Little Andrew: Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Little Andrew: Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 20 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8771. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call on the Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2). What a pity that in a debate that has been free of the usual sorts of recriminations and acrimony that sometimes characterise debate in this House the last member who spoke Kate Wilkinson should descend into vague non-specific allegations on matters concerning her electorate. It was also disappointing that the honourable member Alfred Ngaro should retreat to the age-old cries which frankly are becoming a little boring now that Labour had 9 years to do something but did not. Then he said that both mayoral candidates for the 2010 Auckland mayoralty received donations and he completely overlooked the fact that the origins of this bill have one place—one place—and it starts with a member who sits on the benches opposite me. The grubby nasty actions of that member have prompted the enactment of this legislation. 
You know the pity of it is—and it is disappointing that the members opposite do not recognise it—that once upon a time we had a culture in this country whether it was around elections or whether it was around the running of businesses that people did not comply just with the letter of the law but with the spirit of it. People understood that in a civilised society we have rules and we have laws that they are there for good reason and that they are about respecting each other and therefore respecting the law. In the last few years the last couple of decades that value and those principles have gone out the window. We now have a culture where that is regarded as acceptable usually by people who flutter on the right politically and who no longer care about the spirit of the law. It is just a black letter. The first question to be asked by those on the right is “What can I get away with? What can I do that is on the margins of the law because I don’t have to worry about values and principles and the spirit of the law any more?”. This legislation this bill tonight has as its origins actions that have that flavour written all over them. 
The thing is that it is bad enough that in our history we have seen some pretty bad shenanigans when it comes to central government elections but we never had local body elections infected and contaminated as badly. We never saw the chicanery the double-dealing and the manipulation that we saw in the 2010 Auckland mayoral election. It was that event and that event alone that has prompted this House to have to give its time and attention to this legislation. It all changed in 2010. It all changed. We have crossed the Rubicon and we will never go back. So we have now had to do what I think probably eventually historically will be seen as a sensible change which is to align the electoral laws covering local government elections with those covering general elections. 
But let us not forget that it all started in Auckland. This bill owes its existence to one person who sits in this House and that is John Banks. He forgot about and did not properly declare donations from Kim Dotcom the largest most colourful figure involved with New Zealand politics in a generation. John Banks did not think to properly declare his Skycity donation that he received in cash in envelopes personally. 
What we have seen is that our ethical standards have dropped. You know the pity of it too is that when members of the Government and members representing this Government including the Prime Minister had the opportunity to indicate that they actually did want to see better ethical standards they fluffed the opportunity. They failed the test. When the Prime Minister John Key was confronted about what sort of ethical standard we are operating at now he said: “There is quite a wide definition of ethics. The test I have to apply is the law.” What a disappointment. It is no longer about principles and the spirit of the law; it is about the black letter of the law. This is in contrast to what the  
Cabinet Manual 
 says which is that “Ministers are expected to act lawfully and to behave in a way that upholds and is seen to uphold the highest ethical standards.” So we now have to introduce this legislation to try to get some flavour of that into local government. That is why we are doing this bill. 
There have been some good changes recommended coming out of the select committee process—things like the residence disclosure. For example if you do not live in the ward that you are standing for or in the area that you are standing for you will have to disclose that. It does not prevent you from being a candidate in the ward but people should know. It is good to have the warning on the voting documents about interference in the way people vote. It is good to not have the costs of hoardings particularly the timber involved in hoardings accounted for because we know that that is material that is used and recycled from election to election. It is good that we now have the rules clarified at least for local government elections on the publication of returns and that they can be published online. It is good also that the time frames about prosecuting breaches of electoral laws in local government elections are clarified. Maybe perhaps in the Committee stage we might debate whether or not the prosecution of breaches of electoral law might also be open for private prosecution. 
There is however still a gap in all this and it was a problem raised before the Justice and Electoral Committee by Alan McRobie who is an expert in this country on local government elections. It was a problem that he observed in an election whereby the goods and services that are offered on a recurring basis for below market rates and also below the threshold of $300 might actually lead to an abuse. The example he gave was of a small community newspaper. It happened to be in Kaiapoi—and we know how important Kaiapoi is to the New Zealand Labour Party because that is where one of our greatest leaders Norman Kirk got his political head start—where there was this rort played out. Selected candidates who were regarded with favour by the editor of a small community newspaper were given heavily discounted advertising space. On each occasion it was a small-value transaction but they all flew under the radar and even in aggregate terms the value of that contribution from that editor was not declared and did not have to be declared. We need to make sure that a rort like that is captured under this legislation. I am not confident that it is captured in the wording of the legislation now but that is a matter that we can deal with in the Committee stage. Given the general consensus that we are arriving at around this legislation I would hope that that would be given a good audience. 
On that basis as my colleagues have said we support this legislation. It is timely. The circumstances under which it has had to arrive in this House and we are having to debate it are disappointing but it will be good law. It will have the support of the House and Labour will support it too.