O'Rourke Denis: Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading[Sitting date: 25 June 2013. Volume:691;Page:11200. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First):New Zealand First supports the Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2). We acknowledge the many small but valuable amendments that are made by the bill which will assist in the better administration of local democracy for the local government elections later this year. Although New Zealand First supports the bill as is we do not think that the work however is finished and after these elections there will need to be a further review and follow-up legislation. I will come to that later. As the bill now is it is just enough and it is just in time.New Zealand First identifies four major issues with the bill. Firstly is an issue concerning candidate profile statements in clause 15 which inserts new section 61(2)(ca) which will require a candidate profile statement to include whether or not the candidate’s principal place of residence is in the local government area in question. That is a desirable provision something that voters ought to be aware of but this does not preclude a candidate from living outside the area and does not preclude him or her stating what connections he or she has with the area. Living within a local authority area though a relevant matter for electors to consider is not always so important. Some people who do live within the area may in fact have been there for a very short time and not have much of a genuine connection with it while others who live outside the boundaries may have very strong connections with the area. It is of course over to the candidates to emphasise that. The point here is that a few people who do stand live a long way away from the area they are standing in and so that does need to betransparent but voters do need to be aware that just living within an area does not necessarily mean a genuine longstanding connection with it.New Zealand First’s second area of concern is the several long-needed new provisions concerning anonymous donations. The need for these provisions has been demonstrated by the John Banks issues in relation to his last unsuccessful Auckland mayoralty campaign and they concentrate on showing the identity of a donor where substantial donations are made. The Government in this bill attempts to address future abuses of the law by improving the rules around donations and especially anonymous donations. But the Government still has a Minister a person whom the vast majority of people in this country consider to have carried out just such an abuse. The Government has done nothing about that except of course to maintain the fiction that this Minister has done nothing wrong under the law—the very law that the Government now seeks to improve so that in future people in Mr Banks’ position could not get away with what the Government is tacitly conniving with Mr Banks to get away with currently. The Government has been saved in this only by the failure of the police to bring a prosecution and that is now left to one good citizen to do by way of private prosecution. This is an important issue for transparency and local democracy and it is such a shame therefore that the Government will look only to the future as it is doing with this bill and not to the current situation with Mr Banks. I think that is a great shame.The bill does address the matter that the John Banks’ electoral return from the 2010 local body elections has highlighted and that has revealed a gap in the existing legislation which was allowing candidates to call donations “anonymous” that they did know or ought to have known were not anonymous donations. Section 103F in clause 27 will say: “If any person involved in the administration of the affairs of a candidate in relation to his or her election campaign knows the identity of the donor of an anonymous donation exceeding $1500 the person must disclose the identity of the donor to the candidate.” So it will be necessary to prove actual knowledge under this section and I think that may be difficult because the section as drafted relies on the term “knows the identity of the donor” so the prosecutor will need to prove actual knowledge and that is not always easy. It is in fact the same issue that is likely to face the court in cases under the current law. I tried to persuade the Justice and Electoral Committee to add the words “or ought to have known” so that knowledge could then be inferred from the totality of the surrounding circumstances but unfortunately the committee did not agree with me on that. Nevertheless the new section is an improvement that will help solve the Banks problem at least until the electorate solves it more comprehensively at the next parliamentary election.The bill also provides in section 103H that an anonymous donation may not exceed $1500. It says that “If an anonymous donation exceeding $1500 is received by a candidate in relation to an election campaign the candidate must within 20 working days of receiving the donation pay to the electoral officer responsible for the conduct of the election to which that campaign relates the amount of the donation or its value less $1500.” And also: “If an anonymous donation exceeding $1500 is received by a candidate who is seeking election to more than 1 office the candidate must (a) designate 1 election campaign for election to 1 office for which the donation will be used;”. Section 103I provides for offences relating to contravention of section 103H and says: “A person who enters into an agreement arrangement or understanding with any other person that has the effect of circumventing section 103H(1) or (2) commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5000.” New Zealand First firmly supports these new sections. They will solve some of the issues surrounding the Banks situation.Thirdly the bill provides for the postponement of a local election which many members have expressed concerns about. The new powers given to the Minister of Local Government to adjourn elections in the case of natural disasters would cover situations such as the earthquakes in Christchurch. The bill would now allow the whole election to be postponed by Order in Council by up to 6 weeks at the discretion of the Minister. So I understand the concern that some members have expressed about that. The provision actually says in section 73A(1) in clause 21 that “The Governor-General may by Order in Council made in accordance with this section specify a later date for 1 or more of the” situations that are then listed. I understand the concerns that some have expressed about that when one considers the disgraceful situation that currently prevails in Christchurch with local government having been excessively diminished especially concerning Environment Canterbury. But for the purposes of this bill section 73A(6) does say that this can be done only on reasonable grounds and the section provides for comprehensive provisions about that. I think that those are quite adequate remembering that they would be legally enforceable.Fourthly and lastly the bill is very defective in respect of third-party expenditure as one member has already mentioned. It leaves a potential gap for third-party campaigners to receive donations and use funds without a candidate’s permission or knowledge. That is a complex area. We do not have the time before the next local government election to deal with it now but I express the strong expectation that the Government will address that in the next 3 years before the 2016 local government elections because it is a very important matter.Overall the bill is a good one. It deserves support. It is still a work in progress but New Zealand First will be happy to support it.