Sio William: Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Sio William: Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 20 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8764. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
Malo le soifua Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to speak on this bill the Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) and to say that Labour will support this bill at its second reading. 
I think we all know the reason why the Government has introduced this bill and I think it is worth us reciting again that the introduction of this bill is timely given Mr Banks’ undeclared donations. I think most people would have made judgments that there is a high possibility that Mr Banks has broken the law regarding donations to his mayoral campaign. Most people would have made judgments that his dealings with Kim Dotcom are mired in half-truths that he had to change his declaration in the Register of Pecuniary and Other Specified Interests of Members of Parliament when he was pressed on donations and gifts that he received from Kim Dotcom and that furthermore John Key has refused to ask him about his actions. 
 Most people I have come across have already made judgments on Mr Banks’ situation and believe that an action that requires police investigation would be an issue of ethical standards. They believe that Mr Banks has repeatedly shown through his convenient memory losses that he has not behaved in a manner that upholds and is seen to uphold the highest ethical standards as required by the  
Cabinet Manual 
. If John Banks is charged and convicted National faces even fewer support partners in Government and a by-election is hardly the strong strong stable Government that that Government there promised. 
When will the Prime Minister ask John Banks directly about his relationship with Kim Dotcom and his knowledge of the Skycity donations? And is it OK to deliberately mislead the media? There are many questions that Mr John Banks should answer for the public. Has he read the Local Electoral Act? Did he tell Kim Dotcom to split the $50000 donation into two cheques? What did Kim Dotcom want in return in admitting that Mr Banks was advocating for him—when to whom and on what subjects? Did he give the Prime Minister the same untrue explanations he has given the media? 
Similarly there are questions that the public would want to know from the Prime Minister. Why did he accept John Banks’ word without personally talking to him? Is he satisfied that John Banks has answered media questions about donations with the fullness and frankness he expects of his Ministers? Does he stand by his statement: “There is quite a wide definition of ethics … The test I have to apply is the law.”? If so is he intending to amend the  
Cabinet Manual 
? Does the fact that grossly unethical behaviour took place in a mayoral election make the perpetrator acceptable as a Minister in his Government? For how long is he prepared to allow John Banks to remain a Minister while he is being investigated by the police for electoral fraud? Does he find it credible that one of his Ministers cannot remember a private helicopter ride that landed at Dotcom’s mansion? And is it acceptable that someone with such a poor memory is a Minister in Parliament? 
Why in April 2012 did John Banks say that he hardly knew Kim Dotcom that his contact was limited to a total of 20 minutes’ conversation and that he had been to Dotcom’s mansion in Coatesville only once for dinner— 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: He knew about the donations too. 
Su’a 
 WILLIAM SIO 
: That is right. Yet in April 2010 he took Dotcom’s helicopter from Mechanics Bay to Dotcom’s mansion where he asked Dotcom for a $50000 donation which was to be split in two. He allegedly rang Kim Dotcom a few days later to thank him for his donation later claiming that the phone call related to a $500000 donation from Kim Dotcom towards the New Year’s Eve fireworks held 6 months later. He attended Kim Dotcom’s birthday party at his mansion where he proposed a toast. He lobbied Maurice Williamson— 
Hon Kate Wilkinson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is the second reading of the Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2). I do not know whether that member has even mentioned it. He seems to be focused on Kim Dotcom and I think he should confine his— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No no no. Order! The member will be seated. It is not a point of order. 
Su’a 
 WILLIAM SIO 
: So this electoral reform bill is therefore timely given the John Banks fiasco. Labour believes that reform is needed to avoid a situation where someone like John Banks can claim they have not technically broken the law when clearly they have breached the spirit of transparency that New Zealanders expect around political campaigns. 
Labour had a bill in the ballot for months to address the ridiculous situation we have seen regarding John Banks and his so-called anonymous donations. So it was good to finally see this Government presenting something. Interestingly the Government bill also says that as a result of its changes public confidence in local elections will increase! Confidence has fallen to the level that it is because of the Government’s action or rather inaction in relation to John Banks and the Kim Dotcom affair. 
John Key and John Banks are not in a position to criticise anyone’s ethical standards. It is also not the test the Prime Minister applies. When Mr Key was asked by Metiria Turei: “When the Prime Minister said ‘I expect high standards from my Ministers’ … was he applying a legal test or the test of the highest ethical standards as set out in the  
Cabinet Manual 
?’ Mr Key replied: “A legal test.” 
Labour had a member’s bill in David Cunliffe’s name in the ballot for a couple of months before this bill was introduced that would have aligned the Local Electoral Act with the Electoral Act. Labour’s bill aimed to prevent a repeat of the situation we have seen with John Banks. The bill would have placed the same requirements on candidates in local elections or polls—for donations and their disclosure and the filing of electoral returns—as those that are already in place for candidates in parliamentary elections. This was to ensure consistency on these matters between the Local Electoral Act 2001 and the Electoral Act 1993. The provisions in the Electoral Act 1993 are stronger and clearer in terms of the accountability required of the candidate in an election. 
The Prime Minister’s so-called high ethical standards are in tatters today. On the basis of his memory lapse alone John Banks is not fit to serve as a Minister. John Key has handled this issue badly from the beginning. He failed to ask John Banks the hard questions about the donations. He refused to stand him down while the police were investigating him and it now looks like he will continue to stand by him because he has got off on a technicality. 
My colleague raised the point earlier which I want to repeat about what the police found. The police investigation established that on 24 May 2010 Mayor John Banks met with the chief executive officer of Skycity Entertainment Group and at that meeting Mayor Banks received a sealed envelope containing a $15000 cheque written out to Team Banksie 2010. Team Banksie was the name given to Mr Banks’ campaign. I raise that because this bill that we are discussing here—this sort of situation that Mr Banks found himself in aided and abetted by Mr Key and his Government should never have happened. It should never have happened. The police are therefore of the view that there was insufficient evidence to consider a prosecution. Yet everybody in New Zealand knows that what he has done is wrong—and this Government here continues to stick by them. The police were unable to establish that Mr Banks had the necessary knowledge that the donation had been recorded as an anonymous return. How can you believe that? He receives an envelope of cash in his hand and then he does not remember that that happened. 
Hopefully that sort of goings-on is not going to happen again but I have serious doubts. As long as this Government is in power it appears to the public and certainly to this side of the House that it will continue to have this sort of goings-on with the likes of John Banks continuing to take donations pretending as if he had never received anything and calling those who had given the donations to ask that it be anonymous. 
I want to say that it is timely that this bill came through. The Government should have listened to us in the first place and supported the bill that we put forward in the first place instead of playing all these silly games. What it has got to show for it is that its credibility has gone down. I think that every person who supported that Government—who supported that Government—in the last election will be sorely disappointed sorely disappointed because this sort of goings-on just reveals that this Government is about protecting its mates and it is about protecting its friends despite the fact that everybody knows the unethical behaviour that has occurred the underhand tactics that have occurred and its failure in living up to the standards particularly the standards required of Ministers of the Crown. So yes we support this bill—it is timely—but everybody needs to know the background behind why this Government has rushed in to introduce this bill. Thank you.