Lobbying Disclosure Bill

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I move, That the Lobbying Disclosure Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Government Administration Committee to consider the bill.

It is with great pleasure that I rise to introduce the Lobbying Disclosure Bill, which is my first member’s bill in this House. I want to begin by acknowledging Sue Kedgley, who originally conceived of and drafted this bill during the 49th Parliament. It is an honour and a privilege to carry on Sue’s important work for more open and transparent government and honest politics, and to have the opportunity to guide her bill through Parliament’s processes.

Sue launched this bill out of a concern about the growing influence of lobbying in New Zealand. After 12 years in Parliament, she thought lobbying was becoming increasingly entrenched in our political system, and she was concerned that it was unregulated and often happening behind closed doors, outside the public sphere. This bill was drawn from the ballot at a time when there are increased calls for lobbying transparency in other jurisdictions as well as New Zealand. In the United Kingdom, the Conservative Government has also undertaken to introduce a statutory register of lobbyists following a number of high-profile scandals involving lobbying. Although we are fortunate that New Zealand has not been caught up in lobbying scandals like those we have seen in other jurisdictions, the reality remains that some people have a better chance of being heard than others. Most of the time we do not know who these people are, including, until very recently, the small group that has access passes to Parliament.

This bill is an opportunity to create best practice in New Zealand before we find ourselves in a situation like that of the United Kingdom. A lobbying disclosure regime is an important step towards more open government and is consistent with recent moves towards greater transparency and independence for MPs’ salaries and expenses in New Zealand and in other Westminster jurisdictions. This bill aims to bring a measure of transparency and public disclosure to lobbying activity in New Zealand. It also aims to enhance trust in the integrity of Parliament and in political decision-making. It is closely modelled on the successful Canadian public disclosure regime and was developed following an OECD report recommending that member countries take action to establish lobbying disclosure regimes in their respective jurisdictions.

The bill seeks to do two things. First, it establishes a Register of Lobbyists. Anyone who is paid to undertake lobbying activity must register and file quarterly returns with the Auditor-General. Second, it empowers the Auditor-General to develop a code of ethics for lobbyists in consultation with key stakeholders and the public. Once finalised, anyone registered as a lobbyist would be required to comply with the code of ethics.

There are some key principles that have guided my work on this bill to date and I would like to set these out for members now, to help shape our debate in the House tonight. It is my intention that these principles should be included in the purpose statement in the final version of the bill if it progresses through further stages in the House. First, lobbying is a legitimate activity. In seeking to introduce a disclosure regime and a code of ethics, it is not my intention to designate lobbying as illegitimate or to prevent it from happening. It may come as a surprise to some members to hear that politicians are not experts on everything. In some cases, we are not experts on anything. It is an important part of our job to hear from those with knowledge on an issue, to help inform our decision making. Lobbying can help with this. Although this bill would require certain communications to be registered and declared, it does not suppose that these communications should not be taking place.

Second, an open and accessible Government and Parliament is vital. A wonderful thing about New Zealand is how approachable and accessible our politicians are. In no way do we want this bill to be seen as an attempt to restrict access to MPs or to have a chilling effect on interactions between the public and their representatives. We want it to be easy for people to actively engage as citizens in our democracy. However, as part of this open and accessible system, we need to be transparent about who has that access. The public has a right to know who is lobbying MPs on which issues. Lobbying transparency will help to level the playing field in terms of influence on decision making.

Since the bill was pulled from the ballot, I have sought to engage with anyone and everyone with an interest in the bill or who might be affected by a lobbying disclosure regime. I have met with corporate lobbyists, in-house lobbyists from businesses and non-government organisations, and representatives from unions, charities, and other political parties, all in an effort to learn more about how a disclosure regime and a code of ethics would fit within their activities and to understand the impacts it would have on their work. I want to thank everyone who has taken the time to meet with me and share their thoughts on the bill. It has been an enjoyable and at times eye-opening process.

Through this consultation process, it has become clear that certain areas of the bill as currently drafted may require amendment. Although it is vital that a lobbying disclosure regime upholds the principles of openness and transparency, it also needs to be practical and workable. I freely acknowledge that there is a tension there and it is one that I am confident we can work through in the select committee.

In the spirit of openness and transparency, but without wanting to prejudice any of the conversations that we will have in the committee, I would like to flag to the House some of those areas that I believe may require further exploration. One area is the definition, both of lobbying activity and who would be captured as a lobbyist. The bill currently defines lobbying as communication in an attempt to influence public decision-making in relation to legislation, regulation, Government policy, or the awarding of grants, funding, contributions, or contracts by or on behalf of Government. It also includes the act of arranging a meeting between a public office holder and any other person. A lobbyist would be anyone who for payment undertakes this sort of communication with a public office holder, namely MPs, Ministers, and anyone employed in their offices.

Both of these definitions are deliberately wide, because as soon as restrictions are introduced, we risk not capturing the activity that should be captured and open up avenues for getting around the disclosure regime. However, these wide definitions may have some unintended consequences. An example was flagged in the Attorney-General’s New Zealand Bill of Rights Act report on this bill, which highlighted that the bill as currently drafted may capture individuals who communicate with their electorate MP on behalf of a small business, regarding Government policy. The intent of this bill is not to prevent constituents from contacting their MPs or to prevent MPs from conducting their normal duties. It may be necessary to amend the definitions in the bill to make sure that this intent is clear.

Another area that I believe warrants further exploration is the possibility of moving the onus of registering and filing returns from the individual lobbyist to the organisation that they represent. This change would help to clarify who is undertaking lobbying activity and would therefore need to register, as well as reducing the administrative burden, particularly for smaller organisations. Questions have also been raised with me about the range of activity that might fall within the definition of lobbying communication and how much of that activity would need to be disclosed.

I am hopeful that some of the grey areas about what to declare and when will be dealt with through the development of a code of ethics, as well as in the broader role of the Auditor-General or another agency that might pick up the role and functions suggested for the Auditor-General. In Canada the Commissioner of Lobbying has a strong educational role in order to foster awareness of the requirements of the Act and is able to take a discretionary approach towards issues of compliance. I would like to see the same thing happen here.

There are some aspects of the bill that I believe must remain intact and are central to the purpose of the bill. It is important that the bill continues to apply across the board to all types of individuals or organisations that undertake paid lobbying activity. This means that as well as capturing consultant lobbyists, it must also apply to so-called in-house lobbyists representing businesses, and organisations including not-for-profits. True transparency means we need to be able to see the range of organisations that have been communicating with MPs and Ministers in an attempt to influence public policy. Anything less would not give a clear picture of influence. However, I am aware from the useful conversations I have had with various organisations and peak bodies that there are particular concerns for smaller not-for-profit organisations about how the provisions of this bill might apply to them. I am confident that these can also be addressed by the select committee, and I reiterate in the House tonight my willingness to engage with an open mind on these issues.

I am grateful for the indications of support I have had from other parties to allow this bill to be referred to the Government Administration Committee for further consideration. I look forward to engaging in the deliberations of that committee and exploring some of the potential amendments I have flagged in my speech tonight, as well as hearing from affected parties and members of the public about potential further improvements to the bill. I am very pleased to commend this bill to the House. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak in support of continuing the Lobbying Disclosure Bill, put forward by Holly Walker, to the select committee stage for further discussion, and I congratulate Holly on having a member’s bill drawn from the ballot. I was most interested to hear that the genesis of the bill was from Sue Kedgley, with whom I worked quite closely on a previous select committee. I am surprised, to be honest, that she is not here, but no doubt she will be in touch.

This is a bill drafted with good intentions, one could say, and noble intent—the intent to promote the ideals of open government, which I am sure everybody in this Chamber would agree with. The Government is supporting this bill to select committee, because we see and value the need for a debate on access to, and influence of third parties on, MPs and staff. Just as the previous speaker, Holly Walker, was perhaps a little harsh towards Simon O’Connor when he introduced his bill, I am sure she will not mind if we level a little bit of gentle criticism on this one. Indeed, she has given notice of the fact that even in her own opinion this bill probably does require a little bit of work, which is why we would like it to come to the Government Administration Committee.

Transparency around the activities of those lobbying MPs and their staff is an important element of open government, and one that this bill aims to strengthen. From that point of view, it is a commendable bill, as many bills that are discussed and debated in this House are—commendable but, I would suggest, flawed in several ways. Some of the flaws within this bill are really quite deep. I believe that it can be helped through the select committee examination and the full submission process. I have great faith in the ability of the Government Administration Committee, which I am proud to be the deputy chair of. We work very productively, we are blessed with people with a lot of experience, and we will work towards the intent of this bill while ensuring that it does not—and this is the kicker—curtail the fundamental rights of constituents, and indeed of MPs, in the process.

Let us not forget that lobbying members of Parliament is a fundamental democratic right that goes to the very heart of a democracy—a right that in its current form this bill could be seen to detract from. It is the right of freedom of expression. I believe that it was Keith Locke who once said: “All should be given the right—

💬 Andrew Little: We know how highly regarded he is by the National Party!

—to express a view no matter how disconcerting it should be”—Andrew, you should listen to this—“on even the most difficult or abhorrent of issues … Implicit in free speech is the idea that the community benefits from untrammelled exchange of views and that every participant might have something to add to our enlightenment.” That was Keith Locke.

Likewise, article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information …”.

Both these statements make a vital and not always comfortable point: freedom for all to hold and express opinions and to speak truth to power is essential to all societies. We members of Parliament can take for granted our ability to say our piece, and it is a wonderful thing to be able to do that. We ourselves can come to stand in this Chamber not just for ourselves but also for those whom we are elected to represent and for those who approach us to represent them. We must not dismiss or cast out the views of constituents due to their profession or whether they are paid to be there. We must promote engagement with MPs, giving them their fair hearing and allowing all constituents to speak their mind, just as we are free to do. Likewise, we must not compromise an MP’s ability to engage in discussion with members of the public, be they doctors, be they unionists, be they members of the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society or Greenpeace, or republicans. The Labour Party, may I suggest, would not be where it is today without the lobbying and access to the parliamentary precinct of the union movement.

💬 Darien Fenton: Oh, for goodness’ sake!

No, it would not. It would not. How too would the Green Party itself respond to greater restrictions on its own lobby groups? Would it be exempt under this bill?

💬 Hon Christopher Finlayson: Probably.

“Probably.”, says the Attorney-General. Indeed, if so, is this the intention of the bill, after all? Is there a conspiracy coming from the party that sees conspiracies in so many other things? Is there a conspiracy in this bill as a self-serving partisan attack that makes exceptions for some lobbyists but not for others? The author of the bill is shaking her head, and I am immediately consoled. But I think, Miss Holly Walker, it might require a little bit more convincing than just an innocent shake of the head.

Much of this scope for conspiracy and underhanded partisan trickery is due to the untidiness of the bill as it exists currently. Charles Chauvel noted in his Supplementary Order Paper on this bill: “the Attorney-General’s report, issued under section 9 New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, points out [that] the Bill is too broadly cast.” Likewise, the definition of “lobbying activity” given is broad and unwieldy, and in much need of greater clarification and honing and polishing by a select committee and the people on it.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I agree.

Mr Mallard is agreeing with the Attorney-General. This bill also seeks to legislate against lobbying activity only when it is conducted for payment. I will just say that bit again; you may not have quite caught it. I will try it again. This bill also seeks to legislate against lobbying activity only when it is conducted for payment. Where does payment begin and end? Furthermore, where does this leave non-salaried lobbying for economic gain? This lack of definition of “payment” and “economic gain” creates confusion, and leaves the door open for widescale circumvention of the system that this bill has been designed to create.

New Zealand as a nation has always prided itself on both its transparency and its freedom of speech, but if this bill rests solely on these aspects, then, far from being transparent, it is as murky as old dishwater. Indeed, rather than focusing on the exchanging of ideas and MPs learning through giving everyone a fair shake, the bill could proffer a very Hollywood style of an “us versus them” mind-set, which has no place in contemporary democratic politics.

The largest misrepresentation the Greens appear to have gleaned from fiction when creating the bill appears to be the influence that lobbyists have over politicians. It may surprise them to know that New Zealand is first in the world out of 192 countries as the least corrupt country in the world, according to Transparency International. Holly is nodding; she knows that—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! The member must use the honourable member’s full name.

I am glad to see Ms Holly Walker is nodding in agreement. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Although we always strive to better ourselves when it comes to transparency, this bill has a long way to go before it achieves that.

Let me conclude by stating a hope that every bill passed into law by this House must have not just a noble intent but a positive effect on the lives of those governed by it. Without this, even the best intentions are in need of redemption. Thank you.

The Labour Party is going to be supporting the Lobbying Disclosure Bill at its first reading, but we do have quite a few reservations about the effect the bill would have if passed into law in its current form. If it were to come back from the select committee in its present form, I think it is unlikely that we would support it beyond that stage.

I want to talk about the underlying values that should drive this, which is about increased transparency around professional lobbyists and those who are, basically, seeking influence for money. I think that we definitely want to see greater transparency around that, and I think that is something that is universally supported.

I do want to talk, however, about some of the practical realities of being a constituency member of Parliament and what this bill might actually mean for constituency members of Parliament. I want to start with the plumbers, because I have a group of plumbers in my electorate who are very passionate about the regulatory environment for plumbers at the moment. They have had quite a few issues, under both Labour and National Governments, that they are very vocal about. They have come to me as their local member of Parliament to express their dissatisfaction. Technically, because they are paid—they are coming to me in their paid capacity—they are covered as lobbyists under this piece of legislation. Church ministers will come to speak to me in their capacity as a minister of the church to talk about issues that are impacting on citizens in my electorate, and that is something that I want to actively encourage. I want to make sure that people in my electorate know that my door is open, and that they can come and talk to me about any number of issues.

One of the things many constituency members of Parliament do is we effectively act as troubleshooters for people, sometimes in relation to paid employment issues. Under the current wording of this bill, some of those would be required to be disclosed if this bill is implemented in its present form. I think that far from improving our democratic system and improving transparency around it, it would actually act as a deterrent for people to speak to their members of Parliament about very legitimate things. There are some people who come to speak to a member of Parliament who would not do so if it was going to automatically become public that they did. I actually think that that would hinder the democratic process and, in fact, be very, very damaging.

I accept that the Green Party probably does not have the active constituency offices that the Labour members of Parliament and the National members of Parliament do, and I know they choose to spend their parliamentary resources on other things, but the constituency members of Parliament will certainly all agree that, in fact, we deal with quite a number of quite sensitive issues in constituency offices. That is something that I will very, very jealously guard, because I think it would be very detrimental to our democratic system if people felt that they could not come to speak to their members of Parliament without that having to be disclosed.

I have had some round table - like discussions in my office around a whole variety of issues that have involved—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Not Business Roundtable.

—not Business Roundtable; we have had round-table discussions—getting a whole lot of people who are involved in an issue in the office to actually sort out problems. Some of them are paid to be there because, you know, they may be connected to the case in some way. They may a lawyer involved in it somehow, it may be a business that is involved in it somehow, and they are not there to lobby. They are there because we are trying to solve a problem that may involve a family issue, for example. Those are the sorts of things that are quite sensitive, and I think those people need to be able to know that their member of Parliament can help them with those issues without it having to be disclosed to the general public. So I am concerned that one of the effects of this bill is that it would require that and, therefore, it would act as a detriment to that happening.

As I said, the intention of the bill overall is a good one. It is about getting greater transparency around the work of professional lobbyists, and certainly that is something that I fully support. I think there are other things that are not covered by this bill that we need to look at around the way the Parliament operates and that environment as well. I would also point out, however, that we have a very open system at the moment, and we do have some systems in place—for example, the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament—that help to safeguard our democratic process from those who are effectively trying to buy influence. So our system is good. The intention of the bill is good, but some of the practical impacts of it are not good. We are going to be monitoring this very closely.

Sat sri akaal. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the first reading of the Lobbying Disclosure Bill. New Zealand is a vibrant democracy. Its citizens have a high level of trust in their Government and believe that we work in a transparent manner and that we are accountable to the people who elected us. If we compare New Zealand with many other countries, I think we are transparent. We remain accountable to the people who elect us to the Parliament. Yet our colleagues in the Green Party believe that there is a need for lobbying disclosure legislation. Green MP Holly Walker, through her member’s bill, would like to see the establishment of a register for lobbyists, which would to be administered by the Auditor-General, and the development of a code of conduct for lobbyists.

I agree with the example Chris Hipkins gave. A lot of people come and lobby us on their various issues.

National supports this bill in its first reading. However, can I just say that the bill actually, in my opinion, is an attempt to reduce freedom of speech. I mean, why else would a bill want to put a control over people who send a simple email to their representatives in Parliament?

To some constituents who may not be fully aware of how Parliament functions, how laws are enacted, or how they can make their voice heard, we as members of Parliament have at times to be their voice at various levels. I do not believe that is an amount of lobbying in any manner. Rather, it is an opportunity for me to be of service to the people of the constituency. It is my opportunity to engage with constituents and show them that I am at their service.

In case we are to call engaging with one constituent lobbying, then can I ask my colleague across the Chamber: how else are individuals and stakeholders of public policy meant to engage with legislators to make their decisions on their policies? By binding lobbyists to law, are we not imposing rules on the right of the lobbyists that they may have just as a normal person? These are the issues that we will look forward to engaging on during the select committee process. Thank you.

New Zealand First supports the Lobbying Disclosure Bill as presented going to the Government Administration Committee. In December last year Transparency International published a global Corruption Perceptions Index, which placed New Zealand first in the index of the world’s least corrupt nations. That was something for us to be proud of, and something to be valued.

The perception of corruption amongst members of Parliament is very low in New Zealand, despite a recent high-profile case. But that low level can be enhanced further by more openness around lobbying of MPs in this country. Openness and transparency are essential in all areas of Government, save only where genuine issues of public interest require an exception. In the United Kingdom recently, as we all know, the corrupt practices concerning member of Parliament expenses there became an issue that degraded the reputation of the UK Parliament. Transparency is the medicine to avoid all such problems. A perception is something that you cannot shake. Once a Parliament gets a reputation for being anything other than free from corruption, it is very hard to shake that perception. So for those sorts of reasons I think this bill, although it is very much required in this country, is not aimed at correcting a current problem; it is aimed at avoiding such problems happening in the future.

In relation to paid lobbying and activities, it is very necessary. It is appropriate and desirable, and it is harmless and worthwhile. There is nothing inherently wrong, of course, in lobbying. It is a healthy part of our democracy, provided it is done openly and provided it is done ethically, especially where it concerns professional—in other words, paid—lobbyists. Currently it is something of a secret activity, and it should not be. Professional, paid activities require professional standards and openness. The public ought to have the means to know the who, the what, and the how about lobbying in this country, as is the case in Australia, in Canada, and no doubt in other places as well. Therefore, the requirements of the bill for registration of professional lobbyists—those who are paid—returns of lobbying activities, and a code of conduct arrived at through a consultative process and with select committee scrutiny are appropriate, and should be welcomed by lobbyists as well as MPs and the public generally.

The administration of the Act, as it will be, by the Auditor-General in respect of the register, the keeping of returns and making them publicly available, and the development of the code of conduct, of course, are also very appropriate provisions in the bill. There will be a cost, of course, but it would be modest compared with the value of preserving New Zealand’s reputation externally and Parliament’s reputation internally.

Concerning sanctions, the removal or suspension of a lobbyist from the register for a breach of the code or for failing to file returns is a very powerful tool and will be successful. That, of course, is subject to a lobbyist being given the opportunity to present their views in those circumstances. New Zealand First’s only reservation, really, is around the definition of the term “lobbyist”, and I expect that the select committee will pay close attention to that particular issue. That being solved, this is a bill that should proceed.

New Zealand First would like to consider in the future whether this principle should also be applied to local government, because if it is appropriate for central government, then it is, of course, also appropriate for local government. But that is an issue for the future—one, however, that I do think needs to be considered. New Zealand First is satisfied that this bill is well conceived and that it deserves full consideration by the select committee with particular reference, as I have said, to the definition of who a lobbyist is for the purpose of the bill. With that reservation and those comments New Zealand First is very happy indeed to support the bill going to the Government Administration Committee.

I want to acknowledge the member who has introduced this bill, the Lobbying Disclosure Bill, today, Holly Walker, and also her predecessor in crafting the bill, former MP Sue Kedgley, someone whom I got to know quite well in the 49th Parliament on, I think, the Health Committee. She is a very interesting lady and a very friendly person, someone who holds views passionately—and I love passionate people—however wacky those views might be from time to time. One of the things that I think she did believe very fervently was that Government policy should somehow be framed in a hermetically sealed unit with no other outside influence—a values-based approach to policy setting—and it simply is not the case.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Did you have the experience of the other Waitakere man in that area?

There is another speech going on here; I am sure it is important to Mr Mallard. As we all know, that is not the case.

💬 Todd McClay: Sue Kedgley also believed in aliens, but then she realised that—

That is right, and aluminium vapour trails, I think, and no end of conspiracy theories. I think one of the things that needs to be understood is that in receiving information, it is got from both sides of an argument, normally. I think the Speaker of the House has aided this debate today by issuing a press release identifying the—wait for it—15 external parties to Parliament that have access cards to the parliamentary precinct. That list contains such luminaries as two former MPs’ spouses and the fellow who does the prayer breakfast every Wednesday morning. One could consider whether or not that person is on a mission and therefore should register as a lobbyist; I think he is paid by the Methodist Church to be here—a very noble intent.

If one looks at the nature of the bill, one might question the breadth, the absolute breadth, of the definition of “a lobbyist” and the definition of “lobbying”. I think the Attorney-General, that fine member, has provided something of a very forthright opinion, which I shall quote from now. He has concluded that “the Bill appears to limit freedom of expression as affirmed by s 14 of the Bill of Rights Act. The limitation cannot be justified under s 5 of that Act.” I think that is a very profound statement. But the one that resonated with me was in his summary, where he said: “it risks creating a chilling effect for average New Zealanders who may fear criminal sanctions for merely communicating with a Member of Parliament”. Members will remember when we last heard the words “chilling effect”. That was around the Electoral Finance Act. I am fascinated. The criticisms of the potential risks that this bill has—the Green members are sagely looking and saying: “No, no, that won’t happen. That won’t happen.”, but it sure as heck happened to the Electoral Finance Act when it was passed, and that had a chilling effect on democracy. I certainly do not question the noble intent that Holly Walker and Sue Kedgley had in bringing this bill to the House, and I do not believe that it was anything like the sinister intent to stifle freedom of speech in this country that was the basis for bringing the electoral finance legislation before the House, but, nevertheless, it may yet have that effect.

Mr Auchinvole has quoted Keith Locke. I want to quote the other luminary in the Attorney-General’s opinion and that is the first President of the United States, George Washington, when he was talking about the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States: “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”—like sheep to the slaughter. I think we need to think very carefully about that impact.

💬 Metiria Turei: Ha, ha! A little dramatic there, Michael.

Yes, they laugh. The Green member laughs, but when Todd McClay sought to interject on Holly Walker, what did she say? “Shh!”, and I think that sums it up completely.

I think freedom of expression and freedom of speech in this House is the No. 1 right that every member of Parliament has—freedom from the Crown and freedom from the public. And the independence to be able to listen to, speak about, and share the ideas on a bill, on a policy, or on supply is absolutely fundamental. In considering the bill very carefully, the Government Administration Committee should consider very carefully whether those rights will be eroded if this bill is passed.

As other members have begun their contributions to the debate, I would like to follow in that tradition by congratulating Holly Walker on the drawing of her bill, the Lobbying Disclosure Bill, for debate in the House.

I will say to her what I said to Sue Kedgley when the bill was originally drawn and before it was transferred into Holly Walker’s name. Members on this side of the House are very supportive of the idea of greater transparency and bringing that greater transparency to the House in the lobbying area, and if that can be done in a workable way, then Labour members will look forward to supporting the legislation further. But what we cannot do, I think, is ignore the very real concerns that have been expressed to us about the practicability of the bill, and that is especially the case with the community and voluntary sector. The number of non-governmental organisations and voluntary organisations that have come to me and other Labour members and expressed real concern about the sort of reporting burden that this legislation would put on them simply cannot be ignored. That is why what I have done is try to crystallise some of the objections that have been expressed to us and that we sympathise with in Supplementary Order Paper 76, which I have tabled at this first reading so that Labour’s objections to the legislation can be clear from the outset and we can, hopefully, get some changes under discussion as early as possible.

The three fundamental changes that the Supplementary Order Paper in my name would effect are as follows. First of all, it would make it very clear that the target of this legislation ought to be lobbying for commercial purposes. In my view and in the view of my colleagues there is simply no public interest, or no similar public interest, in subjecting big tobacco, big alcohol, big pharmaceutical, or big food to the same sorts of light transparency requirements as might apply to a small NGO that is delivering social services or health services, or is representing a particular philosophical, religious, or other belief.

So the first thing that my Supplementary Order Paper would do is it would make it very clear that the focus of transparency, registration, and what have you ought to be on those big commercial interests, because that is the area where under our laws at the moment there is insufficient transparency. NGOs, voluntary organisations, and incorporated societies are accountable to their members. It is very clear through their reporting what they do from day to day. That is not the case even in respect of a corporate, let alone an association of corporates or other commercial interests. And I do agree that there ought to be a focus on those sorts of interests and a better idea amongst the public about how they are seeking to exert—and, indeed, are exerting—influence. So that is the first change that we would want to see.

The second change is one that I think Holly Walker has conceded needs to be made, and that is that it needs to be absolutely clear that communications between members of Parliament and constituents are not caught by this legislation. We all know—because we have all been in this position—that members of the public come to us in confidence to express concerns, to express a desire to see us take up causes on their behalf that they would not want the public to know about, because they are deeply personal to them. It has to be absolutely clear that that communication remains inviolate.

The final amendment that I have foreshadowed is an attempt to make the exemption that currently exists for public servants workable by extending it to all those who work in the wider State services.

I hope we can make something good of this bill. I apprehend from the speeches across the House that it will go to the Government Administration Committee. I hope that the legislation that emerges from the select committee can be workable. And I hope that the Supplementary Order Paper that I have provided helps to point the way to at least some of that workability.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to support Holly Walker’s Lobbying Disclosure Bill. We would like to thank all the other parties in Parliament for their support of the bill. The humour we have seen in the debate has been phenomenal tonight. I would like to acknowledge Sue Kedgley, who provided the genesis for this bill. I note that we have already seen some action as a result of this bill coming into the House, which is the disclosure of those 15 lobbyists with the access cards to come into Parliament. I think Holly Walker has outlined the Green Party’s arguments for the bill.

I would like to stress the Green Party view that we see lobbying as a legitimate activity. It is an important part of our democracy, and an important way that we as members of Parliament get our information. In a former life I lobbied on behalf of environmental campaigns. But it is something that can be done wrong. Sunlight is the best disinfectant; it is not a cliché to say it. Other countries are moving in this direction, including the UK and the US. Canada has this disclosure, or is having it. It is something that is only going to be beneficial for our democracy. It is something that the OECD has recommended.

I would like to acknowledge what Holly said in this House, which is that she is going into it with the principles of openness and transparency, but she also wants a bill that is pragmatic and workable. So we urge the public and groups to have their say in the Government Administration Committee, and thank the other parties for their support. Kia ora.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I am pleased to take a call on the member Holly Walker’s bill, the Lobbying Disclosure Bill. I think she has worked particularly hard in trying to get a piece of legislation that delivers the intent that is clearly behind it, so I appreciate the time she has taken to discuss it with us. If I am honest, I am not sure whether the drafting has got there yet, but that is the advantage of the bill going to a select committee.

I am a little cautious. I also do not think there is a significant problem in this country with lobbying. I disagree with the New Zealand First member, in that I do not think that a lot of activity does go on behind closed doors. I mean, if you walk around Parliament any day of the week, or to a cafe across the road, you will see MPs with people who could be deemed as lobbyists, and it is all done out in the open. If I have a concern about this bill, it is that it might actually drive activity in a way that is completely different from what we have now. I see that as one of the potential disadvantages.

Defining a lobbyist is also particularly difficult. I agree with the comments Chris Hipkins made as an electorate MP. If someone who comes into my office is the chair of a school board of trustees, a local business owner, a trustee of a local community facility, and a member of, let us say, Federated Farmers, which hat do they have on, and do I have to stop and ask them? Does that then stop the free-flow relationship that we have with that constituent as an electorate MP, being able to learn and engage fully? So I am happy to support this bill in the first reading, but there is still some work that needs to happen.

I too will be supporting this Lobbying Disclosure Bill to the Government Administration Committee. I think we have had an interesting day today with David Clark, Simon O’Connor, and Holly Walker being the members with the photocopied bills that have had luck at the ballot. As a result of that, we have had some interesting debates. I reiterate the points that a number of my colleagues have made, and that is that I will certainly not support this bill later, if it is not clarified, but I think those points have been made pretty clearly. Thank you.

In reply, I call the honourable member Holly Walker.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou anō e te Whare. I would like to thank members from across the House for the support indicated tonight for the Lobbying Disclosure Bill to be referred to the Government Administration Committee for further consideration. I am delighted that we will have the opportunity to progress this bill to the next stage. As I articulated in my first call, the bill aims to bring a measure of transparency to lobbying activity in New Zealand and to enhance trust in the integrity of Parliament in political decision-making. It is consistent with recent moves to increase the transparency and independence of MPs’ salaries and expenses, and with an international trend towards the establishment of lobbying disclosure regimes.

I want to thank those members who chose to engage constructively in the debate tonight, and who heard the principles I outlined in my first speech and took those on board. I want to thank the honourable member Charles Chauvel for his Supplementary Order Paper 76, but let him know that I will not be referring this with the bill to the select committee. As I outlined in my opening speech, I expect the bill to be substantively amended by the select committee. I flagged, in my opening speech, some of the areas that I believe warrant further attention, including the concerns of NGOs and smaller organisations. In that context, I think it is premature to propose specific amendments in the way that the member has done at this early stage. I do not wish to prejudice any of the outcomes of the discussion at the committee, and for that reason I do not consider it would be helpful to refer to the committee this Supplementary Order Paper.

However, I want to reassure the member that I am going into the select committee process with an open mind about how the bill might best take into account the particular concerns of the not-for-profit and NGO sectors. I am aware of these concerns, and I am confident that the select committee can address many of them. I would like to reiterate that my approach to this bill will continue to be guided by the principles that lobbying is a legitimate activity, that an open and accessible Government and Parliament are vital, that the public has a right to know who is lobbying MPs and Ministers, and about what, and that a lobbying disclosure regime must be workable and practical, and that it must be fair and apply across the board.

I want to thank Sue Kedgley, once again, for initiating this bill and for allowing me to pick up the mantle of this important work for greater transparency. I would also like to thank the many individuals and organisations who have met with me to discuss the bill. I invite others with thoughts or opinions to do the same, and to make submissions to the select committee. I thank members for their support of this bill, once again. I acknowledge that the real hard work is about to begin, and I am looking forward to that, and to engaging in discussions at the select committee to secure the best possible legislation for an open, transparent, practical, and fair regime for the public disclosure of lobbying activity in New Zealand. Once again, I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Government Administration Committee.