Mallard Trevor: Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15201] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I will try to focus in on who is covered and who is not covered by the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill. I want the member in charge of the bill Paul Quinn to give me an answer with regard to a group of offences as to whether someone is covered. The first pretty simple question is whether someone who is guilty of fraud is covered by this legislation. I am interested in whether someone who has aided and abetted a fraud by being perceived to endorse a contract is covered by this legislation if convicted. I ask whether someone can be convicted of fraud for an action that involves a New Zealand company but which took place extraterritorially. I ask whether that person is covered by this legislation. Would that person lose their right to vote; would their status be changed? Would a New Zealand citizen who endorsed a fraud that was committed offshore by a New Zealand company be liable if convicted under this legislation to lose their vote? Would someone be liable if that person fraudulently introduced someone to another party and then was involved with the other party in the theft of intellectual property? Would the person who witnessed endorsed and was perceived to give even Government support to the commissioning of the fraud be caught by this legislation? 
I think we have a series of arrangements here that are in fact not complex in this particular case. We have international fraud occurring out of New Zealand. We have theft of New Zealanders’ intellectual property in China but aided and abetted by a New Zealander or New Zealanders depending on the level of knowledge of the people who were endorsing the particular commercial arrangement. I am very interested in whether any of the scenarios that have been set out in the Chamber earlier by my colleague Mr Hodgson are caught under this legislation. 
Simon Bridges is raising his eyebrows. I take from what he says that he thinks all of these scenarios are caught under the legislation: that the guilty parties who set up a fraudulent contract between a New Zealand company and a Chinese company will be caught; that the person who endorsed it and with the perception that the New Zealand Government supported it will also be caught; that the person who then stole the intellectual property and I understand $800000 would also be caught; and that the third party that was involved in the theft because they were Chinese-based and the offence occurred there may not be caught under the legislation. I think they probably would not be caught. If New Zealand was the US they would be caught but given our intellectual property arrangements they probably would not be although if I were them I would not want to visit New Zealand in case I was caught but of course if they were Chinese citizens they would not get the vote. But the two New Zealanders— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Yes if they were permanent residents. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The three New Zealanders who were involved in the arrangements and certainly the person who did the introductions and is now a major shareholder in the company that is benefiting from the theft— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: They stole the purchase? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: They stole the intellectual property and then took shares in the company that stole it after introducing the people to the people in China—and $800000 went missing as well. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Who would do such a deal? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I do not know but I cannot think of why a New Zealand Minister would sign her name to a document that endorsed that sort of behaviour. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The member is now linking an honourable member of this House to a matter that is hypothetical and that is completely out of order. Up until that point it was OK but he mentioned a Minister of the House and that is unacceptable. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I do not understand how any Kiwi would sign their name to such a thing. I do not understand how any honourable New Zealander would sign their name would endorse a document would give the perception that New Zealand is behind— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I bring the member back to relevance. We are now straying into territory that is all hypothetical. The bill is very clear and I ask the member to come back to the point. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I want Paul Quinn to tell us whether the New Zealander who signed her name to such a document was convicted of fraud or aiding and abetting fraud— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I have already ruled that mentioning an honourable member of this House in a hypothetical matter is unacceptable. I ask the member to detest from that— 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: You mean “desist”? I detest! 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: “Desist”. I ask the member not to go down that track again. That is the second time and I will not accept it. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I ask Paul Quinn whether someone who was convicted of aiding and abetting a fraud would lose their ability to vote under this legislation. Are they over the line or are they behind the line? I ask whether someone who was convicted of aiding and abetting intellectual property theft is behind the line or over the line. I ask the member whether someone who steals $800000 or aids and abets someone who steals $800000 is on the right side of the line or the wrong side of the line. Are those people affected by this bill? I look forward to hearing Mr Quinn tell us how this legislation will make a difference to future behaviour. I ask whether it will stop Kiwis going to China introducing parties to each other and then stealing their intellectual property. 
Is that the intention of this legislation or is the intention of the legislation to stop people going to China and getting involved in the theft of $800000 in cash? Is that the intention of this legislation? I presume it is about trying to drive behavioural change on behalf of Kiwis. 
Paul Quinn 
: It’s a deterrent. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Paul Quinn says that it is a deterrent. Will it deter Kiwis from going to China and stealing intellectual property from other New Zealanders while they are there? Will this deter New Zealanders from going to China and setting up companies that take intellectual property from other New Zealanders? Is that the objective of this legislation or will the member accept that this legislation will not deter crooked Kiwis from doing that in the future?