As of January 2010, this website is no longer being kept uptodate. It contains NZ Parliament debates from November 2005 to December 2009. We may resurrect the site in 2011 for the General Election.

TheyWorkForYou.co.nz is volunteer run, and has been in operation since November 2006. We developed it entirely with free and open source software, as a hint to the public sector that they should be adopting and promoting free and open source software themselves (despite what foreign corporations masquerading as a NZ ICT industry may say to the contrary).

Electoral Finance Bill

In Committee

Wednesday 5 December 2007 Hansard source (external site)

Debate resumed.

Part 2 Election campaigns (continued)

Link to this

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the question be now put.

Ayes 65

Noes 56

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to Part 2, to omit “third party” in each place where it appears, and substitute “interest group”, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

HartleyThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) Link to this

The next amendment is to clause 22 in the name of Christopher Finlayson on Supplementary Order Paper 166. All those in favour please say “Aye”, to the contrary “No”. The “Noes” have it. A party vote called for? The Clerk will conduct a party vote.

BrownleeGERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) Link to this

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. There is slight confusion here. You put the vote and there was a voice call. There was a call in favour and there was a call opposed. It appears now that some of those opposing may have changed their vote.

KingHon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) Link to this

This is an amendment that the Government has agreed to support. It is one of Christopher Finlayson’s amendments. There was a voice call on our side where the person may not have understood that we are supporting this amendment, and we will be voting for it.

BrownleeGERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) Link to this

Is there a Standing Order that states that the party vote has to follow the voice vote. Oh, is there not?

HartleyThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) Link to this

We are taking the voice vote again, Mr Brownlee. Just to clarify the amendment for everyone, we will read it out again.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to clause 22 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 22A(1) be agreed to:

to omit from paragraph (c) the amount “$5,000”, and substitute the amount “$5,001”.

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 23(1) be agreed to:

to omit the number “10”, and substitute the number “11”.

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 23(2) be agreed to:

to omit the number “10”, and substitute the number “11”.

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 23(3) be agreed to:

to omit the number “10”, and substitute the number “11”.

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to clause 25A, to omit “the amount of the donation, or its value” in each place where it occurs, and substitute “the value of the donation”, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 25A(1) be agreed to:

to omit the number “20”, and substitute the number “21”.

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to clause 25A(2) be agreed to:

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 25A(2) be agreed to:

to omit the number “20”, and substitute the number “21”.

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 25A(3) be agreed to:

to omit the number “20”, and substitute the number “21”.

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to clause 25C, to omit “the amount of the donation, or its value” in each place where it occurs, and substitute the words “the value of the donation” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to clause 25C(1)(a) be agreed to:

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Agreement not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 25C(1) be agreed to:

to add the following new paragraph:

(d)an individual making a donation comprising a whole, or in parts funds contributed by 1 or more persons who are not New Zealand citizens or registered as an elector.

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 25C(2) be agreed to:

to omit the number “20” and substitute the number “21”.

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to Subpart 1A be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 28D be agreed to:

to add the following new paragraph:

(c)publish in major newspapers and the NZ Gazette that information covered in 28D(a).

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 28E(2)(b) be agreed to:

to omit the words “Crown bank account”, and substitute the words “Plunket Society bank account”.

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 28E(3)(b) be agreed to:

to omit the words “Crown bank account”, and substitute the words “Plunket Society bank account”.

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 28F(2) be agreed to:

to omit paragraph (c) and substitute the following new paragraph:

(c)any sum paid by the Electoral Commission under 28E(2)(b) or 28E(3)(b).

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 28G(3)(a) be agreed to:

to omit all the words after (a) and substitute the words “the Chief Executive of the Electoral Commission”.

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 28H(1)(d) be agreed to:

to omit the words “to the Crown bank account”.

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 28H(2)(b) be agreed to:

to omit the word “quarterly”, and substitute the word “monthly”.

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 28H(2)(b) be agreed to:

to omit the number “3”.

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 29(1) be agreed to:

to omit the words “A financial agent of”.

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 29(4) be agreed to:

to omit the words “the financial agent and”.

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 30 be agreed to:

to omit the words “financial agent”, and substitute the word “candidate”.

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 31(1) be agreed to:

to omit the words “financial agent”, and substitute the word “candidate”.

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 31(2) be agreed to:

to omit the words “financial agent”, and substitute the word “candidate”.

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 32(1) be agreed to:

to omit the words “financial agent”, and substitute the word “candidate”.

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 32(3) be agreed to:

to omit the words “financial agent”, and substitute the word “candidate”.

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 34 be agreed to:

to add the following new subclause:

(5) The Chief Electoral Officers will make a copy of each return available at the office of the Registrar of Electors for each respective electorate’s candidates.

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to omit clause 38 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 41 be agreed to:

to add the following new subclause:

(4) The Electoral Commission will make available for public inspection a copy of every return and report referred to in subsection (1) at the office of each Registrar of Electors in each electoral district

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 50(1) be agreed to:

to omit the amount “$40,000” and substitute the amount “$41,000”.

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to clause 53 be agreed to:

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to clause 55(1) to insert after the word “published” the words “during the regulated period” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to clause 55(1) to omit the words “, or appears to encourage or persuade,” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to omit and substitute new clause 55B be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to omit clause 56 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to clause 57 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to clause 58, to omit paragraph (b) from the definition of candidate activity, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to clause 58, to omit paragraph (c) from the definition of candidate activity, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rodney Hide to clause 62(1)(a) be agreed to:

to omit the amount “$20,000”, and substitute the amount “$50,000”.

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment in the name of Rodney Hide to clause 62(1)(b) be agreed to:

to omit the amount “$40,000”, and substitute the amount “$60,000”.

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to clause 66 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 72(1) be agreed to:

to omit the words “candidate’s financial agent”, and substitute the word “candidate”

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 75(1) be agreed to:

to omit the words “financial agent”, and substitute the word “candidate”.

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 75(3) be agreed to:

to omit the words “financial agent” and substitute the word “candidate”.

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 75 be agreed to:

to insert the following new subclause:

(5)The Chief Electoral Officer will make available for public inspection a copy of every filed return under section 72 from candidates for each electoral district available in the respective offices of Registrar of Electors.

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 76(2) be agreed to:

to omit the amount “$40,000”, and substitute the amount “$41,000”.

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to clause 80, to omit paragraph (b) of the definition of party activity, and substitute new paragraph (b), be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 16 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to clause 80, to omit paragraph (d) of the definition of party activity, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to clause 81 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to clause 84 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to clause 92 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 97 be agreed to:

to add the following new subclause:

(4)The Electoral Commission will make available for public inspection a copy of every return and report referred to in subsection (1) at the office of each Registrar of Electors.

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to clause 99 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to clause 103 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to clause 106A be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson, to insert new clause 106B, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to clause 111 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to clause 112 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 114(1) be agreed to:

to delete the amount “$40,000” and substitute the amount “$41,000”.

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 115(2) be agreed to:

to delete the amount “$40,000” and substitute the amount “$41,000”.

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 65

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 162 in the name of the Hon Annette King to Part 2 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 65

Noes 56

Amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 163 in the name of the Hon Annette King to Part 2 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 65

Noes 56

Amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Annette King to Part 2 be agreed to:

to add the following new subpart:

Subpart 9—Indexation of amount

117AAmounts may be increased by Order in Council triennially

(1)The Governor-General may by Order in Council, in the manner provided in subsection (2), amend any of the following provisions by increasing the amounts specified in those provisions:

(a)section 53(2)(d) (which relates to the maximum expenses that can be incurred by a promoter described in that provision):

(b)section 62 (which relates to the maximum amount of a candidate’s election expenses):

(c)section 103 (which relates to the maximum amount of a third party’s election expenses):

(d)section 103 (which relates to the maximum amount of a third party’s election expenses).

(2)An Order in Council made under this section may be made only once between one general election and the following general election, and—

(a)in the case of the first Order in Council, must come into force on 1 October 2010, and must reflect any percentage increase between the CPI for the quarter ending with 31 December 2007 and the CPI for the quarter ending with 30 June 2010, but—

(i)in the case of the amount specified in section 53(2)(d), rounded up to the next whole hundred dollars; and

(ii)in the case of the other amounts, rounded up to the next whole thousand dollars:

(b)in the case of each subsequent Order in Council, must come into force on 1 October in the year before Parliament is due to expire, and must reflect any percentage increase between the CPI for the quarter ending with 30 June in the year in which the previous Order in Council was made under this section and the CPI for the quarter ending with 30 June in the year in which the new Order in Council is made, but—

(i)in the case of the amount specified in section 53(2)(d), rounded up to the next whole hundred dollars; and

(ii)in the case of the other amounts, rounded up to the next whole thousand dollars:

(3)Despite subsection (2), if an Order in Council is due to come into force on a 1 October that occurs during the regulated period (for example, if there is an early general election in the year before Parliament is due to expire) the Order in Council comes into force on the expiry of the regulated period.

(4)In this section, CPI means the consumers price index-all groups published by Statistics New Zealand.

117BStatus of Order in Council made under section117A

(1)Every Order in Council made under section 117A and laid before the House of Representatives under the Regulations (Disallowance) Act 1989 expires on the close of the period of 12 months commencing with the date on which it was so laid, unless it is validated and confirmed by an Act of Parliament passed before that date.

(2)Every Order in Council made under section 117A has the force of law as if it was enacted by this Act.

(3)The validity of any Order in Council made under section 117A is not affected by reason only of the repeal of an Act of Parliament validating and confirming it.

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 65

Noes 56

Amendments agreed to.

Link to this

A party vote was called for on the question,

That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 65

Noes 56

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

New Part 2A Chief Electoral Prosecutor

SimichThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) Link to this

Christopher Finlayson has proposed an amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 165 to insert a new Part 2A. The Government has issued a financial veto certificate in relation to this amendment. Therefore, it is out of order. No question will be put on new Part 2A and it is not separately debatable. However, the veto certificate may be debated in the context of the next part. Copies of the certificate are available at the Table.

New Part 2B Indexation of amounts

SimichThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) Link to this

New Part 2B is proposed by Chris Finlayson and is set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166.

FinlaysonCHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) Link to this

I wish to speak to proposed Part 2B, which is entitled “Indexation of amounts”, and is not to be confused with the new Subpart 9 entitled “Indexation of amount”, which was proposed by the Minister of Justice a few minutes ago. Against the vote of the Opposition, the vote passed, so a new clause 117A and a new clause 117B form part of the bill as it goes through the House.

It is important to note that what the Minister proposes is but a subset of what is contained in my Part 2B. In particular I refer to clause 117D on my Supplementary Order Paper 166. If one pays close attention to that provision, one sees that it covers not only the expenditure of candidates and parties, but also donations by candidates, interest groups, or third parties, and party donations, which are covered by clause 22, and it covers other material not included in the Minister’s new Subpart 9.

The other point that needs to be said is that the methodology adopted in Subpart 9 for the type of expenditure embraced by clause 53(2)(d), clause 62, clause 84, and clause 103 is quite different from what is proposed in my Part 2B. The Minister has suggested that the amounts for the clauses covered in clause 117A may be amended or increased by an Order in Council promulgated on a triennial basis. I know that Mr Foss in particular wants to say a couple of things about that. My indexation mechanism is quite different. It is set out in clause 117E, and, with respect, it is a much simpler and more sensible proposal than that proposed by the Minister on her Supplementary Order Paper.

Why do we propose this new Part 2B? We say that all the spending, donation, and registration limits in the bill—not just some of them but all of them—should be adjusted for inflation using the CPI. Indeed, the Electoral Commission recommended this kind of mechanism, and I understand that it is the practice in Australia. I do not think Parliament is necessarily split on the issue of how stupid it is that, for example, candidates have been able to spend only $20,000 on candidate campaigns since 1993. If one feeds in the CPI over that period, then I understand that the amount is likely to be between $25,000 and $30,000, and that reflects the reality of campaigning.

There was a discussion about this issue in the Justice and Electoral Committee, and, not surprisingly, the majority did not want to debate the issue properly but just skirted over it, which is why we are debating it in the Committee tonight. The argument that was made was that when one takes into account the expenditure of all the various candidates in the field of the 2005 general election, one finds that only a reasonably small number spent between $15,000 and $20,000. A lot of people spent very small sums of money. Be that as it may, the reality of the matter is that when one looks at the expenditure of, say, candidates from the National and Labour parties, New Zealand First, a couple of the Greens, and the ACT party, one sees that the expenditure incurred by them was somewhere between $15,000 and $20,000 on average. The National Party says that if one is going to apply that kind of standard to candidate expenditure, then as a matter of principle it follows that one should also apply it to the complex donations regime set out in the bill, and one should also apply it to other forms of expenditure that are incurred.

That is the rationale behind this. It is a CPI adjustment not only to the limits referred to by the Minister but also to others.

FossCRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) Link to this

I would like to raise a few points and to ask for some clarification from the Minister in the chair, the Hon Annette King. I have read Mr Finlayson’s amendments and his indexation methodology, which I thought was very good, as well as his triennial approach to this matter.

I ask the Minister to respond to this. I note that in her proposed new clause 117A(4) she clarifies what CPI means. But I think this can be read in two ways. For example, clause 117A(2)(a) states that an increase “must reflect any percentage increase between the CPI for the quarter ending with 31 December 2007 and the CPI for the quarter ending with 30 June 2010,”.

The clarification I seek from the Minister is whether there is a cumulative effect or whether she is defining further the change in the CPI over 3 years. Under the Minister’s common-sense test, if the CPI for the quarter ending 31 December 2007 was 1 percent, and the CPI for the quarter ending 30 June 2010 was 1 percent—which is how the public understands the CPI—the percentage change between those two amounts was zero. I am looking forward to the Minister clarifying that matter.

Could she further define in her amendment what she means and how she defines the CPI and indices? It is open to interpretation and it could be open to error. Clause 117A(2)(b) talks about each subsequent Order in Council and the same definitions are used. Again, I ask for clarification in relation to the CPI and indices. The amendment talks about the quarter ending 30 June in the year of the previous Order in Council, and it is compared with the CPI for the quarter ending 30 June in the following year. Again, there is no mention of a cumulative CPI, of the compounding of it, which is common sense. When members of the public read the CPI they understand the percentage terms—3 percent, 4 percent, or whatever it might be. As I have noted in the Minister’s two examples, if the CPI is 1 percent for each of the two quarters, there is no percentage change. If the two indices are 112 and 132, then of course the difference between the two percentage indices is 20 over 112. I ask the Minister to clarify that.

I also ask the Minister to talk to clause 117A(3) which the Minister said earlier replaces Mr Finlayson’s various amendments. Well, I actually do not think that it does, because it does not cover nearly as many of the various monetary amounts. To me, the provisions in clause 117A(2) and clause 117A(3) mean that if there is an early election, the campaign spend amount from the previous election is locked in. Is that correct? I ask the Minister to clarify whether an early election locks in all those amounts from the previous election. Let us have further clarification.

Let us look at the amounts we are concerned with here. Candidate election expenses are currently limited to $20,000. Earlier, the Minister noted that that amount has not changed since 1996 when it was set. Well, if we applied the CPI changes since then, the common-sense test—2 percent on average a year, so, over 10 years, a total of about 20 percent—the $20,000 is probably worth something like $13,000-odd in today’s money. If we are really being open and transparent, and trying to make these measures relevant to 2007, surely we should look at all amounts and make them true, fair, and valid in today’s money as opposed to something 10 years out of date.

SmithDr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) Link to this

I will pick up from where my colleague Craig Foss left off, because what I do not understand about the Minister’s proposal in new clause 117A in Part 2 is why she has chosen just some of the financial quantities spelt out in the bill to be CPI adjusted. It seems curious that a number of the specific amounts mentioned in the bill are not to be CPI adjusted, so I ask the Minister to explain that. This is a serious request I make of her, and if the “head prefect” could just leave her alone for a moment, I would appreciate that.

Annette King came into this Parliament in 1984 with me, and together we have seen a lot of legislation in this Parliament. I read this bill in detail for the first time this afternoon, and I have to say that I am deeply shocked—deeply shocked. I do not have the right word to describe it, but I find it to be one of the most offensive pieces of legislation I have seen in the time since she and I came into this House together. I have a lot of regard for Annette King as a Minister. I say that openly, but I want her to listen to this. Why is she adjusting, by the movement in the CPI, only certain of the quanta? She has specified the maximum expenses incurred by the promoter described in the provision in clause 53(2)(d), as well as the amount of a candidate’s election expenses, a party’s election expenses, and a third party’s election expenses. But a number of other specified amounts are covered in clauses 22 and 22A of the bill, and I could nominate a number of other clauses where the Minister specifies quanta. Yet those are not CPI adjusted, and it seems to me there is no logic as to why some are CPI adjusted and others are not.

I come back to what my colleague Craig Foss was saying: the way in which the provision in new clause 117A is spelt out as to how the amounts should be CPI adjusted does not cater for an early election. The provision has been made very specific, to apply to actual years. I mean, it is as though this legislation is designed to be in place for only 3 years. If the Government intends this legislation to be ongoing, why is the CPI adjustment not calculated every year, so that in any year that an election is called, the figures are automatically adjusted? The clause does not spell that out. It states that the Order in Council will come into force on 1 October 2010 and must reflect the change in the CPI between 31 December 2007 and the quarter ending 30 June 2010. That is very specific to one time period.

Craig Foss also mentioned that the Government should be serious about the amount that candidates can spend. The $20,000 limit, I think, was set back in 1993. I had the library check out for me this afternoon the cumulative increase in the CPI, which since then has been 35 percent—35 percent. So what we could buy in 1993 with $20,000 is now 35 percent less than it was then. In other words, what Mr Foss said was exactly right: it is the equivalent now of being able to spend $13,000 then. All I put to the Minister is the question of why this whole thing is not approached more openly and more honestly.

What frightened me this afternoon, I tell the Minister—and I will be straight up with her—is that I heard her, and other people, say that the thing that has driven them is the activity of the Exclusive Brethren. Do members know what disgusts me about that? It is the fact that demonising a religious group is what Hitler did to the Jews in the early stages of his rule. He demonised the Jews. All I say to the Minister, the Hon Annette King, my colleague who came into Parliament with me in 1984, is that that was not the final solution but it was the early stages of demonising a small group of people. And I ask her to take a more open view of all of this. If she is going to go with the provisions that she has in new clause 117A, then I ask her at least to make it an honest approach to indexing the figures properly, and to indexing all the figures, not just a small group of them.

PillayLYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) Link to this

I move, That the question be now put.

GroserTIM GROSER (National) Link to this

Mr Chair—

SimichThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) Link to this

We are debating a very narrow part.

GroserTIM GROSER Link to this

I also want to speak to the indexation provisions, and I think, given the interventions of my colleagues, I do not need to go through the technical side of them. I do not think I need to repeat the very interesting questions that my colleague Dr Lockwood Smith put to the Minister as to why Labour has gone, in such a piecemeal fashion, towards what is clearly a sensible position. But I really want to use this quite technical subject as a way of drawing out a couple of underlying themes about the whole bill.

In the first place, the purpose behind the National Party, in the name of Mr Finlayson, putting forward the indexation provision in Part 2B is clearly all about trying to impart precision to an area of the law that is central to the political process. And that strikes at the very heart of the reasons why we have so many difficulties with this bill, because having precision fundamentally matters when it comes to the legal process. We believe that New Zealanders do not want to see the electoral contest, which should be an open contest set out between the major parties and the smaller parties on traditional grounds, settled through the court system. Indeed, the lack of precision on all this takes my memory back to what became the New Zealand public’s opinion of the America’s Cup in the late 1980s. People around my age will remember that it stopped being a race held on the water then and became a race conducted through the legal process. That is why we put precision into this provision.

The second point is that when I heard Dr Cullen, the Deputy Prime Minister, say this afternoon that he noted with amusement that “the Opposition keeps saying the law is badly drafted, then opposes every amendment to it.”, I thought that he was clearly confused about the situation, because that is factually incorrect. But he is in very good company, of course, with other senior Ministers of the Government in being confused about the process. In a sense that also showed, I thought, the deeply partisan approach that has bedevilled this bill and that lay at the heart of our deep misgivings about this departure from the traditional multipartisan approach to electoral issues. I would make the assumption that although this provision was, as my colleague Mr Finlayson says, skirted through in the Justice and Electoral Committee, my instinct would be that the vast majority of members would realise that the lack of indexation was clearly a nonsense. To have an amount set out in 1993, for heaven’s sake—that is almost 15 years ago—and to make no adjustment to it made no sense from anybody’s point of view.

Had this whole bill started from the premise that we could have a multipartisan, sensible conversation amongst the senior politicians of the parties, I think we would have very quickly found a lot of agreement, including on the very issue that we are addressing here in clause 117E relating to indexation. So the whole political philosophy, the whole starting point for this bill, is illustrated by that essentially technical provision, which is strictly neutral in terms of its political impacts on all parties, and which I would suspect, as I said, every member of the House, if given a truth drug, would say was utterly sensible. Why would we want to have amounts set out 15 years ago? Heavens alive, in terms of compound interest everyone knows that a number that accumulates only at 2 percent doubles every 30 years. We have had 15 years of that figure—

GroserTIM GROSER Link to this

Yes, 35. I suspect it could be even more than that. If no adjustment is made to the figure, the real value of people’s ability to go out and campaign will be further reduced. We no longer live in an era in which we campaign on a soapbox. It actually does cost money, using modern technology and using the sophisticated processes that our electorates expect us to use, to conduct an effective campaign.

I would have thought it was pretty elementary that the failure to make any adjustment for price movements over a 15-year period was in nobody’s interest to maintain. But precisely because of the mindset that has poisoned this whole bill from the start, we have never had an honest discussion on this issue.

ChauvelCHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) Link to this

I move, That the question be now put.

SimichThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) Link to this

I think the Committee would really want to move on, so it can debate Part 3. We are debating a very narrow part, and not very many of the contributors have kept to the point.

BrownleeGERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) Link to this

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Just out of interest, for the benefit of you and other members of the Committee, you mentioned that we might go to Part 3. If I have a quick look at Part 3, I see, just off the top of my head, about 30 clauses in it. When we dive into the bill, we see that Part 3, “Miscellaneous”, deals with general provisions, penalties, etc. It has a lot of numbers in it, a lot of dates, and a lot of other small procedural things—references, etc—in it.

SimichThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) Link to this

Is the member trying to explain to the Committee and to me that more discussion on Part 2B is necessary?

BrownleeGERRY BROWNLEE Link to this

Yes, I am. We can either have a full discussion on this part—which the Government, of course, does not want; I accept that—or have the same sort of truncated discussion on Part 3, then spend 5 or 6 hours voting on various amendments that it would be opportune for us to make.

SimichThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) Link to this

I thank the member for raising that point of order.

KingHon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) Link to this

I have been following the debate closely, and Christopher Finlayson raised serious issues, but I have to say that members of the Opposition have been debating my amendment to add Subpart 9, which has already been passed. They should have discussed that when we were debating Part 2. They have got it wrong; they have not debated the part they are supposed to debate. It is obvious they have not done any homework on this part, and I do not think we can take seriously their wish to continue debating it.

BrownleeGERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) Link to this

The Hon Annette King tries to put across in a plausible way the argument that the Opposition got it wrong. Everyone in the country knows that this bill is a mess, and it will come as no surprise to anybody to learn that somehow we were supposed to have been debating new Subpart 9 while we were working through Part 2. This is the sort of shifty, tricky stuff that the Government has done throughout this debate.

The reality is that the smiling Deputy Leader of the House knows that there was some understanding about how long this bill would be debated for. Labour, of course, has brought out the jackboots and kicked that agreement to one side, and is now surprised that the Opposition wants to discuss factual matters that relate to Mr Simpson’s—sorry, Mr Finlayson’s—Supplementary Order Paper 166. [Interruption] I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

SimichThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) Link to this

Mr Gallagher, it is quarter to 10 and you know that that sort of outburst is not allowed. I would not want you to leave the Chamber, but you understand that you should not have done that.

BrownleeGERRY BROWNLEE Link to this

That was my point of order. We were on a point of order and, despite the length of the dinner break that someone takes, he should not have that sort of outburst.

SimichThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) Link to this

I understand and that is what—

SmithDr the Hon Lockwood Smith Link to this

Point of order, Mr Chairperson.

SimichThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) Link to this

A new one?

SimichThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) Link to this

Let me rule on the first one, please. I am satisfied, from hearing from Mr Brownlee—and I agree—that we have not debated new Part 2B. We have had quite a number of speakers on it but we have not debated it, so I guess we need to hear some more.

SmithDr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) Link to this

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I would like to draw to your attention that the specific questions I was asking the Minister related to the issues outlined in proposed Part 2B in respect of CPI adjustment. If you check Part 2B, you will see there a number of clauses that are proposed to be indexed. I was asking the Minister why, given that under her clause 117A, which had been passed, she had agreed to certain clauses being indexed, she was refusing to address the other financial amounts specified in the various clauses detailed in clause 117D of Part 2B on my colleague’s Supplementary Order Paper. On that issue we have had no answer, and I believe that we deserve some answers on why those quanta are not CPI adjusted.

SimichThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) Link to this

I do not disagree with you, Dr Smith, and that is why I am allowing further debate on the part. Given the issues raised in the points of order, I am sure the next contributor will discuss indexation.

HughesHon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) Link to this

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am just a bit confused about your ruling. Are you saying that if Opposition members debate the wrong part and cannot get themselves organised to debate the right question before the Committee, you will then allow them to continue making speeches until they finally get their act together and debate the right part?

BrownleeGerry Brownlee Link to this

Don’t question the Chair, you pompous dick!

HughesHon DARREN HUGHES Link to this

The member complained a moment ago about being interrupted, and, Mr Chairperson, you almost threw a member out of the Chamber for that.

SimichThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) Link to this

We will not deal with that one in that way, either. I think we all understand—one, two, and that is it. There will be no more noise during a point of order.

HughesHon DARREN HUGHES Link to this

Is the position now that it is possible to speak to the wrong part—

SimichThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) Link to this

No.

HughesHon DARREN HUGHES Link to this

—then, when the closure is sought, for the Chair to rule that members can keep on talking until they get to the right one?

SimichThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) Link to this

Funnily enough, it is possible to do anything, but whoever is in the Chair is the sole judge of whether points being raised or debate being had is relevant, and whether it should continue. I do not need any reasons for doing that. But I have heard sufficient argument in the points of order to convince me that it would not be a bad idea to hear further speakers on new Part 2B. That is why I am calling Chris Tremain.

TremainCHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) Link to this

I rise to debate new Part 2B, “Indexation of amounts”, an amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166, as presented to the Committee by Chris Finlayson. He has presented a number of amendments to the Committee tonight, all relevant, all to the point, and all important to this wider debate. I congratulate Mr Finlayson on that particular effort, which has been fantastic.

I focus on the CPI and its importance to the relevant thresholds across all the different spends that this bill is proposing. The two thresholds are the $20,000 threshold available to candidates and, secondly, the $120,000 threshold available to third parties. Both of these thresholds are addressed by the amendment put forward by Chris Finlayson tonight, so I will pay specific attention to it.

The CPI has a huge impact on these thresholds. Let us go back to 1993, when the threshold for a candidate was $20,000. The threshold is no different today, but using the CPI to inflate the value of $20,000 to today’s dollars it is $27,000. So a candidate in the election in 2008, using the CPI as proposed by Chris Finlayson, would be looking at a spend of $27,000. That is a significant difference in the ability of candidates to get their message across, so it is very important that that issue is addressed.

To show what an important impact the CPI can have I use a different example, the Buy Kiwi Made campaign, which is being run by the Government and which happens to have a threshold that is significantly higher than this one. The spend on that campaign is not $20,000, but $6.3 million.

TremainCHRIS TREMAIN Link to this

It is a good spend. But let us look at the awareness threshold of consumers when that campaign came in: 27 percent of consumers understood the campaign. We spent $6.3 million to get to an awareness level of 39 percent of consumers. The point I am making is that we have had a huge level of spending—$6.3 million—to get a message across and the level of awareness has hardly increased.

How could we get an awareness message across to a wider audience on $20,000? If the threshold is not measured against the CPI, over a period of time that would reduce our ability to effectively communicate a message to our audience. It is simple marketing. A candidate is out there trying to create awareness. Over time if the level of the threshold, whether it is $120,000 or $20,000, is not measured against the CPI, then that candidate is unable to communicate the same message at the same level that he or she would have otherwise been able to communicate. This is an important part of this amendment. This amendment has been justly brought forward by Chris Finlayson and it is one that we should pay attention to.

Another key point is that the CPI threshold level is exacerbated by the extension of the electoral period to 1 January. Previously the threshold of $20,000 could be used over a 3-month period, which worked out at about $8,300 per month. If we extend it to a 9-month period then we are down to about a $2,000 spend per month. If we bring the CPI into that, remembering that our $20,000 is about $13,993 in 1993 dollars, then our average spend without the CPI inflation adjustment is just reduced and reduced, so getting a campaign message across to a wider audience becomes increasingly difficult. That is totally unfair, and that is why I support Chris Finlayson’s amendment to insert new Part 2B, “Indexation of amounts”.

A couple of key arguments have to be taken on board. If we do not increase the limits by making adjustments in accordance with the CPI, then our $20,000 spend in 1993, which should now be worth $27,000, is not worth that amount. We are nowhere near spending $27,000 next election year, are we? We are nowhere near it. We are still at a level of $20,000.

Progress reported.

Report adopted.

Speeches

Dec 2007
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri
34567
1011121314
1718192021
2425262728
311234