Chauvel Charles: Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Chauvel Charles: Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7462] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 What a pleasure it is to rise to speak— 
Simon Bridges 
: A pleasure to hear you. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Thank you. It is indeed a pleasure to speak on the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill. 
Paul Quinn 
: Charles Bronson! 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: It is nice to have the customary acclaim from the Government on this matter. 
An electoral management body takes various forms around the world. It is the body charged in a nation with administering the electoral process. These bodies typically take one of four forms. They can be independent mixed judicial or governmental and it often happens that they carry out different functions depending on what model is adopted. Obviously in federated states there may be bodies that serve the federal jurisdiction and the states or provinces as well. In jurisdictions where there are very large cities like New York City in the United States with its population of 8.2 million or Los Angeles County with just under 10 million there are municipalities that have very specialised bodies to perform their electoral administration. As we have just mentioned the New York example it is interesting to note in passing that apparently the body that supervises New York City’s administration of elections is a real model when it comes to looking at the adoption of new technology like the Internet and at continuous disclosure requirements and obligations—for example donations. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: The Internet’s nearly outdated. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Mr Williamson tells us that the Internet is nearly outdated; no doubt he will reveal what will come next. I look forward to saying “Gee Maurice do you remember the Internet?”. 
Let us consider the various models that could be adopted for an electoral management body. We have the mixed model where perhaps we might have an independent board for determining the policy to apply to elections but where implementation of that policy can be a matter for the executive with varying degrees of supervision by the independent board. If we are looking for democracies that operate that model and that have some relevance to New Zealand we might look to France Spain or Germany or if we wanted to look to our own Asia-Pacific region to Japan which also operates that model. Other Commonwealth countries include Jamaica. 
Then we have the possibility of the straight-out Government model where we have the Minister or Secretary of State operating within the executive and where directed by a Cabinet Minister the department itself conducts the election. That is the sort of model that has been adopted in countries like the United States Denmark Singapore Sweden and Switzerland and in some other jurisdictions around the world. 
Then we have the possibility of a judicial model. This model is very much the vogue in Latin American countries. Because of the time at which they developed their constitutions those countries thought that the way to go was to have elections closely supervised by and ultimately responsible to an electoral court. Countries that operate that model include Argentina Brazil and Mexico. 
We also have the independent model. Typically under this model we have an electoral commission that is autonomous and independent of the executive and that has and manages its own budget. Interestingly this is the model that is operated in the jurisdiction with which we most like to compare ourselves—Australia. It is also the model in Canada—federally—in India and in South Africa. From the point of view of our region it is again interesting that this model is used in Timor-Leste as well a new country with a new constitution. The South African constitution has made permanent provision for this independent model because the South Africans on independence decided that it was important constitutionally to do so. 
The New Zealand model is the classic mixed model but it is a bit of a mishmash. It contains five different bodies. There is the Chief Electoral Officer who happens to be a senior employee of the Ministry of Justice but who is autonomous as far as the electoral function is concerned. That person is responsible for the conduct of general elections by-elections and referenda. He or she employs returning officers for the 70 electorates receives donations and election expenses from parliamentary candidates and provides information on electoral events to voters candidates and parties. That is one of the five bodies that are currently charged with our electoral administration in New Zealand. 
Then we have the Electoral Commission. An independent Crown entity the commission has four functions. It has to register political parties allocate broadcasting funding supervise financial declarations and conduct public education. That is the second body. The commission is fairly independent of the executive. It must be headed by a retired judge and the executive does not get an enormous amount of choice as to which retired judge is to be appointed. Generally speaking the nomination tends to be that of the Chief Justice and the Minister of Justice chooses from a relatively narrow range of people who can chair that body. 
The third body that has a role in our system at the moment funnily enough is the chief executive of a State-owned enterprise New Zealand Post. That person is responsible via the Electoral Enrolment Centre to maintain the electoral rolls and to conduct the Maori electoral option. When one drills down into that one sees that a chief executive of a State-owned company is conducting this function by contract with the Ministry of Justice as one of the outputs that the Minister requires of the ministry. It is a very convoluted arrangement. 
Those are the three bodies that are mentioned in the explanatory note of the bill but at least two other bodies have a role in the system. The Representation Commission draws the boundaries. Often in overseas regimes the Representation Commission is included within the structures that are required to organise and conduct elections. There is also the police and I will speak a little bit about their function because the police are the enforcement body as far as our electoral law is concerned. 
Although Labour supports this bill being read a first time we believe that the bill does not address the issue of the enforcement machinery when there is a breach of electoral law. I suggest that that might be something the select committee looks at. The problem that the police always have of course is that electoral offences never go to the top of the queue. The police will always be concerned with crimes against the person and with dealing particularly with violent crime. They will never be able to prioritise electoral matters nor will they necessarily have the forensic expertise to do so. These days those questions require skills in dealing with tracking donations and financial disclosures and so on which call for quite sophisticated levels of skill that are probably more properly found in organisations like the Serious Fraud Office rather than the police. It might well be that with the forensic skills that are required it would be useful to think about having an enforcement function under this new independent Crown entity rather than the police being responsible for that function if we are truly interested in bringing all the functions together in an expert body that has the resources and the time to deal with the questions before it. 
The final point I make is that if one has a look at the explanatory note one sees that one of the options canvassed was to have an Officer of Parliament for this function. Personally I think that would have been the most compelling option to go for. The explanatory note suggests there was not enough time to get that sort of apparatus going before the next election. But if we really want a truly independent body charged with the conduct of elections in an honest and serious way then given the conduct of our other Officers of Parliament in whom we have enormous faith then that seems to me to be the best way to go.