Dunne Peter: General DebateText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDunne Peter: General Debate[Sitting date: 21 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12682. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future):When the co-leader of the Green Party spoke earlier he made reference to the Electoral Commission as being the independent umpire. It reminded me that when the commission was established in 1993 in the lead up to MMP that was indeed the intention—that it would be the independent umpire that would oversee the administration and the running of our electoral system. But a couple of recent incidents have demonstrated that it has lost its way in that respect and it is time for reform.Dr Norman referred to the MMP review. When that review was completed and the recommendations of the Electoral Commission were put forward they came with a rider from the commission that its changes were designed not so much to facilitate the administration of the electoral system which would have been within its brief but to stop the proliferation of small parties in Parliament. Some might argue that that is desirable. That is a legitimate political point but it is not the role of the Electoral Commission to seek to design the electoral system in such a way that determines the choices that voters will make. If the voters of New Zealand want to elect 120 small parties to Parliament each having one member that is their prerogative. It is not for the Electoral Commission to say they cannot do it.There were similar overtones of the Electoral Commission overstepping that brief of being the independent umpire in the way that it handled United Future’s re-registration process. I want to draw some of those to the attention of the House this afternoon. The most ludicrous one of all is that under the Act as it stands at the moment parties seeking to register or to renew their registration have merely to sign a statutory declaration that they have the requisite number of current financial members. The Electoral Commission has no power at all to verify whether that declaration is correct. It simply relies on the word of the parties concerned. So if a party filled in an incorrect declaration there is no power on the part of the commission to take action. But when as happened in our case we said we were not able to comply at that time and we needed a period of grace the commission simply said “We will deregister you.” So the penalty was for being honest.When I said to the president of the commission Justice Williams that this was an absurd situation and that if we had simply signed the declaration no one would havebeen any the wiser he said: “But Mr Dunne that would have been the wrong thing to do.” I said: “Absolutely precisely—that is the point that I am making.” And he said: “But you would not want to be party to a dishonest action.” The point that he failed to get and that his commission failed to get was that the penalty for actual honesty is quite perverse.The second area where the commission showed that it is completely out of touch with contemporary reality was the matter that I raised during question time today. Since 2002 we have had legislation in New Zealand providing for the recognition of electronic transactions. Across a whole range of commercial and Government activities there is now provision for the recognition of the validity of such transactions. Indeed at the very height of our dispute with the Electoral Commission the Government released its own policy advocating greater use of electronic technology for transactions within Government agencies. But the Electoral Commission said: “No we are not interested in that because we are not bound by the Act. We will not accept online memberships as being legitimate. You have to provide memberships signed with quill pen and on parchment before we will accept these as being legitimate.”The implications of that go well beyond our particular case. They go to every political party in this House because I have checked all their websites and every political party in this House provides for online memberships. Be warned that if you ever get into a situation where you are going to be challenged by the Electoral Commission those memberships will count for nothing.I was talking to a senior member of the Labour Party recently. We were just recalling the days—and I am sure my colleague Annette King will remember—when we used to go around and sign up members with a little card. The person who signed someone up—if I signed Annette King up for instance—would be the person who signed the membership card. There was no requirement for her to do so so that membership even then would be invalid in the eyes of the Electoral Commission.The point I am making is that recent events have shown that far from the claim of Dr Norman that the Electoral Commission is an independent umpire it has ceased to be that. It has actually become a rather rampantly disturbed player in the game. Its powers need to be curbed. The Electoral Act needs to be brought into line with the original intention. I was one of those on the Justice and Electoral Committee way back at the time that it was promoted. I think the Hon Murray McCully and I are two people responsible for the Electoral Commission ever being established. We wanted it to be an independent umpire. It is time it returned to its roots. It is time the law was updated to make sure that common sense prevails in the way that the commission runs our electoral system because otherwise we will get to a point at some stage where the entire integrity of our electoral process is questioned because of its absurd behaviour.