Finlayson Christopher: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13537] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 That was the Green member Metiria Turei. Dr Worth mentioned to me a day or so ago that he once hired her and she was very good then but what is apparent is that she obviously left Simpson Grierson because she was not very hot on the law of trusts. It is apparent from her work in the Justice and Electoral Committee that she does not understand fundamental principles of trust law and that will become apparent in the course of the debate in the Committee stage—after all she is the person who wanted to ban donations from cake stalls. 
As we know Part 2 is a very important part of the Electoral Finance Bill and indeed the National Party has identified 28 key points that it wishes to address in the course of a clause by clause analysis. It was quite heartening to hear from the Minister in the chair the Hon Annette King this afternoon that she too wants there to be a full debate on clause 80(d) so that she can obtain guidance on the roles and responsibilities of members of Parliament. 
I think it is very important before I get into my particular clause by clause analysis to say a word or two about procedural matters. From the way the Minister was talking yesterday it seemed that the donations regime had been part of this bill from day one. That is not in fact the case. It is quite clear that the new donations regime was dreamt up at the eleventh hour during the course of the select committee considerations. It was dreamt up by the Greens and was presented to members of the select committee as a fait accompli. 
Let me just recount for the purpose of the record that at the meeting on 29 October Metiria Turei proposed that the bill be amended to provide for a donations regime affecting political parties and candidates. No papers were provided by Ms Turei although she admitted she had prepared an outline of the proposed scheme which she would not provide to the National members of the committee. So much for the committee working together! The chairperson instructed the advisers to proceed to draft the proposal that very day. Then at the meeting of 1 November a summary of the donations regime and of the proposed draft clauses was tabled. The donations regime had been cobbled together in 2 days and it had been agreed to in a backroom deal entered into between the Greens and the majority members of the committee. It is a very important point that it was a secret deal—and Metiria Turei is always very concerned about secret deals and secret payments from trusts. Well this was a secret deal instigated by that worldwide expert in trust law Metiria Turei! There has been no public consultation on these proposals. They were not in the bill as introduced and there was little or no consultation with members of the select committee. 
Before people such as Metiria Turei and other members of Parliament complain about what they say is the obstructive attitude of the National Party they should reflect on the complete lack of consideration when it comes to the issue of donations. The National Party had made it quite clear that if issues about transparency were concerning the public they would be addressed and the National Party would not get in the way of that process. Instead we had this highly regulatory regime cobbled together in 2 days and imposed on the minority without any consultation under the outstanding chairing of the committee by Lynne Pillay. What is more the select committee minority wanted these proposals to go back out to the public for a further round of consultation and the public were essentially told to go and see a taxidermist because that would not happen. I say it is very poor lawmaking to have this kind of regime introduced without proper consideration. To say that 600 submissions were made to the select committee and that 100 people were heard is misleading. On key aspects of the bill and particularly on the new donations regime there was no public consultation whatsoever. 
That provides the background for how Subparts 1 and 1A and Subparts 2 to 4 of this part were introduced into this legislation.