Tremain Chris: Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Tremain Chris: Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10728] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 Elections are one of the most important—if not the most important—part of any democracy. They are supposed to be a testing of ideas and personalities a debate about the future and a testing of the mettle of our potential leaders both locally and nationally. I hark back to my first election in 2005 for the seat of Napier. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Hark back? 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: It is certainly going back a few years. It was a testing of personalities if I recall the candidates I was up against. 
John Hayes 
: Well your opposition had no personality. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Ha ha! I was up against Russell Fairbrother a debater of some merit. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Much like the member. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Oh I could not put myself there. There were certainly different personalities in that test. Anyway it was a testing of personalities; that is the point I want to make. It was a testing of ideals and fortunately at that particular time I was lucky enough to win the seat. 
In any democracy an election needs to be a fair fight. The reality is somewhat different as many new candidates entering a political race quickly find out. There is no doubt that sitting MPs have the competitive advantage: 3 years of incumbency 3 years of school visits 3 years of constituency clinics 3 years of galas school prize-givings and assemblies 3 years of being in the newspaper and 3 years to build an awareness and a positive brand with their constituency. There is no doubt that the political tide comes and goes. However good constituency MPs have the advantage of incumbency which opposing candidates must battle against from day one. It is tough but that is the reality. 
No law will change that and this particular bill will not change it either. But the competitive advantage of incumbency has been somewhat reduced with MMP. In many instances list MPs are able to establish a pseudo-constituency office and make out that they are the local MP. That effectively means that the taxpayer is funding a 3-year campaign against the incumbent MP. I am not sure that the wider electorate is particularly happy about that but hey that is the way it is. Once again it will not change under this legislation. Those anomalies aside elections need to be regulated to be as fair as possible. It will be the job of the Electoral Legislation Committee of which I am a member to ensure that the final legislation is an equitable playing field. 
Throughout time immemorial human beings have sought ways to obtain competitive advantage within the rules that are in place. It is just part of the human spirit to try to push the boundaries—that Kiwi spirit. If we think about the America’s Cup campaign and the rules that were in place there we see that the amount of money that was spent—and the number of lawyers who were employed to bend the rules—was incredible. Many lawyers and accountants spend their entire professional lives trying to find ways around existing laws in order to gain advantage for their clients. And election law dare I say it is no different. 
I am sure that immediately this law is passed political boffins will be looking for ways to improve their lot to improve their competitive advantage and to get around the rules. It is therefore very important that the members of the committee obligate themselves to challenge this legislation to ensure that it is as robust as possible. Most of us on the committee have served a couple of elections—and Mr Hughes is one of those people. I think that that experience will be important as we steer the bill through the Committee stage. 
Let me give members an example of a situation that currently pushes the boundaries. I will be asking the committee to have a close look at the current position of MPs who own their own office through a trust. They are obliged to provide a market valuation for the rent—no problems there. All do that and most pay the amount of that valuation. However some do not charge the full cost of the rent to the Parliamentary Service. The MPs will say that they are saving the taxpayer money but will then go on to spend their entire taxpayer budget; the taxpayer saves not one cent. Effectively the MPs have gifted themselves a pecuniary interest from their trusts or companies which allows them a much better office location while they are still able to spend their full out-of-office budgets on advertising and other things to help lift their profiles. There is not much problem with this outside the election period although I still believe that this gift should be declared in an MP’s document of pecuniary interest. 
The real issue that we need to turn our thoughts to comes during the election period. Here is the question: if an MP has a high-profile corner office—effectively a billboard—for which the Parliamentary Service is not paying the full cost should the benefit of that additional spend be included as part of an MP’s electioneering cost for the regulated period? My argument would be that not to include that cost would create an unfair advantage. I refer members to the definition of “advertising expenses” which is amended in Part 1 of the bill when section 3(1)(a)(ii) is substituted in clause 4: “the reasonable market value of any material used or applied towards the advertisement that is provided free of charge or below reasonable market value;”. This definition brings the issue into question. It is something we will have to consider and we will have to make sure that the cost is being declared either within the election expenditure or within the document of pecuniary interests. 
In the extreme situation MPs could provide their high-profile offices at no cost to the Parliamentary Service then spend their entire parliamentary budget on self-promotion in the lead-up to the regulated period. If the office is not paid for by the Parliamentary Service then what is that office? I suggest that it is a campaign office. I am sure that there are other examples of situations like this and I am sure that committee members will be able to turn their minds to these examples and to provide what I believe should be a fair transparent and equitable playing field going into the next election. 
I look forward to sitting on the select committee and dealing with the issues that arise throughout the period of submissions. I encourage New Zealanders to submit to that committee to make their opinions heard so that we can listen to them and make sure that we deliver the very best legislation possible. It must be legislation that is agreed to as much as possible across the House so that we have a robust piece of legislation going forward. Thank you very much.