Local Electoral Matters Bill

Before I give the call on Part 1 of the bill, I want to advise that I have ruled that the Supplementary Order Papers relating to electoral donations, in the name of Jami-Lee Ross, are outside the scope of the bill as agreed at second reading and therefore are not available for debate, and no vote will be taken on them.

I seek leave for all provisions in the Local Electoral Matters Bill to be taken as one debate.

Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be not.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I just seek a little bit of indulgence from the committee for a point of order to table some documents. There have been Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) tabled, Mr Chairman, that you have ruled out as out of scope around the very serious issue of potential foreign interference in elections, on which the select committee is currently doing an inquiry. I seek the leave of the House to table relevant documents to that to reinforce the seriousness with which the House and the select committee is taking that issue. To be specific, I seek leave—and, Mr Chairman, would you prefer me just to do it as one motion of leave? They’re all select committee documents that are relevant to the questions that have been raised in the SOPs, and I think open disclosure would be best for the committee. So would you prefer I do it as one motion or five separate?

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The member will have to describe each paper.

Yes, I’ll describe it in one motion taken. The first document I wish to seek leave on is the transcript of the Electoral Commission’s engagement with the Justice Committee on the issues of foreign interference in elections as it relates to the select committee’s inquiry into the 2016 local election and the 2017 election.

The second document—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Just on that, is that available to the public already, and is it still subject to privilege in front of that?

The first document was in public session, but people would not necessarily have been able to get copies of the transcript that was recorded by the Clerk’s Office. So the advantage for the public in being able to have access to this transcript is they can see quite openly and transparently exactly the discussion that occurred last November between the select committee and the Electoral Commission on this issue that led to the extension of the inquiry. That’s the first document.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I’m going to take some advice just very quickly.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The committee is in control of its own destiny.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Yeah, and we are in committee, so I’m taking some advice on whether or not the committee can actually make, one, a decision on that which should be made by the House, and whether or not the documents before the select committee are available to be released anyway. Given—[Interruption]—just one additional point—that it would seem to me that it’s not necessarily immediately important for the committee to hear—considering that I’ve just ruled out of scope the Supplementary Order Papers—that the member is now seeking to add further information for the committee which it’s not going to discuss. So I’m kind of thinking that it would be more helpful for me to actually seek further information and guidance from Mr Speaker and from the Clerk’s Office, but if you’ve got anything else to add?

The reason it has some public importance is I think the whole House realises that the issue of the interference, potentially, of overseas countries is a very serious issue and that we’ve had a substantive debate on an instruction to the House in the committee stage about whether we could debate those SOPs. Some may interpret that as Parliament’s not interested in the issue. The purpose of tabling the documents is to make plain that Parliament, on all sides of the House, is taking this issue very seriously and that there is a proper inquiry before the Justice Committee.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I’m not doubting the importance of the information; I’m wondering whether or not this is the right process for that information to be released—

But that’s, ultimately, a choice, Mr Chairman, for the committee as to whether it wishes to grant leave. It has been common practice for my period in the House that members can seek leave to table documents during a committee stage of a bill. When we have three SOPs that have been tabled, albeit ruled out of scope, on the issue of the Local Electoral Matters Bill, and the inquiry is about local electoral matters, I think it’s appropriate for there to be public disclosure of the work that’s going on in the select committee about this issue.

💬 Rt Hon David Carter: Speaking to the point of order—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I’m just going to take some advice, sorry.

💬 Rt Hon David Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Just trying to assist you, Mr Chairman, but if you look at Standing Order 377, the first thing I think was of concern to you is whether a document can be tabled at the committee stages: 377(1) “A member may table a document by leave of the House or a committee of the whole House.” I think the second thing is, then, my advice to you as Chair is to consider whether the information is publicly available, is frivolously being tabled. You need to take that into account before you decide whether to put the leave. My experience in this is if in doubt, put the leave—let the committee decide whether the papers are relevant. I only offer that as guidance to you, sir.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Just one question to the Hon Dr Nick Smith: is this information already publicly available?

Mr Chairman, you’ve only given me the opportunity to refer to the first document. It may be appropriate for me to refer to the other documents and to explain the relative status of them. The first document that I am wishing to release is the actual transcript that was had in public session. The transcript has not been publicly released, but the discussion occurred in public session, so it’s not like the committee was in private. Does the Chairman wish me to go through each of the documents and explain their status?

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I’m going to put the leave for that first document. Leave is sought for the release of that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

I seek leave of the committee to table the letter from the Minister of Justice to the Justice Committee on including the issues of foreign interference in the Justice Committee’s inquiry into New Zealand’s electoral law.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.

I seek leave of the House to table the letters from the Justice Committee to the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service (NZSIS) and the New Zealand GCSB into the issues of foreign interference in respect of the inquiry of the Justice Committee into the 2016 local election and the 2017 general election.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Can the member indicate whether or not that’s still confidential to the committee or not?

These are letters that the Justice Committee agreed to send and that have gone to the GCSB and the NZSIS. They are letters of invitation. They set out, quite specifically, the issues that the select committee is inquiring into.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I can speak to the point of order. We’re entering into this territory where, effectively, any member could front up here and utilise an “I want to table a document” procedure to break the confidentiality of a committee, and by describing the document and the very existence of those documents, break the confidentiality of the committee. You are, effectively, establishing a precedent that any member could grab any document from any committee that isn’t yet available and attempt to table it and utilise the describing to do so. Now, the describing might be a political tactic to answer for having voted against doing something earlier this afternoon, which is what is happening here, but that is not a legitimate reason to get off the hook politically, by breaking confidentiality of a select committee.

Speaking to the point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No, I’m going to respond. No, that’s why I asked the question before the member took his point of order, and the Hon Dr Nick Smith answered. My question now to the Hon Dr Nick Smith is: when is the report on this issue before the select committee due to come to the House, or has it already come to the House?

For guidance for the Chairman, when a select committee conducts an inquiry, as it is under the general election and for the local body elections, there isn’t a timetable of which it is required to report; it’s when the House finishes its business. Can I also make plain to the Chair that the sole reason for having these documents released publicly is because, in the interests of transparency—there being a substantive element of public interest in these issues—and there being no practical reason why this correspondence and information should not be in the public arena, I think there is a public interest in transparency and disclosure.

I will put the leave for that document. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection. Members, we now come to the debate on the Local Electoral Matters Bill.

Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2