Burton Mark: Electoral Finance Bill — First Reading 
Burton Mark: Electoral Finance Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10775] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Electoral Finance Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee for consideration. I also indicate to members that I will be seeking leave assuming that the referral of the bill to the Justice and Electoral Committee is successful for the voting membership of the committee to be extended to mirror that of the Finance and Expenditure Committee in order to give all members and parties the opportunity to fully participate in the consideration of this bill. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am wondering in noting the comments just made by the Minister that he will seek leave for the course of action he proposes whether the Minister has misunderstood the arrangement that has been put in place. The arrangement was that he would seek leave and it would of course be a debating matter. We observe that although the Government is very keen to put this electoral bill together without consultation and in a partisan fashion it seems very very keen to have the bill considered in a bipartisan fashion. We cannot have one thing without the other. I think the Minister may have meant to say that he was going to move that the Justice and Electoral Committee be reconfigured as if it were the Finance and Expenditure Committee for the purposes of hearing this bill alone. That of course would be a debatable motion. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for that. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Speaking to the point of order I say that I was clear about what I intended. I indicated to the House that at the conclusion of the debate assuming that the House votes successfully for the first reading of the bill I would seek leave for the voting membership of that committee for the purposes of consideration of this bill to be extended to mirror that of the Finance and Expenditure Committee. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: This House usually operates quite smoothly because there is agreement about the way in which things should progress. I just indicate to you Mr Assistant Speaker because the Speaker obviously has an interest in the House maintaining its order that this sort of riding roughshod approach where we have a partisan approach to a bill that affects the entire electoral process in New Zealand and this idea that the Opposition should simply roll over and capitulate to what the Government wants to do as far as hearing the nation’s views on the bill is completely unacceptable and simply exacerbates the already ham-fisted way in which the Government has dealt with this. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I have been listening to the points raised by both the member and the Minister. As I understand it the composition of a select committee is determined by the Business Committee in the first instance and ratified by this House at a later date. The question of either augmenting the membership of an existing committee or changing it in the way the Minister indicated he would seek leave to do has to be cleared by the Business Committee first. I wonder whether the point that Mr Brownlee raises is really tied up with the issue of the matter being referred to the Business Committee to make the changes in the membership which can then proceed. I think there is a misunderstanding around that point. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The issue has not been discussed in the Business Committee. However the House can seek leave to do so. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The point Mr Dunne makes is an interesting one. You are right Mr Assistant Speaker that the issue has not been considered by the Business Committee. In general select committees are agreed on by the Business Committee at the start of a Parliament as far as proportionality and all the rest is concerned. But the formation of select committees takes place by virtue of a debate here in the House—a motion on the Order Paper and a debate in the House. There has been no consultation in any significant way on the Electoral Finance Bill. There is a desire to have as many parties represented in the process as possible but I do believe that it would be most appropriate and proper at this late stage of the proceedings for there to be a debate over the constitution of that select committee. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just advise members that the leave that the Minister has foreshadowed can be debated by members in the course of this debate. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: This bill deals with one of the most important aspects of our democratic system the fairness of elections. At the heart of the bill is the principle that the public should have the highest confidence that our electoral system is honest and open and that money spent in the run-up to an election is clearly accounted for. Alongside this a second principle promoted by this bill is that there should be fair and equitable participation in electoral campaigning. Wealthy interest groups should not have a disproportionate influence on the outcome of an election simply because they have access to greater financial resources than the general public. 
The 2005 general election brought concerns about campaign financing into sharp focus. This led to debate across the public and political spectrum about the nature of the electoral finance regime. To this end the bill is directed at reforming the rules governing electoral finances. It also responds to recommendations from successive Justice and Electoral Committees including the committee I consulted with that reported last year. Finally the legislation also addresses some of the unimplemented recommendations of the 1986 Royal Commission on the Electoral System. 
The bill is a detailed one and I know that members will be very interested in the fine detail of its provisions. The key features of the bill are as follows. Firstly it makes a raft of changes to the accounting audit and disclosure framework that applies to candidates and political parties in the run-up to a general election. Under the bill candidates and parties will have to provide much more detailed information about their election expenditure. In tandem with this the bill will require all expenditure and donations to go through a financial agent who is appointed expressly for this purpose and who also will be responsible for filing a candidate’s or party’s expense and donation returns on their behalf. These measures will create an environment of accountability and transparency in the run-up to an election thereby making the campaign finances of candidates and parties a matter of clear public record. The proposals are also in line with other comparative regimes such as the United Kingdom and Canada which place strict limitations on who can authorise spending and pay for campaign expenditure. 
The bill contains a much stricter regime for third parties that choose to enter the campaign arena. During the 2005 election it became evident that third parties could mount campaigns that had the potential to undermine candidate and party expenditure limits. It is simply unacceptable to the general public that a third party should be able to in effect buy an election result. The key features of the new third-party regime are as follows. Firstly every third party will be required to notify the Chief Electoral Officer of its involvement in electoral activities when spending over a certain threshold occurs or is anticipated. The Chief Electoral Officer will keep a list of all third parties so that everyone is aware of their identity during the lead-up to an election. Alongside this such third parties will be required to account for their spending in a detailed manner and provide comprehensive information about any donations they receive that are to be spent on campaigning. Third parties will also be subject to strict election expenditure limits under the new regime. A third party will be limited to spending $60000 nationally or $2000 in an electorate contest. This will help to guard against parallel election campaigns. 
The Government in introducing these third-party proposals is seeking to encourage full and open expression from a diverse range of interests in the run-up to a general election. Some members have already suggested that the third-party reforms unjustifiably restrict freedom of expression. They do not and the Crown Law Office advice on this matter is clear in that regard. The aim of the reforms is to ensure that wealthy interests do not have a disproportionate voice in our electoral system; nor for that matter should they be able to overwhelm the speech of political parties and candidates. To this end the bill sets a fair limit on the amount that third parties can spend and introduces much greater transparency around their identity and financial expenditure. 
Another important new measure in the bill is that the regulated period for election expenditure will significantly increase. The bill proposes that where a general election is held in the final year of the parliamentary term candidates parties and third parties will all have to account for their expenditure from 1 January. This is a significantly longer period than the 3-month rule that currently applies and it should provide a much more accurate picture of campaign expenditure. This is in line again with other comparable jurisdictions. For example the period is less than that of the United Kingdom which provides for a regulated period of a full calendar year before polling day. For early elections—that is any general election that is held in the first 2 years of the parliamentary term—there will be a fixed 3-month regulated period for candidates and parties. For third parties the regulated period will run from the date when the Prime Minister announces the election. 
The bill also seeks to clarify issues that emerged from the  
Peters v Clarkson 
 election petition about the interpretation of the current law. Amongst other things that case raised questions about the allocation of election expenses between a candidate and a party where an advertisement says: “Vote for me vote for my party”. These issues are clarified so that the clearly defined rules are in place for the next election. 
The bill also strengthens the electoral penalty regime. The penalties for the most serious electoral offences—corrupt and illegal practices—will be significantly increased. Alongside this changes are proposed to the time limits for prosecution which will make New Zealand’s system again comparable to that in jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom. The bill provides a new penalty that will allow the courts to require persons convicted of an offence under the electoral finance regime to pay any benefit they have received from their offending to the Crown. This recognises the significance of these types of offences and ensures that people who breach the provisions cannot profit from their offending. 
There are also changes to the broadcasting regime. The most significant change relates to the membership of the Electoral Commission. The bill will remove the requirement for political representatives to be appointed members of the Electoral Commission when exercising their functions under Part 6 of the Broadcasting Act. The bill also simplifies some aspects of the broadcasting regime. 
The Government has also considered the question of the structure of electoral agencies. In 2001 the Election Framework Taskforce recommended that there should be a single electoral agency with integrated responsibility for all parliamentary electoral administration. That recommendation has I believe significant merit. However it needs to be reconsidered in the context of the bill that is before the House now which confers new functions on the Chief Electoral Office and the Electoral Commission. 
As part of the preparation of this reform package the Government also looked very closely at the way in which political parties are funded. One possibility that was considered was that political parties might receive some public funding as this system already operates in a number of other countries. The Government also looked at implementing much stricter rules around the donations that candidates and parties receive from private individuals. However the reality is that such proposals require very detailed consideration and also a measure of consensus. In the United Kingdom for instance Sir Haydon Phillips was recently asked by the Prime Minister to conduct a review of political party funding. His report was published in March this year. The report for those members who have not read it provides a very useful examination of the substantive issues. More important Sir Hayden has built consensus among political parties about the reform of party funding. 
To enable full and careful consideration of these matters the Government is establishing a review of electoral administration and political party funding. The review will report back in December 2008. This will give time to consider the recommendations and if appropriate and required to introduce legislation before the 2011 election. 
In conclusion I reiterate that many of the measures in the bill are consistent with those of comparable jurisdictions. Other countries are moving in a similar direction. There are some very valuable measures in the bill and it is my view that it will enable far greater public confidence that our electoral system is open and fair with clearly defined rules to protect it from abuse. I strongly encourage members of the public to make submissions on the bill when it is before the select committee. I commend the Electoral Finance Bill to the House.