Worth Richard: Electoral Matters Bill — Second Reading 
Worth Richard: Electoral Matters Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16752] 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 National supports the Electoral Matters Bill but as I will later detail has some reservations about a proposed Supplementary Order Paper dealing with advertising hoardings for the next election. The electoral framework and its integrity is the hallmark of a constitutional democracy. New Zealand has no written constitution. There are only three developed countries in the world that do not have a written constitution and they are Israel New Zealand and the United Kingdom. That is not to say that we do not have a whole lot of written constitutional material but it falls short of a written constitution in the normal way. It is mainly a question of definition. We have an assemblage of statutes parliamentary Standing Orders and conventions. The statutes include the Constitution Act the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the Electoral Act. We are here tonight looking at the Electoral Matters Bill which proposes some amendment to the principal Act—the Electoral Act. 
There are amendments in respect of this bill that run in two directions—firstly there are amendments to the Electoral Act and secondly there are amendments to the Broadcasting Act. The history of the changes to the Electoral Act has been canvassed by other speakers. Members may recall that in 2003 in circumstances of urgency and asserted need the Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill was rushed through this Parliament under urgency suspending the application of section 55(1)(b) and (c) of the Electoral Act in respect of members of the current Parliament until the close of polling day for the next general election and requiring a member of Parliament to remain a New Zealand citizen at all times. 
Fairly or unfairly the finger was pointed at Mr Harry Duynhoven and the actions that he had taken. But it is a fair point that New Zealand law tolerates and even encourages dual nationality. That is clear from the Citizenship Act. Double nationality frequently occurs by descent as it did in Mr Duynhoven’s case. Dutch nationality has to be governed by Dutch law so there was an argument that the retrospective nature of the law that was passed in the Parliament of the Netherlands meant that Mr Duynhoven had always had Dutch nationality. In New Zealand of course the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act provides that every New Zealand citizen who is of or over 18 years qualifies for membership of the House of Representatives. 
At the time when the Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill was passed it was asserted by some that 20 members of Parliament might have been captured by the current law. Those issues are now matters of history in the context of the report back of the Electoral Matters Bill and its second reading today. 
When comparing the bill with section 55 of the Electoral Act I note that some significant changes have been made. They are reasonable changes I would assert in the context of what has been done. The inclusion of the phrase “foreign Head of State” with reference to swearing allegiance to a country is akin to swearing allegiance to King and country or Queen and country. The other change that has been made which I think is also reasonable is a change to provisions by addition so that a member of Parliament will have to vacate his or her seat if he or she accepts a nomination to a governing body that might not fall within the definition of country. That might include for example the Northern Territory. There was an opportunity for the select committee to say that it is not really on to be a mayor or a councillor and a member of Parliament in this country. But that was not the choice that was taken. 
The other significant changes are to the electoral broadcasting regime. In the time available I do not have sufficient remaining to discuss those changes in any great detail. 
Simon Power 
: Seek an extension. 
Darren Hughes 
: We’ll agree! 
RICHARD WORTH 
: With an invitation to seek an extension and with agreement from the junior Government whip that seems to be the most happy outcome. At the close of my speech I will seek a short period of say 20 minutes to make the amplifying comments that I would like to make. 
The three key points that lie behind the broadcasting regime are: firstly the Electoral Commission will not be required to invite all broadcasters which used to be the case to provide free or discounted time for election programmes and that is a good move because surprisingly not all broadcasters have any interest in politics and were not prepared to respond to those invitations; secondly to ensure that only registered parties will be eligible for allocations of time and money; and thirdly to provide more clarity around the issue of advertising during opening and closing addresses. 
When the Minister spoke at the commencement of the second reading he referred to a Supplementary Order Paper which presumably only has the status of a draft. It has caused some real concern to the Opposition parties because of the ambiguity of its content and the uncertainty of its width. The Justice and Electoral Committee made comment about the need for something to be done in connection with electoral hoardings. That was not a new issue. It has been raised a number of times most recently in the 2002 general election report where the comment was made that amendments to electoral legislation for the 2005 general election should include national guidelines on hoardings. But the problem here of course is that such changes are outside the scope of the bill. That is apparently why the Government is proposing this Supplementary Order Paper. 
The concern of the select committee was quite manifest. We were concerned that variations in local authority rules can unnecessarily impinge on free political speech and add to the costs of advertising. The Government is incredibly reluctant to amend the Resource Management Act. Why that reluctance is there is not immediately apparent unless it is that people like the Hon Marian Hobbs cling to the view that it is fine legislation. It may have good elements but time has shown it to be truly flawed. In the context of what we are talking about here the situation was that there were completely different rules between various local authority districts. So if a particular hoarding was proposed then in some districts it was necessary to make—in the jargon of the Resource Management Act—an application for a non-notified planning consent. For others a notified consent was required. 
It all underscores the fact that the administration of the resource management legislation in New Zealand is incredibly uneven and inconstant around the country. That is because different local authorities approach issues in different ways and have a different view as to how much regulation is appropriate. It is appropriate that those issues be standardised so it is good that the issue has come to the committee. 
I imagine in principle that a well-drafted Supplementary Order Paper would draw support from National. But that can scarcely be the case when the current draft Supplementary Order Paper would give to councils such swingeing powers covering the size of hoardings colour of hoardings and placement of hoardings. Just imagine if the Governor-General made regulations by way of Order in Council that required all the signs within a district to be in National Party blue.