Tisch Lindsay: Electoral Matters Bill — First Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Electoral Matters Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14200] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 On behalf of National I want to take a call that primarily will deal with the changes to the Broadcasting Act. But firstly I would like to comment on the changes the Associate Minister of Justice mentioned that relate to the eligibility of people to stand for Parliament when they cease to be a New Zealand citizen or acquire dual or multiple citizenship except by descent or birth. Those criteria which are mentioned in the explanatory note can be regarded as coming about because of the Harry Duynhoven case earlier when we had the Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill so I will be referring to the “Harry Duynhoven amendments” that will come forward. It will be very interesting to see in the Justice and Electoral Committee how that matter will be handled. 
As I mentioned I want to spend my time on the other matters because they affect the way that we will be operating the next election. I draw the attention of the House to the select committee report  
Inquiry into the 2002 General Election 
. One of the points made in that report—and that inquiry was the third inquiry following a general election after the 1996 inquiry and the 1999 inquiry—was that recommendations that had been made had not been carried through. National will support this bill going to the select committee because it allows a very focused attempt in the short term to remedy some of the inconsistencies and problems that were highlighted in those previous inquiries. 
 But I make the point that what we are doing today does not matter because the Electoral Act is riddled with ad hoc fixes and additions and there is very limited capacity in the system to consider the overall effect of changes that are made. We know election after election that there are things we would like to see changed; we would like to see some things done differently and we would like to make improvements. Yet Parliaments over that time since the 1996 election have not had the will to do anything about it. After the 2002 inquiry it became very clear that a fundamental review of the Electoral Act of 1993 needed to be undertaken. I was on that inquiry and I am happy to say that I believe that the way the review will be set up—with the prospect of there being major changes that the parties can debate and agree to and that will come into effect for the 2008 election—will be welcomed. Those areas that the review might cover include electoral organisational structures State funding election broadcasting rules party donation disclosure regimes the changes to the Broadcasting Act of 1989 a common date for the broadcasting of all types of election programmes the inclusion in Part 6 of the Broadcasting Act of a procedure for establishing the start date for opening addresses and of course the taxation status of political parties. 
All of that in effect is a very good start but it is part of the big review which I understand Tim Barnett will be chairing and which will have an effect in the longer term on the 2008 election. In the immediate future however for the 2005 election there are some changes that are mostly technical in nature and they are included in this bill we are debating this morning—the Electoral Matters Bill. With that in mind I want to comment briefly on a couple of areas that I think are important. 
Since 1990 the amount of money allocated to political parties for broadcasting has remained very low. If we take into account inflation and the costs associated with broadcasting over that period of time we see that the initial figure of just over $2 million will be increased up to $3.212 million inclusive of GST. If I look at the cost of inflation and other associated broadcasting costs I think that increase does take account of those particular areas. 
I also want to draw attention to new subclause (4)(b) of clause 2A of schedule 1 of the principal Act which is in clause 8(2). We have the situation where there are two nominees on the Electoral Commission one representing the Government and one representing Opposition parties. It is important that there is not a majority in that area. The bill actually allows that a quorum would consist of one of those people and not necessarily both of them. I think that is important because over the years there has been some disquiet about those additional members being on the commission when it is considering the allocation of funding—the State funding provisions. This provision says it is OK if only one of those representatives is there and that both of them do not necessarily have be there which in fact may have given the balance of power as it were to members who are not on the commission—who are just additional members. Those are areas that I think are significant. 
I am also interested to note that in relation to the allocation of time and money being determined according to 
whether the parties are registered at a certain time the cut-off point of 3 months before the election will now disappear and the date that will now apply from is when the election is actually called. The eligibility cut-off point of 3 months before the dissolution of Parliament can have a retrospective effect when a general election is held earlier than expected but not so early as to bring an early election provision under section 76C of the Broadcasting Act into effect—in which case the eligibility date for registered parties is the writ date. I think that what this measure is doing is saying that if a party wants an allocation of State funding—and the provision relates to State funding for political parties—then that party has to be registered at the time and it has to have made a commitment that it will run in the election. The issue was very vague before and I think this measure certainly tidies up those provisions. 
The bill also allows for variation of allocations. I think the Electoral Commission has a responsibility to look at the variation of allocations. Members will be aware that in past elections some of the parties did not measure up even though they had been initially allocated funding. If they did not meet the criteria set by the commission then they lost that funding which was reallocated to those parties that meet the criteria. For the 1996 election and for the 1999 election I was National’s representative in putting our case to the Electoral Commission. Having fronted up to the commission and put our case in those two elections I know what the criteria were what was involved and how detailed one needed to be in terms of putting a case for State funding for a party. The amendments in clause 21 to section 76A of the Act give the commission the power to vary the parties’ allocations if there is sufficient change in the circumstances on which those allocations were based thus avoiding unfairness and subversion of the allocation process. I think that is a good criterion for the commission to have. 
Although these changes are technical the point I made right at the beginning is that there needs to be a complete overhaul of the Electoral Act. We are moving towards another MMP election and this bill will have only a small effect on it. But the bigger picture is the special review of the Electoral Act that will take place which of course will affect the 2008 election. National looks forward to being part of that review.