Donald Rod: Appointments — Electoral Commission—Membership 
Donald Rod: Appointments — Electoral Commission—Membership 
[Volume:624;Page:19001] 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 As I said before the dinner break I agree with the Associate Minister of Justice Rick Barker when he says that an informed public is critical to good democratic processes and the Green Party is obviously very pleased that the Government has finally seen fit to increase the election broadcasting funding especially as it turned down a similar request from the Electoral Commission in May 2002. But it will not surprise anyone especially members of the old two-party club that the Greens are not pleased that National and Labour appointees have power to decide how much of that total allocation will be allocated to the Green Party. It is not just the money that we are concerned about; it is also the time allocation. 
The motion before us belongs to the first-past-the-post era. It has no place in an MMP Parliament. Either no parties should have representatives on the Electoral Commission or all parties should have representatives on it including those that are registered but not in Parliament and that total about 24 at the moment. But let us face it the public already thinks that we have our snouts in the trough and given that the party representatives are on the commission only to allocate money and time to parties the argument for no political party appointees is compelling—indeed so compelling that back in 1999 the commission itself recommended the removal of party hacks. 
The commission’s report stated: “The commission again submits that it is not appropriate for the commission as an independent body to have membership of this nature when it carries out any of its statutory functions. This is particularly the case when the commission is able to require parties to provide information relating to the election campaigns and where the commission reports to the police when it believes that a candidate or party may have committed an offence.” That statement was unanimous. Even the two-party representatives supported the abolition of their positions. That was 1999; this is 2005. It has taken the Labour Government 6 years to do nothing. Mind you the previous National Government ignored similar Electoral Commission calls for party hacks to be removed. 
Let me put this issue in terms that the two old parties will understand. Letting big party hacks divvy up the broadcasting money is like asking South Africa and Australia to set the rules for all the teams in the Rugby World Cup. Quite simply players in the political game should not also be the referees. National and Labour are stuck in a time warp. Labour’s person at least represents a party with almost a majority of the seats. National has a representative yet its person represents a party that does not command even half of the Opposition seats in this House. As the Government representative represents only the Labour Party and the Progressive Party the National Party representative is meant to act in the best interests not only of New Zealand First the ACT party the Maori Party and the Green Party but also of United Future despite the fact that United Future has a confidence and supply agreement with the Government. Also that person is meant to represent all the parties that are not in Parliament at all. 
I do not challenge the personal integrity of the two nominees David Caygill and John Isles but I point out that this process undermines the integrity and independence of our electoral process. It is totally unreasonable for political parties to have to disclose their membership numbers to the National Party and Labour Party representatives yet we have no choice if we want the criteria to be taken into account in the allocation. The Electoral Commissions in the United Kingdom Australia Canada South Africa and Australia are all free of political party representatives and we should be too. In any case it is totally unreasonable for Mr Isles to try to represent the competing interests of the six parties I mentioned before. 
No matter how fair the members of the commission try to be—not just the party representatives but all the commissioners—no matter how wise they are and no matter how comprehensive their criteria they simply cannot accurately second-guess how parties will perform at this year’s election. Just look at what happened in 2002. They got the allocation badly wrong. Yes it was fair for the Greens compared with 1999 when we were badly disadvantaged but there was still wide variability in the allocations. United Future got only 55c a vote. The Alliance got $3.88 a vote. National was given $1.17 a vote while Labour received only 79c a vote. 
The measure of whether the two political party representatives will act like a two-party club this year will be whether National is downgraded at this year’s election. Last time National got $617000 the same as Labour. This time National is well behind in the polls and has only about half the number of seats. National should certainly get less than Labour if the criteria are to be properly taken into account. 
But let us face it the criteria are redundant in an MMP environment and the Electoral Commission agrees. It wants a comprehensive review. In fact it has been calling for a comprehensive review since 1996. It called for it in its 1999 report and in its 2002 report it again stressed the need for a comprehensive review of the current legislation relating to election broadcasting. The select committee continues to kick for touch. It will not face up to the fundamental need to change how the electoral broadcasting regime is done. For that matter it will not face up to the need for proper State funding of political parties. 
I call on the Government to get the review under way. The Associate Minister of Justice Rick Barker keeps talking about it but it does not happen. It is time to get a review under way. We have only to look as far as Australia to see what is needed—that is a very straightforward system that will lead to political parties receiving State funding immediately after the election in direct relation to their vote at the election. So it is very much a performance-based system that I am sure some of my colleagues would support. There will be no issues about the commission having to weigh up how parties performed at the last election whether to take the electorate vote into account—which of course should not be taken into account because electorate candidates can do their own television and radio advertising—what to do with any by-election results how many members parties have and what the political polling is at any point in time then try to weigh up all the criteria and come up with a conclusion. It is simply unreasonable to expect the members of the commission to second-guess what the voters will do at the election and try to predict the outcome. It is time we got rid of a system where the variations are so wide. 
As I said before instead of at the one extreme parties like United Future getting only 55c and at the other extreme parties like the Alliance getting $3.88 there would be a straightforward formula where parties would get for example $2 a vote after the election. Obviously parties would need to do a lot of fundraising beforehand and perhaps even take out some loans in the knowledge that they would get some funding after the election but it is by far a fairer system than the one we have now. 
I might also add a personal note that I think it is time we looked at the issue of parties being able to spend their own money for election broadcasting. It is not a Green Party policy but there is a certain inequality at the moment that the two old parties each got $600000 at the last election and the next ranked parties got $166000. There is a big gap in between. It perpetuates the system that the two old parties got three times as much exposure through the broadcasting media than any other party. I think it is time for that to be looked at and I am pleased that the commission keeps calling for it to happen. However I am disappointed that the Government is not getting on with it. It should get on with it now. The Government should get this inquiry under way before the election because it never seems to happen in the period following an election. Now is the time to start.