Twyford Phil: Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTwyford Phil: Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading[Sitting date: 25 June 2013. Volume:691;Page:11203. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū):This is a Government that has made a habit of attacking local government over the last 4½ years. Local government—councils—have been the whipping boy of choice for this John Key - Peter Dunne - John Banks - National Government for the last 4½ years. I want to say that because I think it is an important context for considering this bill the Local Electoral Amendment (No 2) Bill. The reason I say that is this Government has ripped the guts out of democracy in Canterbury and we still have a situation in Canterbury where the regional council is effectively suspended and commissioners run Environment Canterbury.The Government has consistently accused councils of irresponsibly borrowing and running up huge debts—this from the Government that has borrowed more than any other Government in recent history. It has accused councils of poor financial management—again that is a bit rich. It has put pressure on councils to sell publicly owned assets because this Government believes in flogging off anything that is not nailed down. It has accused council planners of trying to wreck the macroeconomy as Bill English said the other day and in fact this Government is blaming local government for the housing crisis which is a direct result of this Government’s policy settings. So it is not I think putting too fine a point on it to say that this Government has consistently waged a campaign against local government since it was elected in 2008 and it has systematically chipped away at the powers and freedoms of local government on all those issues that I mentioned. I say that because there is an irony that this Government would bring a bill to this House that seeks to lecture and mentor local government on ethical standards and accountability. I find it heavily ironic that this Government would set itself up to be a model of accountability and ethical standards and would tell local government what to do in those areas.My colleagues have made it very clear that Labour supports this bill. It is an overdue clean up and upgrade of the electoral law—in particular the rules relating to campaign finance in local government elections. We support it. It is a no-brainer. There are a number of things in here that significantly improve local government law but nevertheless it is ironic that this Government would seek to set itself up as some kind of mentor to local government on ethics and accountability. Nothing makes that clearer than the fact that this bill really is the “John Banks Memorial Bill”. That is what it is. I am quoting my fine colleague Carol Beaumont who coined that name for the bill. If it was not for the fiasco around John Banks and his self-induced political amnesia this bill probably would never have made it to the House. So we can thank John Banks actually for the service that he has done for democracy in this country by forgetting the name of one of his most important political donors. I am talking about Kim Dotcom the man who hosted John Banks at his house the man whose wife John Banks complimented—I think he said she was the most beautiful woman in the world. John Banks was there at Kim Dotcom’s birthday party. He made the toast in front of dozens and dozens ofguests. He was flown in from Mechanics Bay to the Chrisco mansion in the Prime Minister’s electorate in Kim Dotcom’s helicopter. You would think he would remember that but no Mr Banks has a very very poor memory.All this came out as students of politics will remember when it emerged that John Banks had received a hefty donation for his mayoral campaign in 2010 from Kim Dotcom. I think one of the most poignant images that I remember from this whole saga is when Kim Dotcom sitting in his jail cell at the Mt Eden Corrections Facility phoned up the Minister in the Government to whom he had made a generous political donation only a couple of years before—to Mr Banks’ mayoral campaign. Kim Dotcom using his one phone call a day was calling from the Mt Eden Corrections Facility and he dialled the mobile phone number of Mr Banks—his good friend the person he had entertained in his mansion in Coatesville—and what did Mr Banks do? He refused to take Kim Dotcom’s call. He refused to even talk to the man who contributed—how much was it? Was it $15000? How much was it? It was thousands and thousands of dollars—$50000.Hon Annette King: 50 in two lots.PHIL TWYFORD: That is right. Two lots that amounted to $50000 and poor old Kim Dotcom could not even get through to Mr Banks. Mr Banks would not even take his call. What an indignity! What an absolute indignity! How humiliating that the Hon John Banks who sits in this House as a Minister in the John Key - led Government would not even take the call of a man who gave $50000 to his mayoral campaign. What an extraordinary act of bad faith. I mean he could have at least taken Kim Dotcom’s call and had the gumption to tell Kim Dotcom that no he was not prepared to help the man who wrote two $25000 cheques to help his campaign. That is a very telling insight into the character of John Banks a Minister in this John Key Government.I think that says it all. Not only did John Banks refuse to take the call from Kim Dotcom languishing in the Mt Eden remand prison but somehow he then forgot when he went to fill out his donations return for the 2010 mayoral election campaign that it was Kim Dotcom who made those donations even though he was in the helicopter even though he toasted Kim Dotcom’s wife at the party at the Chrisco mansion and even though John Banks himself solicited those donations. In fact he asked Mr Dotcom not to write a cheque for $50000 but to write two cheques for $25000. That says a lot about the character of John Banks. He was prepared to circumvent if not the letter certainly the spirit of local government law. It is that cringing embarrassment that he inflicted on the John Key - Peter Dunne - John Banks Government that really is the genesis for this bill. We on the Labour benches are glad to see that there are some sensible limits on campaign finance improvements in terms of disclosure and transparency.I want to use my remaining couple of minutes just to note my disappointment that John Banks who has done so much for democracy in this country who has done so much by being the inspiration for this bill coming to the House could not bring himself to vote for my Supplementary Order Paper 252 in the Committee stage which would have plugged a glaring omission in this bill and that is that this bill allows candidates in the Auckland mayoral election to spend around $600000 to get elected. It will make the Auckland mayoralty a rich man’s club. John Banks in 2010 is on the record saying that that should be reduced to no more than $100000. Len Brown is on the record saying it should be either $150000 or $200000. Both the mayoral candidates from 2010 said that the $600000 limit that National put in place in the Auckland super-city legislation was way too much. It will deter any future candidates who do not have deep pockets. It is an offence to the democratic spirit. John Banks supported lowering that limit to$100000 but he could not bring himself to vote for that very sensible amendment in the Committee stage and that I think was a real disappointment.I am not surprised that the National members did not support the amendment. They do not want to do anything that might clip the wings of some deep-pocketed corporate candidate in future mayoral elections. That is their form; I would expect that. But it was a shame and very disappointing to see that John Banks was not prepared to vote in line with principles that he had already expressed. Thank you.