edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Upston Louise: Electoral Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Upston Louise: Electoral Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1340] 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I am delighted to speak in support of the Electoral Amendment Bill. I am speaking in support of a bill that repeals ad hoc anti-democratic legislation that ironically I might add was the responsibility of the previous member for Taupo in his then role of Minister of Justice. While the people of Taupo were concerned and outraged about increasing levels of violence in their town the then Minister of Justice was busy with the Electoral Finance Act. Instead of progressing laws on gangs and violent crime the local MP was focusing on the Electoral Finance Act which was strangling the voice of democracy and stealing the rights of ordinary New Zealanders to fully participate in the democratic process. 
Despite grave concerns from the Electoral Commission and the Human Rights Commission the Electoral Finance Act was rammed through. The result was poor quality law that was unworkable and unintelligible even to the Minister responsible for it. What was the impact of this law? It was a playing field that was so blatantly tipped in favour of the Government it was shocking. It was self-serving it was created in self-interest and it was all about self-preservation. 
Kiwis value fairness and they saw right through the previous Government’s desperate attempts to cling to power. On election day the message was clear: New Zealanders wanted change and one of the changes they wanted was the repeal of the Electoral Finance Act. This is what the National Government is delivering on tonight. 
The Electoral Finance Act created confusion and chaos and it was all about protecting the Government. The priority of the Government should have been protecting the public. The Electoral Finance Act was given a higher priority than legislation that would create a safer community not just for the people of my electorate but for New Zealand. 
 Let us make a contrast and look at our Minister of Justice the Hon Simon Power. He has his priorities straight. Within the 100-day window he has introduced legislation to remove the right of the worst repeat violent offenders to be released on parole. He has introduced legislation to clamp down on gangs toughen bail laws and require DNA testing for every person arrested for an imprisonable offence. He has also given the police the power to issue on-the-spot protection orders for victims of domestic violence. This Minister has his priorities clear—all this and he has introduced the Electoral Amendment Bill. 
The new National Government will work towards having an enduring legislative framework to guide electoral finance—legislation that will involve all parties in Parliament. This will ensure that the legislation is not only fair but also actually workable and that the law will ensure democracy in our electoral finance laws.
Vote: Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Vote: Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:652;Page:1368] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 112 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Power Simon: Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Power Simon: Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:652;Page:1366] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I will take just a quick call on Part 2 and in particular clause 32(2)(b) which relates to matters of interception of a private communication and proposes an amendment to the Crimes Act 1961 by further amendment of section 216B(4). I think it would be worth the Minister in the chair the Hon Judith Collins giving the Committee a bit of a guide on this issue of interception of communication and in particular how crucial that form of surveillance will be. Members will note that my request is in direct reference to those matters as they relate to the Crimes Act. This is from memory of what was said at the Law and Order Committee a very complex matter that involves both Vodafone and Telecom having agreements of understanding—or something like that—with the Department of Corrections. 
The other interesting thing as I understand it is that no one technology around a cell tower will work necessarily at all prisons. Different types of technologies have to be used in different types of prisons depending on their configuration and obviously their location. For example at the old Mount Eden Prison my understanding from the select committee was that should those towers close to Mount Eden be blocked for the purposes of cellphone use within that prison—of course it begs the question why inmates have cellphones in the first place—there may be a risk that that will affect the wider population. So different technologies are used. I know that the Minister in the chair has a particular interest in this matter because I heard her discuss it briefly in Part 1. But I think that in reference to the Crimes Act and the amendment to that enactment it would be worth the Committee getting a bit of further information from the Minister.
Guy Nathan: Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Guy Nathan: Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:652;Page:1368] 
NATHAN GUY (National—Otaki) 
: 
 It is worthwhile making a contribution particularly on clauses 1 2 and 3 including the title. I can think of a whole lot of names for this bill: the “Corrections Amendment Bill (No. 2)” or the “Labour Sitting on its Hands and Doing Nothing Bill” and the list could go on. Fortunately this is a Government that is keen to progress things and get on top of this legislation. It is important to realise the parameters of this bill. We have had some very good contributions from the Committee this evening and I thought it worthwhile summarising this bill and what it captures. It captures a lot and it has gone through a very robust select committee process. It will toughen up what happens at the moment in the Department of Corrections and I believe that it is very important that we do more. The Minister Judith Collins made a very good contribution talking about the cellphone towers and the current plans the Minister has lined up in that regard. They are simple little things like extending the powers for searches which one would presume was common sense. This is making another important step progressing towards that. 
In regard to toughening up on contraband—we all know that this stuff is smuggled through; it is thrown over the fence. Things have to improve in that regard. We have heard the Minister talk about prohibiting communication. These prisoners are very shrewd. They can get on the cellphone or the landline and have coded conversations. Some of them can run gangs from inside the prison fence. This bill goes quite a long way towards toughening up the law in that regard. 
We had very good contributions from other members on this side of the Chamber this evening. Simon Power talked about the special contribution made through the select committee process. All in all this bill is a step in the right direction and I commend the Minister for bringing it forward to the Chamber this evening. This is a very very busy Government. We are getting on and we are trying to make our communities safer.
Turei Metiria: Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Turei Metiria: Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:652;Page:1368] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I will make a very brief contribution to this debate about the Green Party’s opposition to the Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2). My former colleague Nandor Tanczos spoke on the bill’s first reading and was involved when this bill was at the Law and Order Committee. He opposed this legislation at the first reading on behalf of the Greens and none of the concerns that he raised in the earlier stages have been dealt with. 
I note that the Minister of Corrections spent quite some time at the beginning of the Committee stage of this bill talking about how dangerous it was for staff in prisons but this legislation actually attacks staff in prisons. The Minister herself has displayed contempt for staff in prisons in the past and she did so again most recently today with her failure to show any support for the head of the Department of Corrections. 
It is a bit difficult to take the Minister’s concern for prison staff seriously when she is passing legislation that will increase the powers of search in non-prisoner accessible areas thereby increasing the level of surveillance on staff at a time when staff are under siege—that is absolutely true—when the political environment for Department of Corrections staff is extremely difficult and when the financial support for prison staff in terms of the resources they need to manage the culture inside prisons is very difficult for them to access. What do we do? We end up passing legislation in this Chamber that makes it even more difficult for staff to feel confident that they have the confidence of this Parliament and of the community to do the job that is so important—that is to protect the community and keep the community safe. The Green Party will not support this legislation.
Vote: Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Vote: Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:652;Page:1370] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 112 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Vote: Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:652;Page:1370] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 112 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Woodhouse Michael: Electoral Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Woodhouse Michael: Electoral Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1357] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I rise in support of this bill being passed. In doing so I do not want to repeat the mostly erudite submissions that have been made by colleagues on both sides of the House. I do want to add just a little reflection on the Electoral Finance Act. 
We have heard a lot that the Act is flawed. It is flawed not only because it was rammed through against the conventions of bipartisanship that underpin electoral law and because it was a handbrake on democracy and freedom of expression but also in my estimation because it was a slight on the intelligence of the voting public. It said to the people of New Zealand that they were a bit ignorant and did not actually have the wherewithal to discern the messages being sent to them by political parties unions and other people interested in our democracy. I accept that there may need to be a tightening and clarification of the law but the Electoral Finance Act was so far out of proportion to the problem it attempted to solve that to say it threw the baby out with the bathwater is a huge understatement. 
I have a confession to make. I was the recipient of four pairs of National Party - branded socks from former member Katherine Rich as has been mentioned by the Attorney-General during the second reading debate. They were unauthorised. I wore them nearly every day of the campaign and I must confess that I probably sat cross-legged exposing the brand at the front of campaign debates in Dunedin North. To think that the poor public of Dunedin North were somehow subliminally influenced by such promotion or that I risked breaching the Act over a pair of socks underscores how ridiculous the legislation is. 
So I look forward to a new law that has regard for our citizens’ inherent ability to discern the issues and make informed decisions without being treated like children. On the other hand I would not be at all averse to the replacement legislation when introduced containing a provision that prohibits a certain party leader’s yellow jacket. It might be somewhat undemocratic to do so but it would end the crime against fashion that is being perpetrated against us.
Mackey Moana: Electoral Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Mackey Moana: Electoral Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1357] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I will take a very short call on the third reading of the Electoral Amendment Bill because I know the House is desperate to pass the bill despite the filibustering from the Government benches. All I will say to the Minister Simon Power is that we are only in our fourth week of Parliament and already Government members are having to filibuster their own legislation because they do not know what they doing. They do not know what we are going to do once we get past this legislation. I say to the Minister that we must make sure that in these cross-party talks we uphold the battle of ideas not the battle of cheque books—that is “one person one vote” not “one dollar one vote”. Labour says: “Let’s get on and vote on this now.”
Guy Nathan: Electoral Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Guy Nathan: Electoral Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1356] 
NATHAN GUY (National—Otaki) 
: 
 It is important that I make a contribution to the third reading debate on the Electoral Amendment Bill. I remind all those people who are listening this evening that Labour rammed the Electoral Finance Bill through under urgency with very poor consultation and did not take into account the human rights submissions. It was one of the pieces of legislation that brought down the Labour Government—just one of them. The other I believe was the social engineering legislation and then right across New Zealand the electorates said: “We’ve had enough.” 
The electoral finance legislation was a bit like a spider web. It went across everything. It moved the campaign period from 90 days right out to a whole year and financial agents had to have their own physical address on anything that was promoted. In the past it has been fine to have PO Box—people could be found—but then the need to have the physical address of the financial agent caused many people to decide that the legislation was not well-thought-through. Many MPs could not find financial agents who wanted to put their name to that legislation because no one actually knew how far reaching it would be. That was the real concern that a whole lot of New Zealanders had. The electoral finance legislation was a spider web. It was suffocating freedom of speech. 
I need to acknowledge the good work of the Minister of Justice Simon Power who has brought the Electoral Amendment Bill to the House this evening. John Key rightly said it will be very important in terms of getting our democracy right. The most important part I believe is covered in the explanatory note which states: “the Government will undertake a considered process involving all parliamentary parties”—something Labour did not do—“and the public to further examine the reform of the electoral finance law. The stage 2 reforms will be enacted in 2010 for the 2011 general election.” 
It is hugely important that this legislation is right because we will all be elected under it at the next election. That is why this Government is very keen to have open dialogue with all political parties to ensure that we get it right. So on that note I stand here to support the third reading of the Electoral Amendment Bill.
Vote: Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Vote: Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:652;Page:1370] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 112 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Clause 2 agreed to.
Finlayson Christopher: Electoral Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Finlayson Christopher: Electoral Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1347] 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 Mr Parker’s generous and statesmanlike contributions remind me of the line from John F Kennedy’s inaugural address that “civility is not a sign of weakness and sincerity is always subject to proof.” I think that the test of sincerity always being subject to proof applies to all parties in this House as we enact legislation that will sweep away this odious Electoral Finance Act. This legislation provides us all with the opportunity to have a constructive multiparty discussion on this critical matter but not for ourselves. Sometimes there is an almost holier-than-thou attitude coming through the Greens’ speeches—that all the other parties are really only concerned about themselves. That is wrong. We are all concerned ultimately about doing something that is in the public interest. 
Thank goodness that as a member of Parliament I can finally move on from this poorly drafted Electoral Finance Act. 
Hon Simon Power 
: Let it go! 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I have let it go—from the chaotic select committee hearings under the guidance of Lynne Pillay; from the inability of the previous Minister of Justice Mr Burton to answer questions on the issue in the House; from the bluster of the former “Minister for Common Sense” Annette King; from the historical inaccuracies of Mr Chauvel; from the contradictory positions of the Greens; from the failure of the previous Attorney-General to provide a section 7 report; and above all from the poisonous atmosphere that infected this House throughout the latter stages of 2007. 
All issues are on the table; all issues will be objectively and honestly considered. I believe that if we all work together then issues like the matter of third parties which Mr Parker referred to will be able to be addressed. However if we are to deal with the notion of third parties then I hope we have a different name emerging from the select committee. I do not like that term. It suggests that the public are somehow interlopers into the games of politicians whereas in actual fact they are the principals and we are the servants. But if all parties listen to the public—and there will be a real opportunity to do that—and all members of Parliament do their job then I believe we will be able to enact properly enduring legislation.
Parker David: Electoral Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Parker David: Electoral Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1347] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I thank the Minister who just resumed his seat the Hon Simon Power for his offers of cooperation around the process of developing the successor to the electoral finance legislation. The test of the Government’s future conduct on this legislation will be whether it sees fit to compromise on these issues. The Government has criticised the prior legislation—the Electoral Finance Act—as being only the vision of those parties that supported it and it has said that there was an unwillingness on the part of the then Government to compromise in respect of some of the views of the National Party. Maybe the Labour Party made a mistake in respect of the prior legislation—although I have to say that at times we tried to engage with the National Party and found it less than willing to engage on some of the issues. Notwithstanding that—I do not want to be churlish about this—I think the test as to whether National is willing to engage will be whether it is willing to compromise on some of these issues just as we are being asked to compromise on some of them. 
I thank Mr Boscawen for his contribution; I think he made some good points. If regimes are to have the confidence of the people and are to provide the sorts of frameworks that people can rely upon then they ought to be meaningful. We ought not to have laws that pretend to control things but in fact do not control them. If areas are due for proper control then they ought to be properly controlled. If there are areas where proper control might be desirable but in practice is not possible then we ought not to pretend otherwise. I thank the member for that contribution. I look forward to the consultation that the Minister of Justice outlined.
Parker David: Electoral Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Parker David: Electoral Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1345] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Just for clarification the Minister said that it will avoid people having to file declarations— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: That is not a point of order. I have given leave for the member to make an explanation. The debate has concluded; we have moved on. [ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet. The member should seek leave. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I seek leave to make a query arising out of the Minister’s statement because to my hearing the answer was ambiguous. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought to ask the Minister a question. Is anyone opposed to that course of action being taken? There appears to be no one. The member has the right to ask the question. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The Minister said that the effect of clause 19 was that the need to file both a declaration under one piece of legislation and the other was avoided. It left me with the impression that no declaration was required. I understood that the proposition as Mr Hodgson had put it was that one declaration would be required. Thank you. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am not sure whether we need a response to that. Will the nod suffice?
Vote: Electoral Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Electoral Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1345] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Hodgson Pete: Electoral Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Hodgson Pete: Electoral Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1344] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I will not spend much time over this; I promise. It does raise the question as to why clause 19(1) is needed. Is it to avoid a double return? Is that precisely the point? Some people are nodding; they seem to know that. 
Hon Simon Power 
: Yes. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am satisfied and I thank you.
Power Simon: Electoral Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Power Simon: Electoral Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1343] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 First in respect of Mr Hodgson’s query regarding the regulatory power I give the undertaking to the Committee of the whole House that in the event that that regulation-making power is utilised I will adopt the methodology that he outlines. Secondly although I think he got there in the end I will look at clause 19(2). None of the obligations under the Electoral Finance Act in respect of those party returns would be affected by clause 19(1).
Power Simon: Electoral Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Power Simon: Electoral Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1343] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I thank the Committee of the whole House for its support on Part 1 which was staggeringly quick but I do think it is worth making a comment in respect of Part 2. As Minister in charge of the bill I would be remiss if I did not at the very least make two quick points. First Subpart 2 “Transitional and savings provisions” outlines obligations regarding the 2008 election expenses and 2008 donations regime both of which are to continue during the interim period along with the donations regime for parties from the 2008 regime. 
It is worth just notifying the Committee about clause 23 although I am sure many more scholarly than I have spotted the clause which relates to transitional regulations. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Sorry—what clause again? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Clause 23—I say to Miss Dyson. This clause is important because it is a bit odd. It allows regulation for transitional arrangements to be made in the event that a matter is essentially not up to scratch. This regulation-making power expires on the close of 1 March 2011 and on close of that date is repealed. This is designed to allow the Governor-General from time to time to make regulations prescribing transitional and savings provisions concerning the coming into force of the Act which may be in addition to or in place of the transitional and savings provisions of this subpart. In other words it is a kind of regulatory catch-all in case it becomes clear during the transitional period that it is needed. I do not imagine it will occur but in any event the Ministry of Justice and I believed it was probably prudent to just have that regulation-making power sitting there. I do not intend to add anything further on that point.
Power Simon: Electoral Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Power Simon: Electoral Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1345] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I seek leave of the Committee of the whole House to clarify matters in respect of clause 19 in Part 2. I realise that this is out of order but I seek leave. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Is there anyone opposed to the Minister giving the explanation? There being no one opposed leave is granted. 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: I have just received further advice on the issue raised by Mr Hodgson in respect of clause 19. I want to be absolutely clear so that Committee of the whole House members do not think I have put the wrong thought in their minds. I am advised that clause 19 will prevent political parties from having to file annual donations and returns in 2008-09 under both the Electoral Act and the Electoral Finance Act.
Vote: Electoral Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Electoral Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1342] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Vote: Electoral Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Electoral Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1342] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Electoral Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a second time.
Macindoe Tim: Electoral Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Macindoe Tim: Electoral Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1341] 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 Eighteen months ago New Zealanders were incensed when a Labour Government and its equally culpable allies were so desperate to cling to office at any cost that they rode roughshod over the longstanding convention that electoral laws were enacted by consensus in our Parliament. It was a Labour-led Parliament that trampled over the precious democratic tradition that our forebears fought for and in many instances died for in two world wars. It was an election where non-MP candidates had to play by a much tougher set of rules than did the MPs who had written the rules. That is what we expect in Zimbabwe but not here in New Zealand. 
The evidence that the Electoral Finance Act inhibited our democracy was clear every week in local newspapers throughout the country last year. Labour Progressive New Zealand First and Green MPs who had supported the Act effectively prevented candidates outside Parliament from advertising their candidacy for most of the year. There was clear evidence in my city of Hamilton that the impact of the Act was significant. Mid-year I knocked on doors and met many people who did not know that it was an election year because there had been none of the usual campaign advertising from non-MP candidates at that point. Just a few weeks before the election few voters knew the names of their local candidates other than sitting MPs because of the gross imbalance in advertising that the Act enforced. The incumbent Labour MP who was my main opponent was legally entitled to outspend me by more than four to one in the bell-wether Hamilton West electorate throughout 2008. That was outrageous enough but worse was the fact that the Act so fundamentally suppressed the democratic rights of members of the public and of an array of lobby groups that many dared not take advantage of election-year interest to promote their causes and concerns for fear of incurring heavy penalties under the Act. 
That is why the Electoral Commission reached the alarming conclusion that the Electoral Finance Act was having “a chilling effect” on participation in our election last year. So I am very proud to be part of a new National-led Government that is determined to restore our democratic tradition. A fair and workable electoral finance regime is a fundamental pillar of any democracy; that is why repeal of this Act is one of our priorities on coming into office and that is why we will close the book on that sorry chapter in our electoral history and work with all parties in this House to reach a broad consensus on the laws that will replace it.
Pillay Lynne: Electoral Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Pillay Lynne: Electoral Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1341] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 I am standing along with my colleagues to speak in support of the Electoral Amendment Bill. In doing so I remind the House of the fundamental principles of our democracy: the transparency the accountability and the ability for all New Zealanders to participate in the democratic process irrespective of their bank balance or their ability to raise funds. We know sadly that in practice that did not work. We know that in fact in the last two inquiries into the general election there were concerns. There were concerns around the mockeries of those principles that are part of electoral law. We saw the rorting of the third-party provisions and the most obvious example of course was the exercise undertaken by the Exclusive Brethren. We saw the inadequacies and rorts that happened under the declaration of the donations regime and the mockery of the 3-month election period—we all know that campaigning starts much earlier than 3 months before the election. 
I would be the first to admit that the Electoral Finance Act has been cumbersome but I also say to the House that we have not seen those rorts under this legislation— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: That we know of yet. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: —or certainly not that we know of yet. I look forward and in good faith to National working with all parties in this House to ensure that we have legislation that delivers on those fundamental principles of transparency accountability and the ability for all New Zealanders to participate irrespective of their bank balance. As a member of the Labour caucus I really look forward to being able to work with all parties on that. It will be a difficult task; we all know that. But I think that with commitment and goodwill we may well come out with legislation that delivers on those principles and I know that this is something that probably many many countries are grappling with. So I join my colleagues in supporting the repeal of the Electoral Finance Act but with a very strong commitment to ensuring that the new legislation encompasses all principles that we hold dear in democracy. It would be a joke and a farce and certainly very distressing if we saw legislation come through where those rorts occurred again. Thank you very much.
Worth Richard: Electoral Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Worth Richard: Electoral Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1338] 
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I am very pleased to support the second reading of the Electoral Amendment Bill. No tears will be shed over the repeal of the Electoral Finance Act 2007. I wish to make just two comments. The first is that our Government is delivering on its promises. We are committed to working collaboratively with all parties in Parliament to gain broad consensus on electoral reform. The second comment is that it is fair to say that the legacy of the Labour-led Government in the last term was an electoral finance regime that was neither fair nor workable. Opposition members—and good on them—now acknowledge that fault and flaw.
Vote: Electoral Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Electoral Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1329] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Electoral Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a first time.
Adams Amy: Electoral Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Adams Amy: Electoral Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1326] 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of the Electoral Amendment Bill and having lived through the best part of 2008 with the Electoral Finance Act as a millstone around my neck—as so many of the members in this House will have found—I am very pleased to now have the opportunity to stand in this House and say it has to go. Its legacy in my opinion will be a year of chaos confusion and lost opportunities. Long before I had thought of standing as a political candidate at the election I was like many other New Zealanders a vocal opponent of the Electoral Finance Act. I took that stance because I was concerned it would act as a serious impediment to full and open debate in 1 year out of every 3 years. And can members guess what? It did. Even the Electoral Commission has talked about the chilling effect the Act had on political participation. 
When the New Zealand Law Society told the previous Government of its concerns about the Act and the restrictions it would put on people’s ability to participate in political debate the Labour Government should have listened to the society instead of continuing to ram through its own agenda. One of the bizarre effects of the Act meant that from the moment I was selected in May 2008 that Act applied to me retrospectively and suddenly everything that I had spent over the previous 5 months from 1 January might have somehow been considered to be within the inexplicable scope of what now became election advertising. If we consider the way the Act extended the definition of electoral advertising I do find it somewhat surprising that the Green Party supported it given that the Act had the strange effect of making it financially impossible for electorates such as my own to reuse existing hoarding frames and making us use new timber instead for that purpose. If the electoral advertising rules were unclear and hard to work with the third-party rules were just as obscure taking up unnecessary volumes of court time and money. 
A fair and workable system of electoral rules is fundamental in any democracy; the Act is neither. It is anti-democratic and it shuts down legitimate public debate in 1 year out of every 3 years. Furthermore it meant that the general public at the 2008 election got less information from and about political candidates than they otherwise might have got and probably deserved to get because of the necessity for each candidate to take an overly cautious financial approach due to the inherent interpretation problems with regard to the Act. 
I end by saying I am hardly surprised to hear the Opposition now agrees that the Act should be repealed given that in the end it failed to deliver the result the Opposition anticipated it would. What we need instead is a fair considered multiparty approach to our election rules. I am very pleased to see that is now what we will get.
Goudie Sandra: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Goudie Sandra: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:652;Page:1311] 
9.  
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: What reports has she received on the performance of the Department of Corrections? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I have received an alarming report from the Auditor-General on the department’s management of offenders on parole. Between 1 May 2007 and 4 May 2008 the Auditor-General examined the case files of 100 offenders 52 of whom were high-risk and on the offender warning register. Unfortunately that examination identified serious failings in the management of parole. 
Jonathan Young 
: What were the key findings of the report of the Auditor-General into the management of offenders on parole? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The Auditor-General found that in most of the 100 case files the department had not followed one or more of its own sentence management requirements. Those requirements are in place to keep the public safe and the public has a right to expect them to be followed. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Oh here’s the guilty man. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Too much coke eh Nick? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will ask his question. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Will the Minister guarantee that National will fund additional probation officers and prison staff to ensure that staffing keeps pace with workloads created by the increasing numbers being dealt with by the corrections department as Labour did when it was in office and funded in last year’s Budget an extra 89 probation officers as the Department of Corrections requested? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: It is interesting that that member should ask that question because when he gets the chance to read the report he will see that his Government did not properly fund the probation staff in the service as noted by the Auditor-General. 
Jonathan Young 
: Did the Auditor-General make any recommendations regarding the management of offenders on parole? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The Auditor-General made 20 recommendations most of which urged the department to always follow its own procedures. Because of the potential risk to public safety any non-compliance with requirements and procedures compromises the safety of the public. I support all the recommendations of the Auditor-General and I am treating the findings of this report extremely seriously. 
David Garrett 
: Does the Minister still have confidence in Mr Barry Matthews given the series of disasters in his department during his watch the latest of which we have just heard about and another of which was the multimillion-dollar drug ring apparently run by cellphone from Auckland prison? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I am confident that Mr Matthews is fully aware of how seriously I view this issue.
Barker Rick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Barker Rick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:652;Page:1310] 
8.  
Hon RICK BARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Veterans’ Affairs 
: Is she doing anything to increase awareness of veterans’ entitlements? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Veterans’ Affairs) 
: 
 Yes. My department is well aware of my desire to ensure that veterans are aware of their entitlements and I meet regularly with the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association and the Chief of Defence Force to ensure that the department is responding to the needs of veterans. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Does the Minister’s statement on veterans’ pensions that “If you don’t ask for it you don’t get it.” signal a change in policy towards veterans’ pensions of being more bureaucratic mean spirited and uncooperative with veterans; and how does this square with the public sentiment that we should be generous to our veterans for their sacrifice and service to our country? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Well it does not and that is because I did not make that statement. I am happy that the member has asked the question which gives me the opportunity to correct the matter. I made a written statement to the reporter. That statement is in the document I am holding. I will seek leave at the end of this question to table it. It will show that the reporter has completely misquoted me. What I did say is this: “Veterans should get their full entitlements if they wish.” That was the statement; it was misquoted. I will seek leave to table a complaint to the editor of the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 and a full transcript of the entire email correspondence and I will be seeking an apology. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Is everybody else wrong except the Minister in her approach to these issues or will she simply try to put her name on the achievements of the previous Government of a historic memorandum of understanding with Viet Nam veterans moving to restructure the veterans’ organisation and rewriting the War Pensions Act; and what will be her achievement for veterans? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Perhaps that member did not listen. I did not make that statement. The correct statement that I made was in writing. It is here. It will be tabled. 
I seek leave to table the following: a letter from me to the editor of the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 complaining about misreporting; and correspondence in the form of emails all of which state exactly what was said and how it was said. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that set of documents being tabled? There is no objection. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Smith Lockwood: Electoral Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Smith Lockwood: Electoral Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1318] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I call John Boscawen and in calling him I point out that there was confusion when he rose to take the call previously. I am going to allocate him 10 minutes if he wishes to take it for his contribution.
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Otago District Health Board—Removal of Chairperson 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Otago District Health Board—Removal of Chairperson 
[Volume:652;Page:1317] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the honourable member for his contribution. We will not debate it further today because I will seek further advice on this matter. As I have stated clearly I accept this is a serious issue and there is no way that I want to compromise the rights of this Parliament. I will make sure that the sub judice issue is looked at very very carefully.
Pillay Lynne: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — Second Reading 
Pillay Lynne: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1377] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to stand in support of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill which of course is a Labour bill. I think it is really good that the National Government in its 100 days of action has at last introduced a bill that has real teeth and that will do a considerable bit in terms of addressing issues in this country. 
This bill is based on the principle that crime does not pay. We know that is the case because Labour spent a lot of time preparing this bill. The bill is not window dressing; it is a bill with teeth. I hope that Martin Gallagher who chaired the Law and Order Committee is at home tonight watching television— 
Grant Robertson 
: He will be. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: He will be watching television. I hope he is watching Parliament TV because I think he will be as amazed as we are that in these 100 days of action National has chosen this bill. It puts its other bills to shame. I really have nothing else to say other than that I agree with the eloquent speech of Chester Borrows and that I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
Parker David: Urgent Debates Declined — Otago District Health Board—Removal of Chairperson 
Parker David: Urgent Debates Declined — Otago District Health Board—Removal of Chairperson 
[Volume:652;Page:1317] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Does the honourable member want to introduce new material on this issue? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Yes just to assist. I do not think Mr Williamson’s point does assist because it says that when sentence has been passed there is no matter for you to consider as to whether there would be prejudice but that does not mean to say that there is necessarily prejudice in respect of Standing Order 111 at an earlier time. It will still be a matter for your determination as to whether there is likely to be prejudice. I suggest that Mr Mallard’s point is still worthy of consideration.
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Otago District Health Board—Removal of Chairperson 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Otago District Health Board—Removal of Chairperson 
[Volume:652;Page:1317] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the honourable member for his assistance. That has always been my understanding I must say. As I have promised the honourable member Trevor Mallard if I am wrong in believing that sentencing is a crucial part of the sub judice rule and on the fact of whether a judge is involved in deciding a case as distinct from a jury I am very happy to come back to the House because these are important issues for the House. I think the rights of the House are hugely important and we should not be compromising them. However likewise the relationship with the courts is also hugely important and we must not trample over that important difference. If there is anything wrong with the ruling I have given today I will certainly come back to the House on it but what the Hon Maurice Williamson has just reminded us of was certainly my understanding of the situation and that deals with that issue.
Williamson Maurice: Urgent Debates Declined — Otago District Health Board—Removal of Chairperson 
Williamson Maurice: Urgent Debates Declined — Otago District Health Board—Removal of Chairperson 
[Volume:652;Page:1317] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 It may help you Mr Speaker if you look at Standing Order 112(2) which states: “Standing Order 111 ceases to have effect in any case when the verdict and sentence have been announced or judgment given.”
Mallard Trevor: Urgent Debates Declined — Otago District Health Board—Removal of Chairperson 
Mallard Trevor: Urgent Debates Declined — Otago District Health Board—Removal of Chairperson 
[Volume:652;Page:1316] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Thank you Mr Speaker and I apologise for taking more time but Standing Order 111 is very clear in its last clause—“if it appears to the Speaker that there is a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the trial of the case.” I think it would be a very long stretch for you to rule that comment in this House on the chair’s dismissal provides a real and substantial danger of prejudice to a sentencing by a High Court judge. I think our judges are well above that.