Auchinvole Chris: Lobbying Disclosure Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Auchinvole Chris: Lobbying Disclosure Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:3961. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. I rise to speak in support of continuing the Lobbying Disclosure Bill put forward by Holly Walker to the select committee stage for further discussion and I congratulate Holly on having a member’s bill drawn from the ballot. I was most interested to hear that the genesis of the bill was from Sue Kedgley with whom I worked quite closely on a previous select committee. I am surprised to be honest that she is not here but no doubt she will be in touch. 
This is a bill drafted with good intentions one could say and noble intent—the intent to promote the ideals of open government which I am sure everybody in this Chamber would agree with. The Government is supporting this bill to select committee because we see and value the need for a debate on access to and influence of third parties on MPs and staff. Just as the previous speaker Holly Walker was perhaps a little harsh towards Simon O’Connor when he introduced his bill I am sure she will not mind if we level a little bit of gentle criticism on this one. Indeed she has given notice of the fact that even in her own opinion this bill probably does require a little bit of work which is why we would like it to come to the Government Administration Committee. 
Transparency around the activities of those lobbying MPs and their staff is an important element of open government and one that this bill aims to strengthen. From that point of view it is a commendable bill as many bills that are discussed and debated in this House are—commendable but I would suggest flawed in several ways. Some of the flaws within this bill are really quite deep. I believe that it can be helped through the select committee examination and the full submission process. I have great faith in the ability of the Government Administration Committee which I am proud to be the deputy chair of. We work very productively we are blessed with people with a lot of experience and we will work towards the intent of this bill while ensuring that it does not—and this is the kicker—curtail the fundamental rights of constituents and indeed of MPs in the process. 
Let us not forget that lobbying members of Parliament is a fundamental democratic right that goes to the very heart of a democracy—a right that in its current form this bill could be seen to detract from. It is the right of freedom of expression. I believe that it was Keith Locke who once said: “All should be given the right— 
Andrew Little 
: We know how highly regarded he is by the National Party! 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: —to express a view no matter how disconcerting it should be”—Andrew you should listen to this—“on even the most difficult or abhorrent of issues … Implicit in free speech is the idea that the community benefits from untrammelled exchange of views and that every participant might have something to add to our enlightenment.” That was Keith Locke. 
Likewise article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek receive and impart information …”. 
Both these statements make a vital and not always comfortable point: freedom for all to hold and express opinions and to speak truth to power is essential to all societies. We members of Parliament can take for granted our ability to say our piece and it is a wonderful thing to be able to do that. We ourselves can come to stand in this Chamber not just for ourselves but also for those whom we are elected to represent and for those who approach us to represent them. We must not dismiss or cast out the views of constituents due to their profession or whether they are paid to be there. We must promote engagement with MPs giving them their fair hearing and allowing all constituents to speak their mind just as we are free to do. Likewise we must not compromise an MP’s ability to engage in discussion with members of the public be they doctors be they unionists be they members of the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society or Greenpeace or republicans. The Labour Party may I suggest would not be where it is today without the lobbying and access to the parliamentary precinct of the union movement. 
Darien Fenton 
: Oh for goodness’ sake! 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: No it would not. It would not. How too would the Green Party itself respond to greater restrictions on its own lobby groups? Would it be exempt under this bill? 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: Probably. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: “Probably.” says the Attorney-General. Indeed if so is this the intention of the bill after all? Is there a conspiracy coming from the party that sees conspiracies in so many other things? Is there a conspiracy in this bill as a self-serving partisan attack that makes exceptions for some lobbyists but not for others? The author of the bill is shaking her head and I am immediately consoled. But I think Miss Holly Walker it might require a little bit more convincing than just an innocent shake of the head. 
Much of this scope for conspiracy and underhanded partisan trickery is due to the untidiness of the bill as it exists currently. Charles Chauvel noted in his Supplementary Order Paper on this bill: “the Attorney-General’s report issued under section 9 New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 points out [that] the Bill is too broadly cast.” Likewise the definition of “lobbying activity” given is broad and unwieldy and in much need of greater clarification and honing and polishing by a select committee and the people on it. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I agree. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Mr Mallard is agreeing with the Attorney-General. This bill also seeks to legislate against lobbying activity only when it is conducted for payment. I will just say that bit again; you may not have quite caught it. I will try it again. This bill also seeks to legislate against lobbying activity only when it is conducted for payment. Where does payment begin and end? Furthermore where does this leave non-salaried lobbying for economic gain? This lack of definition of “payment” and “economic gain” creates confusion and leaves the door open for widescale circumvention of the system that this bill has been designed to create. 
New Zealand as a nation has always prided itself on both its transparency and its freedom of speech but if this bill rests solely on these aspects then far from being transparent it is as murky as old dishwater. Indeed rather than focusing on the exchanging of ideas and MPs learning through giving everyone a fair shake the bill could proffer a very Hollywood style of an “us versus them” mind-set which has no place in contemporary democratic politics. 
The largest misrepresentation the Greens appear to have gleaned from fiction when creating the bill appears to be the influence that lobbyists have over politicians. It may surprise them to know that New Zealand is first in the world out of 192 countries as the least corrupt country in the world according to Transparency International. Holly is nodding; she knows that— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! The member must use the honourable member’s full name. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: I am glad to see Ms Holly Walker is nodding in agreement. Thank you Mr Speaker. Although we always strive to better ourselves when it comes to transparency this bill has a long way to go before it achieves that. 
Let me conclude by stating a hope that every bill passed into law by this House must have not just a noble intent but a positive effect on the lives of those governed by it. Without this even the best intentions are in need of redemption. Thank you.