Electoral Amendment Bill

Hon SIMON POWER Link to this

Clause 23—I say to Miss Dyson. This clause is important because it is a bit odd. It allows regulation for transitional arrangements to be made in the event that a matter is, essentially, not up to scratch. This regulation-making power expires on the close of 1 March 2011 and, on close of that date, is repealed. This is designed to allow the Governor-General from time to time to make regulations prescribing transitional and savings provisions concerning the coming into force of the Act, which may be in addition to or in place of the transitional and savings provisions of this subpart. In other words, it is a kind of regulatory catch-all in case it becomes clear during the transitional period that it is needed. I do not imagine it will occur but in any event the Ministry of Justice and I believed it was probably prudent to just have that regulation-making power sitting there. I do not intend to add anything further on that point.

Chris Tremain Link to this

You know you made a mistake.

Hon PETE HODGSON Link to this

Thanks for coming, buddy! Clause 23—and I can see why the Minister has had it put in, or officials have advised him to put it in—is a kind of belt and braces thing, and that is OK. It is unusual in electoral law to have that sort of provision.

Hon PETE HODGSON Link to this

So why do I not just ask the Minister whether he would be happy, by way of an oral undertaking to the Committee, to say that if ever clause 23 were to be used between now and 1 March 2011, he would adopt the practice of circulating the regulation around the parties so that we can all have a bit of a pick at it. If he would be good enough to put that on the record, that would suffice our needs.

The other thing is that I am a bit embarrassed to say this, but I cannot quite get clause 19(1), which states: “A party secretary is not required by section 210 of the principal Act to file by 30 April 2009 an annual return of party donations for the year ending 31 December 2008.” My simplistic question is why the hell not. I perhaps should talk a little longer; it might help the process of advice to the Minister. There is a hint in clause 19(2) that that is somehow a let-out clause where the party secretary is required to fund under—

Hon PETE HODGSON Link to this

If the Minister is ready to take a call on that, I will happily resume my seat.

Hon PETE HODGSON Link to this

I am satisfied, and I thank you.

JOHN BOSCAWEN Link to this

Thank you, Mr Chairperson. I will come straight to the point then.

Part 2 deals with donation returns. I say, let us have some honesty about this. As part of my campaign I travelled to Hamilton to talk to Doug Woolerton about this bill. I thought it was a private meeting, but, subsequently, Doug Woolerton discussed it quite openly with members in this Chamber, and it is recorded in Hansard. So I feel no compunction whatsoever to say that one of the first things that Doug Woolerton said to me was that “the Electoral Finance Act doesn’t concern us. It doesn’t concern New Zealand First. We can get our money. It’s not a problem.” That is the reality of it. We talk about transparency but there is absolutely nothing in the Electoral Finance Act that requires a person to make a declaration of a donation that cannot be circumvented. If someone wants to give a large donation to any political party, it can be structured in such a way that it is not disclosed. People can stand in the Chamber and talk about transparency but the reality is that if people want to circumvent these provisions, they can and very easily.

One of the issues that possibly led to New Zealand First’s downfall was the so-called disclosure of donations by Simunovich Fisheries in the late 1990s and early 2000s. That featured in the Dominion Post during the course of the election campaign. I famously gave a speech at the Rotary Club of Newmarket where I said there was nothing that the Dominion Post was disclosing that was illegal in 2000; and Mr Peter’s partner, Jan Trotman, was at that meeting. I said not only was there nothing that was disclosed by the Dominion Post that was illegal in 2000, but nothing in the Electoral Finance Bill, as it was at that time, would require those donations to be disclosed now. The Simunovich family gave a number of donations of $10,000 to New Zealand First, and provided those donations continue to be given by various subsidiaries using their own money, they can continue to do it. All I say is let us be honest with the people of New Zealand. Let us be honest; the transparency that this bill supposedly has is a mirage. Thank you.

Hon SIMON POWER Link to this

I have just received further advice on the issue raised by Mr Hodgson in respect of clause 19. I want to be absolutely clear so that Committee of the whole House members do not think I have put the wrong thought in their minds. I am advised that clause 19 will prevent political parties from having to file annual donations and returns in 2008-09 under both the Electoral Act and the Electoral Finance Act.

Hon DAVID PARKER Link to this

I seek leave to make a query arising out of the Minister’s statement, because to my hearing the answer was ambiguous.

Hon DAVID PARKER Link to this

The Minister said that the effect of clause 19 was that the need to file both a declaration under one piece of legislation and the other was avoided. It left me with the impression that no declaration was required. I understood that the proposition, as Mr Hodgson had put it, was that one declaration would be required. Thank you.