Adams Amy: Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Adams Amy: Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10720] 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I am very pleased to have a chance to take a call in the first reading of this very important legislation the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill. I pick up on some of what the Acting Minister of Justice Nathan Guy discussed in his first reading speech specifically around the fact that this as electoral legislation is the sort of legislation that needs in my view and in the Minister’s view to proceed on the basis of a broad consensus. I talked a little bit about this in the debate around the MMP referendum. When we as a Parliament look at matters to do with the way we elect this very House we are dealing with matters that are of the most serious constitutional significance. Although these bills can be passed on the strength of numbers I think it is incumbent on us to make sure we tread carefully down this road and try to build cross-party consensus which is likely to make the laws we pass not only respected but also enduring. 
If there is any lesson that we can all learn from the Electoral Finance Act that was passed before the previous election it is that—that these are serious issues; they are not the sorts of issues on which we want to exploit a position of power and we need to go back to some sort of broad consensus as far as we possibly can. Certainly that has been the Government’s approach to introducing this bill today. The point to remember here is that very soon after coming into Government following the 2008 election National repealed the Electoral Finance Act. From memory I think that that repeal was broadly supported in this House. I remember the Labour Opposition agreeing that we needed to re-look at that Act and I think that it was wise of those members to concede their mistake on that point. Since that time we have reverted to electoral law as this country had known it for the many many years in building up to the passing of that Act. The discussion document and the issues paper that went out for public consultation which this bill is the result of started from electoral law before the Electoral Finance Act and we said: “Let us look to make changes to that only where there is a broad consensus of support for it.” When we are looking through the provisions of the bill in front of the House tonight it is important to look at it in that context—that of starting from a stable position of electoral law that has served this country very well for a long period of time and of saying that there are issues we need to look at but let us make changes only when we feel there is a broad consensus of support for them. 
I will start off on the smallest of the issues dealt with by the bill which is the one the Acting Minister finished on; that is the advance voting provision. I was lucky enough to be involved in the Justice and Electoral Committee when it had its inquiry into the previous election and considered this issue. It is an interesting one and perhaps one that the wider public has not taken on board as yet. The changes in this bill will enable a greater level of participation in our general elections and I think that is something we all strive for. Our elections work best when there is a high level of engagement. If the matter is as simple as allowing voters to vote on a different day to election day without having to go through a complex process of proving their entitlement and filling out declarations then that is a simple enough thing that we in this House can and should do to encourage participation. That is a simple enough change to make and it is an important one to do and I am certainly very pleased to support that. 
The biggest part of the bill relates to the running of campaigns campaign financing the question of who can advertise the matter of how much can be spent the time we measure from and those sorts of issues. Again when we start the debate on these things from my perspective the issues we have to look at are the sorts of issues that were brought sharply into focus during the 2008 election campaign. I think the biggest difficulty we all struggled with through that campaign was the lack of certainty and the lack of credibility of the very rules. There was a constant process of going to the Electoral Commission and to lawyers to try to find out what could be done who could do what what counted and what did not. It got to the point when even if the Electoral Commission would tell us: “Look candidate X has breached the rules.” it would also say “We can’t really do anything about it because the rules are so unclear that no one really knows what’s happening.” We have to take from that the importance of being very very clear of having very certain rules and of having a good workability between the rules we operate under as MPs—when we spend money in our capacity as members of Parliament—and the money we spend and the regulations we are under when we are campaigning. The waste of resources during that 2008 election campaign was a source of ongoing frustration to me because the time and effort that should have been spent being out talking to the public was spent in trying to get our heads around exactly what those rules all meant. 
The previous speaker Lianne Dalziel spoke at some length about the regulated period and I agree with her that that is an important issue. I go back to the opening comment I made which was that the 3-month regulated period is the period we had in this country for a long time leading up to the Electoral Finance Act. That is what we have gone back to as a starting point for these changes. On the issue of retrospectivity which Ms Dalziel spoke about I agree that that is a serious concern. By way of personal example I mention to this House that I was selected as a candidate in May of 2008 yet all my expenditure from 1 January 2008—a full 5 months before I was even chosen to be a candidate—was regulated. That is a nonsense. How on earth can candidates be responsible for expenditure that they might have spent in that period that may have served to encourage the public to vote for them? That was the sort of crazy system we had. We have reverted back to a 3-month period or to a period that is defined by the calling of the election to ensure that everybody knows once we are into the regulated period. I think that that is really key. 
Tied in with that—and it is important to tie it in—is looking at the campaign expenditure limits for candidates. Under new section 205B substituted in clause 8 we see that those expenditure limits which have been set at $20000 inclusive of GST since God played fullback for the Apostles as they say have now been changed to reflect a CPI adjustment. It goes back only as far as 2008 and the adjustment in the legislation as printed is not a big one. The important aspect of that is in new section 266A inserted by clause 26 which this bill seeks to impose. It is the provision for annual Orders in Council to update those CPI linkages. So that is a beginning. It does not mean a big step forward in the campaign expenditure limits initially but it finally puts in place some sort of mechanism to make sure that those limits keep pace with inflation over time. I think that that is important. 
In this bill we see addressed some important apportionment issues as the Minister discussed to make sure that there is clarity about how and where campaign expenditure is apportioned. We have kept from the current electoral finance regime the disclosure of donations and the regime around that. Added to it is the new requirement for political parties to disclose not only donations over a certain limit but also income they have received in bands below that limit. There will be a more complete picture of the funding of our political parties and I think that that increase in transparency and the clearing up of that can be only a good thing. I am sure that as this bill goes through the select committee we will see some interesting discussion on some of the issues within it. 
I will end where I began which is simply to say that I think it is dangerous to charge ahead unless we can find a broad consensus for some of these issues. That is why reverting back to the stable electoral law that we have worked under for so long is a good starting point. I look forward to a good enlightened and educated debate on these matters in the select committee because they are important. I am looking forward to the process and I commend the bill to the House.