Worth Richard: Electoral Amendment Bill Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
Worth Richard: Electoral Amendment Bill Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
[Volume:622;Page:17342] 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 It is a rare occasion when a substantive contribution is made by a Labour member to a debate and from that member who just spoke we had such a contribution. I also express the hope that Mita Ririnui who is seated in the House may be tempted to add to the Labour contribution on these particular bills which National supports. I say bills because of course these two pieces of legislation started off life as one bill the Electoral Matters Bill. Now that bill has been transmogrified or perhaps there has been a secular transubstantiation to produce two bills: the Electoral Amendment Bill and the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 2). 
It is invidious to rate the performance of particular speakers in the course of this debate and I do not wish to do so in any detail. But I have certainly reflected on the very thoughtful contribution that Dr Wayne Mapp made earlier in this third reading. There is no doubt that he brings to this House a real ability to contribute on constitutional issues. He certainly is a hard-working and conscientious member representing so well the interests of the people on the North Shore but added to that he has constitutional insight that is almost second to none amongst members in this House. I say that of course against the background that he has a doctorate from Cambridge University in a very specialised area of constitutional law the Iran - United States claims tribunal work. That was an amazing piece of work and it has been followed through with continuing research by him in the constitutional law area including of course election law. 
When speaking to these two bills which National supports I would like to make the point that the electoral framework and its integrity is the hallmark of a constitutional democracy. I am sure that if Dr Mapp had an opportunity to contribute in this debate even further he would make that same observation but sadly he may be denied that opportunity. New Zealand has no written constitution and we must be very careful that in making piecemeal changes in a non-constitutional setting we do not affect the integrity of the framework. It is a strong framework but it is a framework that is not wrapped together in the way that occurs in the many countries that have written constitutions. Indeed it is the case that there are only three developed countries in the world that do not have a written constitution. They are— 
Simon Power 
: Israel. 
RICHARD WORTH 
: The member behind me reminds me that Israel is one and that is quite correct. The other illustration apart from New Zealand of course is the United Kingdom. That is not to say we do not have a whole lot of written constitutional material and members may suggest what in fact comprises those constitutional materials. It is fair to say that they are an assemblage. They would include the Constitution Act the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act the Electoral Act the Human Rights Act and I guess the parliamentary Standing Orders and conventions and various writings. 
I would like if I may to turn now to some critical aspects of the legislation that have caused National some concern. The one that has caused the most concern is now enshrined in the Electoral Amendment Bill with the insertion under clause 7B of new section 267A concerned with the making of regulations relating to advertisements of a specific kind and section 267B “Requirements before Minister can recommend that regulations be made”. What we are talking about is the placement of hoardings during the period beginning 2 months before polling day and ending at the close of the day before polling day. National’s particular gripe with these provisions centres on the process that has been followed—a process that only yesterday saw these far-reaching changes documented in the form of a Supplementary Order Paper and delivered to the National caucus. If there is to be considered debate on issues of constitutional importance then it is critical that time be afforded for consideration to be given to the merit of particular proposals. 
I have heard the complaints that members of minority parties in this House have made about aspects relating to electoral legislation. I have heard Mr Franks with the background of all his experience say that the fate of a minor party is similar to the fate that confronts a proprietor seeking to launch a new dog roll. I would not so quickly dismiss the contribution of ACT and other minor parties in that way because in the MMP environment all players have an opportunity to contribute—albeit not equally and albeit not with equal funding. But there are some who in respect of these hoarding provisions have expressed the hope—and I do not put it higher than that—that the Regulations Review Committee may well be able to deal with anomalies or deficiencies that arise in the regulations. That is not so because the Regulations Review Committee is constrained by the Standing Orders in what it can look at and one area that is a no-go area is the policy area. I believe we are probably in the context of the shape of any regulations—unknown as they are at this present time—to be confronted with a raft of policy decisions rather than regulatory content that would give the Regulations Review Committee some jurisdiction to intervene. 
In the Electoral Amendment Bill as it hits its third reading there are amendments to section 55 of the current legislation. Fairly or unfairly the finger was pointed at Mr Harry Duynhoven and the actions he took that it is asserted led to the need for this legislative change. But it is a fair point that New Zealand law tolerates and even encourages dual nationality. That is clear from the Citizenship Act. Double nationality frequently occurs by descent as it did in Mr Duynhoven’s case. Dutch nationality has to be governed by Dutch law so there was an argument that the retrospective nature of the law that was passed in the Parliament of the Netherlands meant that Mr Duynhoven always had Dutch nationality. In New Zealand of course the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act provides that every New Zealand citizen who is 18 years or over qualifies for membership of the House of Representatives. Members here present may recall that at the time when the Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill was passed it was asserted that some 20 members of Parliament might have been captured by the current law. Those issues are now matters of history in the context of the third reading of the Electoral Amendment Bill. 
There have been some significant changes—Mr Franks spoke about this—to section 55 of the Electoral Act and the Justice and Electoral Committee itself made certain changes that I would assert are reasonable changes. The phrase “foreign Head of State” which has been included in clause 5 with reference to swearing allegiance to a country is akin to swearing allegiance to king and country or queen and country. The other change that has been made and that I think is also reasonable is a change to provisions by addition in that a member of Parliament will have to vacate his or her seat if he or she accepts nomination to a governing body that might not fall within the definition of a country. One can think for example of a territory such as the Northern Territory in Australia. 
There was an opportunity for the select committee to say that it is not really on to be both a mayor or councillor and a member of Parliament in this country at the same time. That is an issue that has drawn the attention of the media of course in the case of one of the members of New Zealand First. How one can discharge responsibilities as both a local authority councillor and a member of Parliament beggars belief! 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.