Woodhouse Michael: Lobbying Disclosure Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Woodhouse Michael: Lobbying Disclosure Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:3966. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I want to acknowledge the member who has introduced this bill the Lobbying Disclosure Bill today Holly Walker and also her predecessor in crafting the bill former MP Sue Kedgley someone whom I got to know quite well in the 49th Parliament on I think the Health Committee. She is a very interesting lady and a very friendly person someone who holds views passionately—and I love passionate people—however wacky those views might be from time to time. One of the things that I think she did believe very fervently was that Government policy should somehow be framed in a hermetically sealed unit with no other outside influence—a values-based approach to policy setting—and it simply is not the case. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did you have the experience of the other Waitakere man in that area? 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: There is another speech going on here; I am sure it is important to Mr Mallard. As we all know that is not the case. 
Todd McClay 
: Sue Kedgley also believed in aliens but then she realised that— 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: That is right and aluminium vapour trails I think and no end of conspiracy theories. I think one of the things that needs to be understood is that in receiving information it is got from both sides of an argument normally. I think the Speaker of the House has aided this debate today by issuing a press release identifying the—wait for it—15 external parties to Parliament that have access cards to the parliamentary precinct. That list contains such luminaries as two former MPs’ spouses and the fellow who does the prayer breakfast every Wednesday morning. One could consider whether or not that person is on a mission and therefore should register as a lobbyist; I think he is paid by the Methodist Church to be here—a very noble intent. 
If one looks at the nature of the bill one might question the breadth the absolute breadth of the definition of “a lobbyist” and the definition of “lobbying”. I think the Attorney-General that fine member has provided something of a very forthright opinion which I shall quote from now. He has concluded that “the Bill appears to limit freedom of expression as affirmed by s 14 of the Bill of Rights Act. The limitation cannot be justified under s 5 of that Act.” I think that is a very profound statement. But the one that resonated with me was in his summary where he said: “it risks creating a chilling effect for average New Zealanders who may fear criminal sanctions for merely communicating with a Member of Parliament”. Members will remember when we last heard the words “chilling effect”. That was around the Electoral Finance Act. I am fascinated. The criticisms of the potential risks that this bill has—the Green members are sagely looking and saying: “No no that won’t happen. That won’t happen.” but it sure as heck happened to the Electoral Finance Act when it was passed and that had a chilling effect on democracy. I certainly do not question the noble intent that Holly Walker and Sue Kedgley had in bringing this bill to the House and I do not believe that it was anything like the sinister intent to stifle freedom of speech in this country that was the basis for bringing the electoral finance legislation before the House but nevertheless it may yet have that effect. 
Mr Auchinvole has quoted Keith Locke. I want to quote the other luminary in the Attorney-General’s opinion and that is the first President of the United States George Washington when he was talking about the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States: “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led like sheep to the slaughter.”—like sheep to the slaughter. I think we need to think very carefully about that impact. 
Metiria Turei 
: Ha ha! A little dramatic there Michael. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Yes they laugh. The Green member laughs but when Todd McClay sought to interject on Holly Walker what did she say? “Shh!” and I think that sums it up completely. 
I think freedom of expression and freedom of speech in this House is the No. 1 right that every member of Parliament has—freedom from the Crown and freedom from the public. And the independence to be able to listen to speak about and share the ideas on a bill on a policy or on supply is absolutely fundamental. In considering the bill very carefully the Government Administration Committee should consider very carefully whether those rights will be eroded if this bill is passed.