Donald Rod: Electoral Matters Bill — First Reading 
Donald Rod: Electoral Matters Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14205] 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be supporting this bill’s referral to the select committee—indeed aspects of it are long overdue. I would like to deal with the four aspects of this bill in the order they appear. The first one makes permanent what has become known as “Harry’s law” and that is a good thing in our view. Members of Parliament should not be forced to resign because of where they were born or whom they are descended from. That is why the Greens supported the changes to the law to protect not only Harry Duynhoven but I suspect some other members of this House last year and that is why we support making it possible for sitting members to review any foreign passport they may already have and to become a citizen of another country but only where this is because of their descent or place of birth. 
These changes make the law consistent. As we all know a member can already become a dual citizen by virtue of marriage— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: That was the result of a parliamentary petition too. 
ROD DONALD 
: It was indeed. It was the result of somebody who I think must have been breaking the law and the law was fixed up to suit that person at the time. But the changes do not allow an MP to actively seek foreign citizenship for any other reason and we obviously want to see that situation maintained. 
The bill maintains an amendment originally proposed by the Greens that requires an MP to resign from Parliament if the MP ceases to be a New Zealand citizen. When we were having discussions on the amendment last year I found it extraordinary that such a requirement was not already in place. Perhaps that is because of the carry over whereby people could stand for Parliament if they were New Zealand residents and on the electoral roll on I think 12 August 1975 but did not have to be New Zealand citizens. That of course has all changed and it is now a requirement that MPs cannot cease being a New Zealand citizen during their term in Parliament or they risk losing their seat. It is also pleasing to see that “foreign Princes” have been removed from our law; they are now referred to as “foreign States”. Perhaps that is yet another important step towards republicanism. 
The second aspect of the bill is the change to the definition of “appropriate person” in relation to party hopping. It is a significant change and we support it because it protects the Governor-General from getting involved in grubby politics. But the need for this amendment highlights yet again what shoddy legislation the so-called Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Act was—and is. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: It was! 
ROD DONALD 
: I am pleased to hear my colleague Ken Shirley support me on this because of course the ACT party was at the forefront along with the Greens in opposition to the party-hopping legislation. As I recall Stephen Franks drafted an excellent minority report opposing the party-hopping legislation. He pointed out the draconian powers it would give party leaders and how obscene it would be if any party leader chose to exercise the powers contained in those amendments. I know that Mr Shirley also gave an excellent speech opposing giving party leaders those powers. I must say I am very sorry to find that the only party that has tried to exercise the powers contained in that legislation is the ACT party. It is a gross abuse of our democracy and the sooner that law dies the better. The fact that the courts are now having to rule on its application is another example of the undermining of parliamentary sovereignty. This House should never have allowed that to happen—especially to have inflicted upon itself the opportunity for members quite rightly in my view to resort to other courts to maintain their position in this House because they believed that the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Act was being used in an inappropriate way. 
I would like to foreshadow that the Greens will propose amendments to this bill to repeal the whole of section 55E and we look forward to support from all those parties that opposed the imposition of this draconian legislation at the time so that we can put an early end to this sorry saga in New Zealand politics. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Shirley is vacillating now having opposed it so strenuously before. I am not sure whether he is prepared to have the courage of his convictions now. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will withdraw that comment. 
ROD DONALD 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
The Green Party will also be moving an amendment to the third aspect of this bill. Although we support the amendment to the quorum for meetings of the Electoral Commission so that it can make broadcasting allocations with one of the party political representatives absent we are absolutely totally opposed to both of those party political representatives being on the Electoral Commission when it allocates broadcasting time and money. It is extraordinary that the National Party and the Labour Party get to sit on a commission and make decisions about the allocation of money to every other party in this House—namely New Zealand First ACT United Future Green Party and to any other registered party standing for Parliament. The provision is archaic and should have been abolished when first-past-the-post was abolished. Our amendments will get rid of party political appointments to the Electoral Commission. 
In saying that I do not want to impugn any of those people who have served on that commission. I am merely pointing out that it is impossible for those people to represent all the competing interests in this Parliament and of those parties out in the community who are hoping to win seats in this Parliament. Indeed the commission has drawn that observation itself in its own reports and if members want to read the debate we had on the 2002 general election inquiry held a few weeks ago they will see that I had to say more on that point. 
The fourth aspect of the bill that we support relates to some anomalies in the broadcasting legislation as it applies to political parties. The reason I personally support those changes is that I was on the select committee that reviewed the 1996 election and that is when we came up with most of the amendments that are finally coming back to this House—although I have to say it is not the first time they have come back to this House. So I shall reserve judgment on the Government’s commitment to this bill until we actually see it passed hopefully later this year so that the commission does not have to go through the extraordinarily useless process of writing to every broadcaster in this country to see whether they will be offering discounts to political parties. That is a waste of time that has been inflicted on the commission for the last two elections simply because this Parliament did not get its act together. 
I remind this House that the amendments in this bill to the broadcasting legislation were virtually all in a bill that was introduced on 29 September 1998. That is when the then National Government recognised the need for change as a result of the 1996 election review. That bill had its second reading in November submissions were called for in February 1999 and the select committee finally reported back in May 1999—too late to be of any use for the 1999 election. So already the then National Government had stalled that legislation to stop it getting through. In fact I managed to come across the speech notes I had prepared for the second reading debate which I never got to deliver and will not get to deliver today. But I chastised the National Government at the time for dragging the chain. Indeed on 27 May 1999 the House adjourned 15 minutes early when the broadcasting legislation was next on the Order Paper. We could have dealt with it then. But oh no! It was still on the Order Paper at the 1999 election. It was still on the Order Paper on 17 February 2002 when the Labour Government discharged it for no good reason that I can fathom except that it was again already too late to have any benefit for the 2002 election. So I sincerely hope it will have some benefit for this next election. I look forward to the select committee dealing with it because I think there are a few things that could be improved in the bill. There is a ridiculous section now—which is hard enough to understand let alone apply—which is that the commission will not make payment if it receives a bill from a party no later than 30 working days after the month in which the election was held. Would it not be simpler just to make it 60 days after the election was held? 
I close by endorsing what the chair of the select committee Tim Barnett had to say about the fundamental review of the whole area of donation disclosure and State-funding of political parties. I only wish that the select committee had had what it takes to grapple with those issues here and now rather than putting it off for some future time.