Smith Murray: Electoral Amendment Bill Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
Smith Murray: Electoral Amendment Bill Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
[Volume:622;Page:17339] 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 It is pleasing that what was originally the Electoral Matters Bill is passing with the unanimous support of the House. This is legislation that although dealing with fairly minor matters does tackle the fundamental nature of our constitution in so far as it looks at the way that we run our elections and elect our Parliament. It is therefore important that it is not passing on just a majority vote as we have seen happen with quite a lot of legislation over this last year but rather is getting the unanimous support of the House. 
The disappointing part of the legislation is that it deals with only a very few technical matters when some more significant issues even some that could easily be resolved have been sitting around for election after election and have been the subject of report backs from select committees but have yet to be addressed. Despite the promises of the Government to address them in its response to the select committee’s report on its inquiry into the 2002 election we have yet to see any discussion papers on those more fundamental matters. There are two in particular that need comprehensive review—one relating to donations to political parties and the other with regard to the funding of political parties. 
 In respect of donations the threshold for disclosure the ability to have anonymous donations and any cut-off points as far as anonymous donations are concerned are matters that at the very least ought to be part of the debate at this time. They have been hanging around for years and years. It is time we got on to debating those publicly in terms of the sort of election we want and the protections that should revolve round it. We have had three MMP elections and the public have had a chance to look at those factors. Some of these issues have now quite clearly become issues that are contentious. 
The funding of political parties is another issue that since MMP has become important. The memberships of political parties have all reduced. There are not very many New Zealanders now as a proportion of the general population who are actively involved on a regular basis with political parties. But political parties do provide a very important part of our democratic system and it is important that political parties are strong and that there is the opportunity for a wide variety of viewpoints to be recognised in elections in particular but also in the House. I think the time has come when we should be seriously considering as a nation the funding of political parties to allow them to operate between elections and have at least some level of resources with which to do that without their being reliant on membership fees and on going cap in hand. That leads to distortions in terms of sector groups that have funds being looked to for the provision of funding—in particular the business community. If there was some funding from parliamentary resources it would take a little bit of pressure off that at least. 
It would also be part of providing a level playing field. Parties that are in Parliament have a distinct advantage as far as funding is concerned over those that are outside because of the parliamentary resources that all parties here have and their ability to use those resources on the promotion and recognition of their political points of view. They are effectively campaigning in terms of their points of view under the guise—quite legitimately—of going to the public and getting feedback on a situation. Certainly the line is very blurred there. Everybody would admit that there is a grey area as to when the legitimate role of a political party in Parliament to use funding to promote its point of view turns into campaigning. So parties that are not represented in Parliament face discrimination as far as that matter is concerned because they do not have any access whatsoever to that funding even though they may have a reasonable level of public support. 
There is also the question of the funding for broadcasting which I addressed in my speech during the Committee stage. We are well overdue for a significant increase in that funding. It has been many years since it was increased. I sincerely hope that in the next Budget particularly with the money that is available to the Government there is a substantial increase in the funding that is provided to political parties for broadcast advertising. Broadcasting—in particular television—does pay a very central role in helping people to determine what political parties believe and whom they should vote for. It is therefore critical that that information is provided and that there is adequate funding for that—recognising that the only funding that can be used for broadcasting at this stage is the funding provided by parliamentary resources. So I would encourage the Government to look at that seriously. Again it is part of our whole constitutional democratic tradition that the public are well informed about what political parties are offering and that means using television and radio to do that and that means using parliamentary resources. 
There is one other option and again I alluded to it in the Committee stage. Given that elections are meant to be level playing fields where all parties go back to square one with zero seats and have to campaign to win their seats effectively there should be the ability for parties that do not get so much public funding to top up their funding for broadcasting purposes. This would help to level the playing field as it ought to be levelled when it comes to election time. It would mean that a party that did not get public funding would have to go out and solicit funding from the public in order to have that funding provided from private sources and that in itself would provide indications of the level of public support for parties. Certainly United Future does not believe that it should be open slather. There should be caps on that level of funding but nevertheless we believe that the opportunity should be there for parties that do not get funding or that get limited funding to increase their resources. 
One of the critical issues covered in this legislation is members of Parliament creating vacancies. While I do not want to go back and relitigate the Harry Duynhoven situation which has been thoroughly chewed over I would say that the way the Government handled it at the time was very disappointing. I am sure that if it had been a National MP we would not have seen that legislation. I am sure that if it had been a National MP we would not have had Government members of the Privileges Committee denying what was the obvious—that is that Harry had indeed taken steps that vacated his seat. The way that the Government handled that situation brought the whole institution of Parliament into disrepute and brought partisan politics into something that is fundamental in terms of our constitution and that should have been addressed at that time. I know that Harry was willing to— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member cannot refer to members by their first name—the member has done it twice. Members must use their title their portfolio or their whole name. 
MURRAY SMITH 
: I was referring to Mr Duynhoven. Nevertheless the Justice and Electoral Committee has now been able to look at the situation and to determine the basis on which an MP would lose his or her seat. I think the fundamentals of there having to be a positive act and an act that creates an allegiance to a foreign power or State while that person is an MP is the right balance. Ceasing to be a New Zealand citizen and accepting nomination as a candidate for an election in a foreign country have been added. But we have the exceptions that one can become a subject or citizen of a foreign State by reason of it being one’s country or place of birth or by reason of descent and that one can renew a passport issued by a foreign State. I think those are welcome. The existing exception is still there—that if someone becomes a citizen of another country by marriage that person is not disqualified. 
I must say I was very disappointed that the House did not agree to the amendment to clause 18 that would have amended section 74B(2A) of the Broadcasting Act to give the Electoral Commission discretion with regard to the payment of late invoices. As a party secretary I believe that is short-sighted and inevitably will result in unnecessary financial harm to broadcasters. The Minister and the Government will have that on their heads.