Foss Craig: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Foss Craig: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13576] 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 I would like to raise a few points and to ask for some clarification from the Minister in the chair the Hon Annette King. I have read Mr Finlayson’s amendments and his indexation methodology which I thought was very good as well as his triennial approach to this matter. 
I ask the Minister to respond to this. I note that in her proposed new clause 117A(4) she clarifies what CPI means. But I think this can be read in two ways. For example clause 117A(2)(a) states that an increase “must reflect any percentage increase between the CPI for the quarter ending with 31 December 2007 and the CPI for the quarter ending with 30 June 2010”. 
The clarification I seek from the Minister is whether there is a cumulative effect or whether she is defining further the change in the CPI over 3 years. Under the Minister’s common-sense test if the CPI for the quarter ending 31 December 2007 was 1 percent and the CPI for the quarter ending 30 June 2010 was 1 percent—which is how the public understands the CPI—the percentage change between those two amounts was zero. I am looking forward to the Minister clarifying that matter. 
Could she further define in her amendment what she means and how she defines the CPI and indices? It is open to interpretation and it could be open to error. Clause 117A(2)(b) talks about each subsequent Order in Council and the same definitions are used. Again I ask for clarification in relation to the CPI and indices. The amendment talks about the quarter ending 30 June in the year of the previous Order in Council and it is compared with the CPI for the quarter ending 30 June in the following year. Again there is no mention of a cumulative CPI of the compounding of it which is common sense. When members of the public read the CPI they understand the percentage terms—3 percent 4 percent or whatever it might be. As I have noted in the Minister’s two examples if the CPI is 1 percent for each of the two quarters there is no percentage change. If the two indices are 112 and 132 then of course the difference between the two percentage indices is 20 over 112. I ask the Minister to clarify that. 
I also ask the Minister to talk to clause 117A(3) which the Minister said earlier replaces Mr Finlayson’s various amendments. Well I actually do not think that it does because it does not cover nearly as many of the various monetary amounts. To me the provisions in clause 117A(2) and clause 117A(3) mean that if there is an early election the campaign spend amount from the previous election is locked in. Is that correct? I ask the Minister to clarify whether an early election locks in all those amounts from the previous election. Let us have further clarification. 
Let us look at the amounts we are concerned with here. Candidate election expenses are currently limited to $20000. Earlier the Minister noted that that amount has not changed since 1996 when it was set. Well if we applied the CPI changes since then the common-sense test—2 percent on average a year so over 10 years a total of about 20 percent—the $20000 is probably worth something like $13000-odd in today’s money. If we are really being open and transparent and trying to make these measures relevant to 2007 surely we should look at all amounts and make them true fair and valid in today’s money as opposed to something 10 years out of date.