Little Andrew: Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Little Andrew: Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 06 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6336. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) 
: 
 I take pleasure in rising to speak on the Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2). Saying that the mere fact that electoral practices must be free from corruption goes without saying. It is essential for our democracy the sort of democracy that we are used to and that we celebrate here that electors must know that the people who are standing as candidates and who are seeking public office are people of integrity and free from hidden constraints promises or connections. That has been the tradition in New Zealand both at the central level and also at the local government level. But the sad reality is that our reputation is under threat. Our reputation for a corruption-free electoral system and corruption-free electoral environment is under threat. There have been the odd alleged transgressions at the central level. I remember a flyer produced when I was the national secretary of a union which was referred to the police once. The police were so embarrassed about it that they rang to apologise for wasting my time. And then there was the National Party which has always concerned itself with corruption issues suing me and the union I belonged to for being involved or having a connection with the Labour Party in the 2008 election. It took it twice to the High Court. In the end the High Court judge got thoroughly annoyed and threw the whole thing out. 
But when it comes to local government elections there is no question. We have reached the high-water mark. We reached it in 2010 in the Auckland mayoral election with the candidate none other than a member of this House John Banks. That must surely be a source of huge embarrassment to members of this House who have watched the tawdry affair unfold in this House; to every Aucklander and to most New Zealanders to watch what happened: to watch every effort made to conceal what went on; eventually a police investigation; and then a huge effort to get the police file disclosed to the public on a matter of considerable public interest and eventually it was. What we saw in that campaign and what we saw with the conduct of John Banks was an act of courting donors one in particular—a very large donor. And when I say a “large donor” the donations of course were large but so was the donor. We saw extensive contact between the candidate John Banks and the donor Kim Dotcom. That contact involved meetings parties dinners complimentary remarks to his wife trips on his helicopter observing fireworks displays—I could not imagine a more extensive range of memorable experiences and yet in the inquiry and the ensuing public disclosure— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I’m struggling to think of the last time I took a helicopter to a meeting! 
ANDREW LITTLE 
: Listen I travel on helicopters with my donors every day of course! Maybe it is a novel experience to John Banks. But how affronting to the intelligence of the Auckland voting public that he should declare that he could not remember any of those activities. And then with the allegations of soliciting donations that is what the police found in their inquiry. As the police said in their report: “Police have established that in September 2010 Mr John Banks personally solicited a request for help from a Donor who prefers to remain anonymous” and yet Mr Banks was able to get away with a declaration that did not disclose the identity of that donor because the legislation in place then and in place now did not require it. How could you have an anonymous donor who was known to the candidate? That is not anonymous; that is a nonsense. 
I think the pity of it is when we look at people in public office. Someone like Mr Banks who has occupied high public office—not just an MP not just a leader of a party albeit a one-man party but a former Cabinet Minister—knows the story about ethics. He knows that the expectation of the New Zealand public is that people and those in public office do not just comply with the letter of the law but should comply with the spirit of the law. He has totally failed in that standard. It is even more disappointing that of course the Prime Minister of the day who held out great hope to the public of New Zealand that he would have high standards in public office at least in his Cabinet has not been able to follow through. The Prime Minister has defended Mr Banks’ conduct on the grounds that he technically complied with the law not that he complied with the spirit of the law. Well that is just not acceptable. At this point when we know all the information that has now come out however grudgingly and however it has to be prised out with a crowbar in this dreadful inquiry it leads us to one conclusion and that is that we all smell a giant rat. We all smell a giant rat and it is not very pleasant. It has led to this law change notwithstanding Grant Robertson’s own member’s bill. The Government has produced its own to achieve the same effect. So this bill represents a new spirit at least—a new spirit that we should be holding all candidates to in local body elections regardless of where that local body election is. 
I just want to draw attention to one problem however that I see in the legislation and the select committee no doubt in its deliberation its consideration and inquiries will look more closely at. It is in clause 27. There are two particular sections and the first I will talk about is new section 103H. This talks about anonymous donations which must not exceed $1500. It refers in that section throughout to an anonymous donation not exceeding $1500. But try as I may when I read that section and the other sections that are around it as part of clause 27 I cannot see that that section deals effectively with what I would call the Dotcom cheque-splitting problem. It does not prevent a candidate or a candidate’s campaign staff saying to a donor who wishes to remain anonymous “Don’t give us $3000; give us two cheques for $1500. The candidate won’t know and we won’t need to tell anybody.” It does not stop that from happening. So the select committee will need to look very closely at that. 
Then in new section 103F in clause 27 it talks about those involved in the administration of the affairs of a candidate that if they know the identity of a donor they are required to disclose it. But there is nothing in that clause—and in any other section in that clause—that requires a candidate who knows the identity of a donor to disclose it. That went to the heart of the issue with John Banks’ Auckland mayoralty campaign. He knew who some of the big donors were. He knew Kim Dotcom was a donor. He knew that Skycity was a donor. It handed him an envelope with cash in it or a cheque in it made out to “Team Banksie” and then he claimed subsequently that he did not know who the donor was. Well these provisions do not go far enough in that regard to remedy the problem that the John Banks Auckland mayoralty campaign threw up—and made us all throw up as a result. So those issues will have to be addressed as the select committee deals properly with it. 
I come back to my opening comments and that is that all electoral law whether central or local government needs to require of the candidates and those working with them and those administering those campaigns to work to the highest standards of integrity. The New Zealand public expect nothing less. Our law must reflect public expectations and we must make sure as this law goes through the House that it properly reflects the expectations that New Zealanders now have of those who seek public office. Those standards those expectations I suggest have probably risen a notch or two now because of the embarrassing affair that was the John Banks mayoralty campaign. As my colleagues have said we will support the bill because it will achieve a great leap forward in terms of electoral law and electoral integrity. But there is some work that needs to be done and we look forward to the select committee doing that work and bringing back a bill that will cover off all the issues raised by that tawdry nasty little affair.