Shirley Ken: Electoral Matters Bill — In Committee 
Shirley Ken: Electoral Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17255] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party will certainly support the proposal restricting the powers of local bodies. I think the National Party is probably on its own on this amendment. I have looked hard at it and the ACT party has looked hard at it. We cannot understand National’s position quite frankly. We do not want to see local body fiefdoms with all the irregular forms that would come out of that. I think the 75 percent test that is proposed here is appropriate and the ACT party will be supporting it. 
What is a curious thing though in this bill is the reinstatement of the pre-Duynhoven situation. What we really have in this bill is a restating of what the law said prior to the extraordinary accommodation that this Labour Government did when it used its majority to subvert all principles of electoral law to accommodate Mr Duynhoven. The proposal here states that if a person does swear allegiance to a foreign power or head of State while in office then that does create a vacancy. 
And it should. Indeed Mr Duynhoven should have resigned. There should have been a by-election. I believe he would have won it and we would have wished him well in that. But as a matter of principle that is what should have happened. It was a very bad day in this House particularly from a procedural point of view when we saw people sitting on their hands delaying an action that should have been triggered automatically to declare a vacancy. That did not occur and that was very bad. It was bad for Parliament and bad from a constitutional point of principle. The ACT party just flags that. It is very interesting that the law having being changed to accommodate Mr Duynhoven it is now being changed back to what existed prior to that accommodation. That will be seen by many people to be the duplicitous act that it was. It was a very bad day in our history when that occurred. 
The ACT party is also quite concerned about the broadcasting aspect. We have long opposed the election-broadcasting provisions. We believe that they are unnecessarily restrictive and punitive. It is not really the business of the State to prescribe them to the extent that it has. Since 1996 when ACT was first in Parliament we have continued to oppose those provisions and we certainly oppose them as they stand in this bill. 
We also note that Electoral Commission membership is still done under the old first-past-the-post formula. I see that “Captain Wayne Mapp” is acknowledging that point and good on him. The two main parties are using the tyranny of their majority to impose a situation that is reflective of a first-past-the-post Parliament. All other parties whether it be New Zealand First ACT the Greens the Maori Party or whatever should have an independent voice—whether it is under a collective umbrella or whatever—on the Electoral Commission membership. It is a very bad reflection on the bill that in this closing month of 2004 the Labour Party and the National Party are using the tyranny of their majority to continue what is clearly a first-past-the-post Parliament arrangement. It is a cosy little arrangement between the clubs. 
No minor party in Parliament can really rely upon those two major parties to represent its interests—not in the cold fire of an election. We know that is unreal; it just does not happen. Even if a party might be a potential coalition partner— 
Richard Worth 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This debate is on Part 1 not Part 2 and for the last substantive period the member has been talking about Part 2. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Speaking to the point of order I point out that this is included in Part 1. The member who raised the point of order is mistaken. To be precise it is included in new clause 4A. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for that and he can continue. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: It seems that member is very confused about this point but perhaps he will have a chance to address it later on. I was talking about the tyranny of the majority—of the two main parties in this Parliament the Labour Party and the National Party. It is a disgrace that they have used that tyranny in an electoral sense to reserve their dominance total say and monopoly of the Electoral Commission membership.