Carter John: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
Carter John: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13620] 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 Mr Chairman I appreciate the opportunity to make a contribution. First of all I will address a matter that was raised by Metiria Turei in regard to the issue of anonymous donations. She said that the National Party did not want to make any progress on that matter at all. 
The Committee needs to know that the National Party offered to sit down and discuss the issue with the other parties in this Parliament so that the matter could be addressed. We were very happy to sit down and discuss it. What we did not want to end up with was something like this which tramples over rights and democracy in this country. That is what we have ended up with. We say to the member that we understand her passion we understand her concerns and we hear her worries. We would very simply have sat down with the other parties and said: “OK let’s discuss the issues and come to some satisfactory position.” Unfortunately the other parties were not prepared to sit down with us to develop something that would have been satisfactory and useful to the whole country without cutting across the rights of the rest of this country and the voters of this country. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to the member over there—there is another one. That member Doug Woolerton needs to understand that the people of this country will take his views into consideration and will vote against him as a consequence. 
I want to draw the Committee’s attention to two provisions that I think are important. I draw the Committee’s attention to clause 120 and the words “Where any person knowingly provides money for any purpose which is contrary to the provisions of this Act … that person is guilty of an illegal practice.” The issue is the word “knowingly”. What does the word “knowingly” mean? It is another example of the way this bill is so badly put together. Somebody could go out there and deliberately do something against this Act then say “But I didn’t know. I didn’t know that I wasn’t allowed to do that.” A person could deliberately do something then use this provision as a defence—as a reason not to be prosecuted. How can someone prove whether someone knowingly did or did not do something? One would have to be dopey to think that one could. 
Maybe that is where this issue of common sense comes in. Is that what it is—the Minister’s common sense? [ 
Interruption 
] We know that that party over there ain’t got any common sense because Doug Woolerton is in it for a start and it is led by Winston. 
The other issue that I want to draw to the Committee’s attention and the one that I think is seriously important is that the Electoral Commission may provide guidance on the commercial value of advertising space. How do we interpret “may”? How does the Committee interpret “may”? The Minister has not been able to give an interpretation of what “may” means. The chief executive of the Electoral Commission Helena Catt has said she does not know and she is the one who is responsible for interpreting it. But she cannot tell us what the word “may” means. The Law Society has brought it to the Committee’s attention; it does not know what the word “may” means in this context. I have not heard anybody in this Chamber explain in the context of clause 119A what “may” means. 
Hon David Carter 
: Ask the Minister. 
JOHN CARTER 
: I have asked the Minister but her response has been “We’ll just apply a bit of common sense.” That is all very well but I want to draw members’ attention to someone innocent like my mother who may say: “I’m going to get out there and I may do this.” and she will not know whether she has offended because no one will be able to tell her. Poor old mum will worry about that and Mr Chairman you know that that is the sort of person whom this is going to trip up—people like my dear old mum. Our mums and dads and our brothers and sisters are all going to end up being guilty because they do not know what “may” means. 
I have to say that in my 20 years in this House I have never seen such an ambiguous bill. It is going to end up getting so many New Zealanders into so much trouble. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: How long have you been here? 
JOHN CARTER 
: I have been here for 20 years and I have never seen a word “may” that nobody can interpret and never heard a Minister say: “We’ll just apply a bit of common sense.” 
Hon David Carter 
: Get Doug Woolerton to comment on it. 
JOHN CARTER 
: No because he may not. That is the trouble. He may not know what he is talking about even if he did. That is the problem. He has been part of the drafting of this along with Annette King and along with the Greens. They are guilty. They are responsible for this bill. I say it is going to cause confusion and it will trample on democracy.