for every single person who has bought a sausage in a sausage sizzle, but $1,500 is a reasonable amount. Any greater amount over the $1,500 would have to be donated, actually, to the local authority that is administering the election, to defray some of the electoral expenses. The definition of “anonymous” is very important. Candidates cannot claim that a donation was anonymous if they could reasonably be expected to know who the donor was. Raising the amount of donations that have to be reported, I think, is also a useful measure that adds additional transparency. If the donation is over $1,500 it does have to be reported and listed, whether it is anonymous or not. Additionally in that area, requiring third parties that receive donations on behalf of other candidates to disclose the identity of the donor, if known to the candidate, does resolve a particular issue there. It is, as I say, a pleasure to speak and I commend the bill to the House.

I also rise to speak in support of the Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2). As others have commented, Labour is supporting this bill. I do think we should acknowledge, as my fine colleague Phil Twyford has done, that this bill—or a very significant part of the bill—is certainly down to John Banks, especially in relation to anonymous donations. Most of us will never ever be able to think of anonymous donations in quite the same way again. I think Mr Twyford’s contribution very clearly outlined why that is.

In general terms, this bill will align or provide greater alignment between rules governing local body elections and those governing general elections. That greater consistency means a tightening-up of a number of provisions, which have been outlined by a previous speaker—certainly, the size of anonymous donations, the definition of anonymous donations, and the requiring of a third party who receives a donation on behalf of a candidate to disclose the identity of the donor if known to the candidate and, likewise, the person administering the affairs of the candidate. All of these situations were ones that were called into play in the John Banks fiasco in the 2010 Auckland Council elections.

So that greater consistency and tightening-up is certainly important not just as a technicality or for the sake of neatness but because we need to strengthen—and we need to continue to strengthen—the conduct of our electoral processes. We need greater transparency to ensure that the public of New Zealand has confidence in the integrity of our electoral processes. That is of fundamental importance. It is important that the public are confident in knowing who has donated and how much. It is important that they can judge whether or not those who are being elected are being elected because they have more or less money for their campaign because of the people whom they spend time with—whether or not they have rich friends, for example—and whether that determines greater resourcing for their campaign. But it is also important for the public to be able to assess whether they believe that people are trying to buy influence from their political representatives, effectively. Those are all very important questions. But we need to strengthen our democracy. I am sure every member in this House would agree with that.

But there are some real problems that are undermining our democracy at the moment. There is a lack of public confidence and trust at the moment. Some of the things that have been happening in recent times have certainly undermined public confidence and trust. We certainly want to try to turn that round. I want to acknowledge my colleague the Hon David Cunliffe, who had a member’s bill in the ballot about these very issues prior to the Government actually drafting this bill. Labour saw that it was really important to try to strengthen the controls around the local government elections and to try to pull them into line with those that apply in the general election. There is so much happening at the moment to undermine confidence in our democracy. There is much that smacks of undue influence. There are corporate cronyism moments throughout this Government’s term so far, and I am sure people can identify them for themselves. There is much that removes the controls on the executive. There is much that is anti-democratic. There is much that removes the right of New Zealanders to challenge decisions in this House. I am sure that the Minister over there, if he was honest, would acknowledge that.

So why is it necessary to bring in this legislation? Well, as I said, the 2010 Auckland mayoralty race specifically—

Hon Craig Foss: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think I know what it is. The member cannot cast aspersions against another member in the way she did. All members are honourable members.

CAROL BEAUMONT: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. The member John Banks and his conduct in the 2010 Auckland mayoralty race and subsequently are the reasons for this legislation. That confidence was severely undermined by the pretence around anonymous donations. Again, I mentioned that Phil Twyford has gone through in some detail, really, to identify what that was. The police inquiry into this showed not that there was not a problem but merely that there was not the ability to pursue the matters raised. The technicalities that were there were what enabled John Banks to get off the hook, so to speak. So I think that is really important for the record. Finally, I would just like to say that there is much more to do to strengthen our democracy, and I look forward to further amendments around electoral law. Thank you.

I am pleased to take a short call on the Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2), and to correct an impression that was given by a previous National speaker. The Green Party is supporting this bill, but we do have some reservations about the gaps in it.

It is the time of year when candidates are announcing their intentions to stand, including a member of this House who will be a very strong contender for the Christchurch mayoralty. In 2010 we had nearly 4,000 candidates who stood for 1,895 positions in local government. I hope that we see a similar number of candidates standing this year for our 78 regional councils, unitary councils, district councils, and city councils, because they are a fundamental part of our democracy. Most New Zealanders interact a lot more frequently with local government activities and local decision-making than they do with central government. We rely on local councils to provide us with the necessities of life—with clean water, sewerage, stormwater, libraries, cultural facilities, and a lot of sporting facilities as well. So it is really important that we have very competent staff in local authorities and very competent councillors, and that they are elected through a robust and transparent process. That is why the Green Party supports this bill—because it is making improvements in transparency, particularly around electoral donations, with, for example, the requirement to declare donations above $1,500. So it should help give the public more confidence in the electoral process because of that.

But, as Phil Twyford noted, it is ironic that this Government is introducing this legislation, when its attitude to local government has been anti-democratic, and has been one of bullying and blaming local government. It has undermined local democracy in areas like Christchurch, with the excessive powers that the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority has, weakening the ability of the Christchurch City Council to make decisions for the recovery of Christchurch. It blames organisations like the Christchurch City Council for their progress with building consents, but does not assist with additional resources. It criticises councils for their levels of debt, yet at the same time it removes things like the regional fuel tax, which was an opportunity to raise revenue in other ways. And that whole approach of not trusting and of bullying local government is implicit in the housing accord legislation, in the changes to the Resource Management Act, which we will be debating this evening, and in the ability of Ministers to override the plans that have been developed by councils in conjunction with their local communities. It is indeed ironic that this legislation about transparency in the electoral process is going ahead at the same time as the Government is hammering local authorities and does not trust them.

Although the Green Party supports the bill, we have been disappointed that it focuses very much on electoral donations and does not deal with the gaps in the Local Electoral Act around third-party donations, and there is quite a major gap there. It actually allows unlimited spending by third parties to campaign either for or against certain candidates, and that can skew the results of elections. It is not democratic. The gap should have been filled. Denise Roche has a member’s bill that would fill the gap. It was disappointing that the Government members did not support some of the Supplementary Order Papers that we put forward to improve the law there, and nor did they support our Supplementary Order Paper that would have adopted more of a partnership approach with local government when local elections are to be postponed when there is an emergency, by requiring not just consultation with the affected council but also its agreement.

The Green Party recognises the importance of local government, its 4 percent contribution to GDP, and the $110 billion worth of assets that it manages. We recognise and value the local democracy that is there at the council level, the local and community board level. We want to strengthen that. We want to strengthen the legislation around the electoral process. We can do that by strengthening requirements around third-party donations and not just around anonymous donations. But this bill is a step forward, and the Green Party will be voting for it.

As my colleagues Paul Foster-Bell and Alfred Ngaro have kindly noted, I was the chairman of the Justice and Electoral Committee at the time that this bill, the Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2), was referred to the committee for consideration.

Scott Simpson: A good chairman you were.

TIM MACINDOE: Thank you, Mr Simpson; I appreciate that. I have, therefore, a real appreciation of the fine work that the committee has done under the capable chairmanship of the new chairman, the honourable member for Coromandel, Scott Simpson, and I want to thank all members for the thoughtful contributions that have been made on this important measure. I particularly welcome the fact that it has such broad support across the House.

Bill read a third time.