Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. Thanks for the opportunity to speak to the Electoral Amendment Bill. Let me start off where the previous contributor finished and on a relatively bipartisan note we've said that we think that it it's helpful for the Government to allow those who've been stranded overseas for reasons with which we're all familiar to be able to exercise their vote in the next general election notwithstanding that they are outside the time frames that would otherwise apply to be required to be in New Zealand for those periods of time according to whether they're citizens or permanent residents. I actually commented on that very issue in a report that I wrote in my capacity as shadow Attorney-General on the bigger question about managed isolation and quarantine and the inability of New Zealanders to exercise their right under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act to return to this country and it is an issue that we prosecuted I think on this side of the House very diligently on behalf of those overseas-based Kiwis including through my friend and colleague Mr Chris Bishop as our spokesperson in that space.On the subject of electoral law however in relation to the rest of the bill we have said—as my colleague and friend Paul Goldsmith has made very plain—that we don't support either the approach or the specific provisions that are in this bill as proposed by the Government. We certainly hope that the issue will get a better hearing at the select committee than the contribution of the Justice Committee chair just now has indicated. Her own treatment of the subject I thought was limited at best and I'm being as kind and parliamentary as I can at this late stage of a long week in the House—David Seymour: It's only Thursday.CHRIS PENK: —and I think for example—it's only Thursday. Well that's true. It is now Thursday whereas earlier in the day it was Wednesday in a funny kind of extended hours sort of way. But those who are not familiar with parliamentary procedure will probably think that I'm going mad and some of those who are familiar with it probably would have the same view. In any case the point that the member made as though to suggest transparency in itself was an absolute good and not to be weighed against other considerations—some might find that ironic given the lack of transparency in funding arrangements around her electoral office and related parties. But others will make up their own mind on that and whether that's an entirely consistent practice with her statements in relation to this bill. Transparency is a good thing as far as it goes but so too is the right to privacy and so too is participation in a democracy as we would expect alongside that right and freedom known as freedom of association. Whereas it might be attractive to the other side of politics to claim in support of this bill that members of the public when asked whether there should there be more transparency in relation to political donations it's a question that if you frame it in those terms of course it's likely to receive some measure of approval. But I think without acknowledging the extent to which we already have measures for transparency we already have a disclosure regime and a pretty modest one at that—and we'll come back to that—and as Paul Goldsmith said the bigger question and the trajectory that we have to ask the Government about which we look forward to asking the Government about in due course on behalf of the humble but long-suffering taxpayer of this country is whether there's an agenda to have greater taxpayer funding of political parties. I don't imagine that the answer to that question will be one that the political left will necessarily wish to endorse and would regard as any kind of approval for the steps that they are making in this direction. Of course no doubt some would say that such comments would go beyond the scope of the bill—and thank you for not making that charge yourself Mr Speaker—because of course what we are concerned with is an existing regime that they're looking to tighten up. But the natural effect of saying that it becomes harder and harder for individuals freely to make donations to political parties is that in order to have political campaigns that are meaningful in any way the parties do need to be able to spend money and participate in other ways. If they are not able to do that in a way that they currently are because the law is tightened to a point of suffocation then of course then there must be some commensurate increase in funding from some other source. Amounts of $15000 or $5000 are very small in the context of a nationwide election campaign. I think people overseas would regard it as quaint to the point of amusing or bemusing that we are arguing the toss over such small amounts—I mean of course with the current Government's record on inflation $15000 even is not much these days and the $5000 that they want to make the disclosure limit will get you only a couple of tanks of gas at the current rate or maybe one sheet of Gib board. So obviously we're talking about pretty small amounts and certainly if you weigh that up against the negative effects of restricting participation then we suddenly start to question what the purpose of the bill is.The chilling effect—you know we do want people to be able to participate in a democracy in lots of different ways and there are ways of contributing to a political campaign. Some donate their labour which is to say their time their energy their effort and of course that's very laudable and I think everyone in this House would state their appreciation for those who participate not only for their own campaigns but also more generally recognising the benefit to democracy as a whole. But there are other ways of participating too. Some people don't have the time the energy to participate in that way and if some of them wish to put their money where their mouth is so to speak then I say good luck to them to whichever party they are contributing. And if they want to do that in a way that's consistent with the law then they should be allowed and indeed encouraged to do so. If they do that outside the current regime then we have a court system that is perfectly capable of prosecuting such cases. I don't want to comment. It would be inappropriate on any such cases that are before or have recently been before the New Zealand courts but suffice to say that the existence or the fact of cases being brought before the courts in the electoral law space doesn't mean that the line is drawn in the wrong place. It may only mean—and I emphasise that it may only mean—that you know a line has been crossed in a given case and we'll find that out soon enough in relation to matters presently before the courts.The previous speakers on the Government side have talked about a broader reform programme in the space of electoral law and they're right to acknowledge that. We find it strange that there should be a reform programme that is broader than this that does encompass these kinds of issues but notwithstanding that more quickly and separately to that a law change is being pushed through now in a way that aims to beat the clock on that. Of course what I mean by that is they want these law changes to apply in time for the next election. Again going back to the point about New Zealand voters who are currently overseas—that's appropriate at least as a temporary measure but in order to restrict the donations regime ahead of the next election in the current political environment it may be viewed as cynical by some—Simon O'Connor: Mischief.CHRIS PENK: —as mischief indeed Mr O'Connor and so it's difficult to escape the conclusion that there's a possibility of convenience being applied to the subject of law reform and that's pretty unattractive in any sense but certainly in the realm of electoral law. It's a matter potentially of conflict of interest and any time in this House that we're considering electoral law there's a possibility—or indeed inevitability—that we are judges in our own courts so those are instances where we need to be particularly careful to be above board to be consultative collaborative and it's not merely enough to write to the Opposition and announce that a panel is being set up to seek the input not necessarily to pay regard to such input and to proceed with a programme of so-called reform and then outside that to push through other changes in a quicker fashion than that. We think that's not the right way to approach our constitution and these matters that are important not only for political parties but actually more to the point for everyday Kiwis. It's to them that the political system belongs in a democracy. It is to the people that the system belongs and so we must never forget that in this House when we talk about the rights the responsibilities the interests of political parties. It's not only incumbent parties or those that wish to come in here—and acknowledging that bias towards incumbency that any system one would design of taxpayer funding would have—but to the people of New Zealand that we must consider.Finally of course the detail's going to be really important and I'll just put one challenge forward to the Minister and the select committee colleagues who will be considering this. We have a particular provision relating to disclosure in the year of a general election which is different. But in any given year you don't know that it's going to be an election year or not necessarily. This year for example could be a general election year and we could have to be playing by those rules even now. That's in the hands of the Prime Minister. Next year could be a general election year but the following one could also be under the Electoral Act if members opposite would care to look that up. So we don't support this bill and I think most New Zealanders would not either.