Dunne Peter: Electoral Finance Bill — First Reading 
Dunne Peter: Electoral Finance Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10791] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 United Future will support the introduction of the Electoral Finance Bill and its reference to a select committee because it thinks there are at the moment issues relating to the way in which the financial treatment of elections occurs that need to be updated. I am one of those who think that laws relating to electoral finance and spending ought to be changed rarely that changes should occur only when circumstances permit and that they should occur on the basis of the widest possible consensus about what those changes might be. I am always wary of members of Parliament being seen to set out our own rules in this respect. I must say that as this debate has unfolded over the last few months United Future has been concerned that it is being conducted in an excessively partisan manner. 
The trick to electoral change and laws relating to electoral change is to get buy-in from the earliest stage. We have been advocating for some time that prior to the presentation of this legislation to the House it would have been prudent for the Government to involve at least the major Opposition party in the work it was doing and we consider it to be a matter of some regret that we have proceeded to this stage without that occurring. In that regard the proposal for an enhanced select committee albeit through some adjustments to the membership of the Justice and Electoral Committee is a useful and positive step. It will mean at least that all the parties in this Parliament will have the opportunity of hearing the evidence on the bill and hopefully then reaching some measured conclusions about the way forward. But I repeat the concern that it would have been better in retrospect for that to have been the case from the time the bill was being crafted because in many respects the issues that this bill deals with are not deeply contentious between the parties. 
There are some issues where people have strong views but in reality I think most of us are aware of the fact that there needs to be some tidying-up of the law in this regard. It is not acceptable in a free and open society where free expression of opinion is paramount that some people’s opinions account for more not because of the merit or otherwise of the opinion but because of the financial support that lies behind it. The rules in New Zealand have generally been interpreted pretty fairly by all the players in the electoral scene. But it is fair to say that the instance of the Brethren church campaign at the last election did go beyond that element of fairness that most of us have traditionally understood to be the case. 
I am not saying that the Brethren Church campaign is the only instance of its type over the years because clearly it is not but it is certainly the most blatant. Equally I am not saying that outside groups have no role in the electoral process or have no right to express an opinion or seek to influence other people’s opinions on that process. After all that is what political parties which we are all about do routinely. But where that practice occurs just as there are constraints on the ways in which political parties must operate and the accountabilities that apply to them so too should there be similar constraints and accountabilities on those seeking to influence the voting choices of others. I see the changes proposed in this regard being addressed really to that particular point. 
There will be issues—and I am happy for the select committee to give a lot of consideration to these—about whether for instance the $60000 figure that has been included in the bill is the appropriate one. If it is not appropriate then let us devise a figure that is more appropriate but that also reflects the fundamental point of ensuring a free and fair competitive election process. I think that the changes that the bill proposes with regard to the electoral clock starting to tick from 1 January each year make some sense in an environment where we do not know until comparatively late in the piece precisely when the election will occur. 
I do have some concern about whether the amount set in the legislation is in fact a fair and adequate one noting always because of the ways in which electoral law is interpreted and the ways in which we as members of this House do our job that whatever limit is set there will always be an inbuilt advantage to the incumbent. It is one of those matters that simply goes with the territory because we are out there in our respective guises day in and day out being members of Parliament. Those seeking to be members of Parliament are simply always competing against that incumbency. So again if a different figure is to be set let there be no illusion that this somehow will resolve the difficulty because it will not. It will perhaps make it a little fairer in some senses but essentially the point will remain. 
I also note with approval the bill’s provisions regarding the way in which electoral broadcast time is to be allocated and the removal of political representatives from that process. It used to be easy in the days of a bipartisan system to have one representative from each side making that choice or being involved in the making of that choice. It becomes more difficult in a multi-party environment and I think it actually places grave strain on both the representative of the Opposition and the representative of the Government to have to take on other representational roles as well. Clearly to have a broadcasting authority with eight representatives from all of the different parties would be impractical so I think in an environment where the formula is fairly clear-cut the understandings are clear and people have a chance to make their submissions and to be heard before the authority the best option is the removal altogether of political representation from that body. 
A number of other measures set out in this bill are much more technical in nature—for instance relating to the way in which donated time is to be calculated and how services performed that do not have a distinct financial value are to be interpreted as well. But there are some issues that are beyond the scope of this bill. I suspect that they come into the category of still being too hard. They relate to all of the electronic communications that are now becoming far more paramount. For instance how could we if we ever tried value a text messaging campaign that some parties may well choose to adopt as part of their election expenditure? 
The point behind this is that whatever law we put in place and however well meaning and earnest we are about it we will quickly find that the political parties and the human beings who populate them being the creatures they are will find ways of getting around those provisions. So to that extent our electoral law is always a catch-up law. It is always taking a situation that has been found to be obviously failing and seeking to correct that. We cannot write the perfect law in this regard and that is why I have some suspicion about the academics and the theoreticians who say: “This process should be handled by us. Set up an independent commission to run these things and make these decisions.” With all due respect to their well-meaning intent I do not think that would work because ultimately this is a political process. It is about the way in which our political system works. Our political system comes with a lot of nuances and subtleties that the well-meaning theoretician standing on the outside simply would not understand. 
I conclude as I began. I think this bill has some useful measures in it. United Future members will certainly be supporting its going to the select committee. We are looking forward to participating in that committee and hearing the submissions but it is a matter of regret that will taint the passage of this bill that it has been put together in a way that has seen a bare majority involved in its construction and a significant minority excluded. The one lesson to emerge from this process is that for robust credible law in the future it is best to have as many people as possible involved in its drafting or its evolution at the start to get the buy-in to get the support and to remove the suspicion that it is being done at the behest of one group to advantage it at the expense of another. I hope that is not the case with this legislation when it comes back to the House and is eventually passed. It will be a test of the select committee and the participation of members in that to ensure that that is not so.