Parker David: Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Parker David: Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:11015] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 The Labour Party as has been noted by previous speakers is supporting the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill. I will follow on from some of the previous Labour speakers including Charles Chauvel and Pete Hodgson. I will talk first in relation to the issue of the dangers of a simplistic view of agreement as to what should be our electoral law. If we view consensus as being a desirable attribute of electoral law—and I certainly do—we have to go under that word and define what we mean by appropriate consensus. This bill is an example of consensus because its provisions improve the administration of New Zealand’s elections in a way that is acceptable to all political parties and in a way that is patently fair. 
New Zealand has as Pete Hodgson said a very proud history of having election processes that our public have confidence in. That is one of the reasons that New Zealand has one of the longest histories in the world of fair and non-violent elections. That is something that we ought to treasure in New Zealand as one of the essential features of our country because we know that countries that do not have fair elections are more likely to descend into uncivil violence and disorder. Democracy and fair elections are fundamentally important to peace and to freedom from violence in society. The importance of the democratic process and fair election processes cannot be overstated. 
This bill has broad cross-party support because it improves the administration of justice but the issue does not end there. In order to have fair process we have to have fair rules as to the running of elections. Those fair rules do not relate just to the agencies that administer elections but also they relate to the rules that apply to the participants in elections. 
This Government has been very critical of the rules that the previous Labour Government made in relation to election finances. National members were so critical that they said that if they were ever elected they would repeal the law. That is fair enough; that is their right as members of an incoming Government. But then they said that they would proceed by way of consensus to new laws. That is fair enough as an objective but if they sit there as the Government and refuse to be part of any change they can say if that is their definition of consensus that there is no consensus; therefore the status quo will prevail even though the status quo is patently unjust. 
The status quo in New Zealand in respect of electoral financing is wrong. Charles Chauvel in his contribution gave one example. In respect of the upcoming referendum on MMP there is absolutely unlimited spending permitted for any interested party in pursuit of its position. Freedom of expression does not mean freedom to buy an outcome. Freedom of expression in New Zealand would be retained if all people were able to spend 100 percent of their time out there in pursuit of their political ideals. But freedom of expression does not mean that we can go so far as to say that corporates for example should be able to spend unlimited amounts of money in respect of their pursuit of an electoral outcome that might be in their financial interest. That point was made very wisely I thought by—I forget the name of the Supreme Court Justice in the United States who is about to come up to retirement— 
Charles Chauvel 
: John Paul Stevens. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Thank you Charles. John Paul Stevens made that point very eloquently in a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America by saying that if corporates have the same rights as individuals—which they have in New Zealand in respect of electoral financing laws—why do they not have the right to vote? Plainly a corporate cannot vote. There is a difference between corporates and individuals. There is a difference in principle between a corporate being and an individual. In New Zealand we blur that distinction by allowing unlimited spending by corporates—for example in respect of the referendum on MMP. 
The Royal Commission on the Electoral System which reported many years ago at the time of the introduction of MMP made the very obvious point that if we do not have some control on non-political party spending at elections then we make a mockery of any controls we have on the political party. If the political party can spend to its limit and then through a separate entity that it controls—and under New Zealand law it can control it; it does not have to be independent from it—it can spend unlimited amounts of money in pursuit of its political ideals to buy an election outcome then we make a mockery of having any limits in respect of a political party. If we as a country agree that there ought to be controls on political parties buying election outcomes rather than competing in a contest of ideas and if we believe in the principles that underlie our limits to election spending then we must agree that there has to be some control on non-party expenditure. Otherwise we make a mockery of the controls that there are on political party expenditure. That is what the royal commission said and it is patently true. The commissioners were right. 
That is why I make reference to the consensus approach that the National Government says it favours. Consensus does not say just that we all have to agree in respect of any change from the status quo. If that is the approach then any one party in this Parliament can withhold its consensus for a necessary change. Consensus requires give and take from all political parties. In respect of the issues of campaign financing third-party campaigns and transparency of donations it is abundantly clear that Labour is willing to give and take. We have agreed to the repeal of the legislation that we passed. We have acknowledged that it is not perfect and we have said that we are willing to look at changes. But if National is not willing to look at changes from the status quo then its members are the ones who are withholding consensus. They ought not to pretend that they are on some plane higher than that of Labour based on the assertion that there is no consensus to change because it will be those National members who are withholding consensus. 
I endorse Pete Hodgson’s comments that said that it is beholden on us as a Parliament to carry forward the long tradition we have in New Zealand of fair elections of peaceful elections and of non-violent elections a tradition we have in New Zealand that is very rare in world terms. In fact I have heard it said that there is only one country in the world that has a non-violent non-revolutionary and uninterrupted democracy that is as longstanding as the one we have in New Zealand. Underpinning that is the confidence of the people that we have fair election processes. As a consequence we have a duty in this Parliament to reach across our political self-interest and to reach reasonable compromises as to what is in our nation’s interest. There seems to be general agreement in New Zealand that we ought not to have US-style elections where money buys a result and that there ought to be limits on the amounts that political parties can spend. 
Charles Chauvel 
: There’s general agreement in the US. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: There is general agreement in New Zealand on that even if not in the US. Charles Chauvel says that there is general agreement in the US—and that 80 percent of Americans agree to it—but that country cannot achieve that. We have achieved it in New Zealand; we must hold fast to that as a principle. For that to be real there have to be limits on how much we as political parties spend and on how much non-political parties also spend. 
There is also a need for more transparency as to donations. I quite like the idea that National is floating at the moment about disclosing donations below a certain amount in bands. That is good. But if we are to have transparency around donations to political parties and if we have third non-political parties that are electioneering and spending millions of dollars in a campaign then they have to have transparency as to their sources of funds as well. Without that political parties can never escape the imputation that they are being funded by a particular lobby group that is advocating a particular policy outcome. That is wrong; that is corrosive of public confidence in election outcomes. 
So yes I support this bill but I really encourage the Government to depart from the fiction that in the absence of universal agreement as to change we stick with the status quo. That is not consensus; that is the Government hiding behind the status quo to avoid consensus. Thank you.