Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:10894] 
Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to principal Act 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Part 1 establishes a new Electoral Commission to undertake electoral administration in New Zealand. The new commission is to be an independent Crown entity. This part also provides for the appointment and removal of the three governing Electoral Commissioners which will be done by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the House. 
Part 1 sets out the core functions and powers of the Electoral Commission which will enable it to independently and effectively administer our electoral system. It also sets out the commission’s statutory duty of independence and its objective to administer the electoral system impartially effectively efficiently and in a way that maintains confidence in the administration of the system. The Electoral Commission will have a statutory duty of independence. It will be able to advise the Minister of Justice or the House at the request of either or at the commission’s own volition. 
The appointment of Electoral Commissioners will be done via the House thereby creating an additional incentive for the Minister of Justice to seek consensus across the House in support of the appointment motion—in a way that is similar I guess to the appointment of members of the Abortion Supervisory Committee. The Justice and Electoral Committee specifically considered what form the new entity should take and particularly whether it should be established as an Officer of Parliament. The committee concluded that the electoral agency did not have the defining characteristic of an Officer of Parliament which is to scrutinise the executive. Instead it would be responsible for delivering impartial and transparent elections in accordance with the law. 
Establishing the electoral agency as an Officer of Parliament could also have a potentially adverse effect on the role of the Speaker who could end up being given political responsibility for its performance. Officers of Parliament are also limited in their ability to be involved in the policy development process as they are divorced from the executive branch. The independent Crown entity model proposed under this part of the bill ensures that the new Electoral Commission will be independent and will also have a direct relationship with this House. Submissions on the bill focused on the need for both. We will all be able to hold confidence in the Electoral Commission established under this bill. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I think that point made by the Minister in the chair the Minister of Justice is the point I would like to follow on from because I read in the Justice and Electoral Committee’s report a recommendation that the Standing Orders Committee develop a procedure for appointments to the Electoral Commission and also to other bodies that are not Officers of Parliament such as the Independent Police Conduct Authority and the Abortion Supervisory Committee which the Minister mentioned. 
The select committee had in its report the particular recommendation of an adaptation of the procedures for the appointment of an Officer of Parliament. I thought that that had kind of a nice ring to it given the debate that had obviously occurred at the select committee over whether the Electoral Commission should be an Officer of Parliament or an independent Crown entity. 
I agree that the commission should be an independent Crown entity. I am not of the view that it should be an Officer of Parliament. I think that the select committee dealt with all the arguments that had been put to it quite neatly. I also agree that having the Speaker being accountable to Parliament for the commission’s operations could create some problems. Obviously that is a very political sphere and that could lead to an inappropriate line being drawn where we would not want it to be drawn. I also think that the board structure as the committee identified is not really in line with individual appointments as the other Officers of Parliament are and I think it really does suit that model better. 
But I quite like the idea of making a recommendation to the Standing Orders Committee so I would not mind if the Minister made a response to that particular proposal. I understand that in the meantime the Minister plans to consult all party leaders about appointments and he is making that point I think by using the example of the Abortion Supervisory Committee making appointments only where there is a broad level of support across all parties. I think that is to be commended. 
As I understand it further some of the features will include the appointments being made from application rather than nomination to ensure that the selection process is as consistent and transparent as possible. We got this information from the Minister’s office today so I assume I am reporting this accurately to the Committee. The board positions will be advertised online and in the major dailies. Candidates will be shortlisted and interviewed by an independent panel appointments will be referred through the Cabinet appointments process and then the consultation will occur with political parties. 
That seems like a good-enough process to be working on at the moment but I do think that it would be enhanced by having the Standing Orders Committee look at adopting a particular process that would then be adopted by all Governments in the future. I think that transparency would enhance confidence in the process and in the individuals who take up the appointments on the board. I certainly commend that work of the select committee. 
The second thing I really want to do during Committee stage of this bill is to refer to the objective of the Electoral Commission in new section 4C in Part 1. The commission is established to “administer the electoral system impartially efficiently effectively and in a way that—(a) facilitates participation in parliamentary democracy; and (b) promotes understanding of the electoral system and associated matters; and (c) maintains confidence in the administration of the electoral system.” I am concerned about the commission’s capacity to meet the second objective—the promotion of the understanding of the electoral system and associated matters—given that other events are occurring at the moment. 
Under another bill that the House is addressing at the moment—and I refer to it because it will become a requirement of the Electoral Commission should MMP survive the referendum ballot next year—there is a substantially new role for the Electoral Commission. In fact the one previous time that a review of the MMP system occurred it was dealt with by a special select committee chaired by the Speaker. Of course there was no such role for the Electoral Commission in the establishment of the Royal Commission on the Electoral System which led to the promotion of MMP as an alternative system here in New Zealand and all the subsequent legislation that has passed through this House has all gone through parliamentary processes. So in the past we have had Parliament a royal commission and a special select committee of Parliament chaired by the Speaker to look at MMP. 
So if MMP survives the referendum vote then a new role for the Electoral Commission will be to conduct a review of MMP with specific issues defined in the legislation for the commission to look at but not I think limited in that regard. I do not think I can overstate the significance of this new role but I am raising one real concern that I have. It will be vital that the commission is able to ensure that there is very high-quality information out there about the nature of our current electoral system because there will be very powerful vested interests that are determined to get rid of proportional representation. 
I really worry that a brand new organisation which will be running its very first general election—and I know there will be a merging of those who have current interest and involvement in the work of the commission—will have the general election as its priority. We have a major constitutional issue being decided by way of referendum and I know that it is not the final decision but it will obviously be of significance in terms of what happens next. 
With no limits on spending on the referendum and unlimited access to television there is a real risk that democracy will be subverted by totally misleading advertising designed to undermine proportional representation. If members thought it was humorous to see paper bags over the heads of a few people whom we would not apparently know as list MPs—which was all they managed to throw together when they suddenly realised that the people of New Zealand were going to vote for change back in the early 1990s—then they can dream on. That is not what it will be like next time. Those people those opponents will have unlimited access to television in the middle of an election campaign. 
I could write the script myself. I know exactly how they will prepare for it. It is perfectly obvious to anyone who is concerned about retaining a system that produces a fair result. Unless this matter is addressed the first test for this new commission could potentially represent a travesty of democracy leaving the commission with no ability to meet that most important objective of promoting understanding of the electoral system and associated matters. 
I want some reassurance from the Minister that there will be sufficient resources available to the Electoral Commission so that it can participate in this process in a way that ensures that people get access to quality unbiased information. I am sure that unbiased information will be outspent 100:1 by those who oppose proportional representation and want to return to the happy days of a single party Government who could ram through as Sir Geoffrey Palmer described in  
Unbridled Power 
 anything it chose to ram through. 
Parties of both colours were guilty of doing that—both red and blue—and unfortunately there are people who hanker for those days. Most people who were involved in the red days now belong in the blue and yellow corner. Therefore they probably do not see it quite in the same light. But given where their support base is I am sure that they will be backing removal of proportional representation because if they get majority National Governments able to deliver more to their agenda than a Labour Government would then I am sure that they will be pushing for that change. That is a serious concern that I want to put on the table and I hope the Minister can address it. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 I share some of the concerns of the previous speaker the Hon Lianne Dalziel but any new Electoral Commission could not possibly be as bad as the last one. I am willing to back the ideas that are in the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill and I support the establishment of a new Electoral Commission. As my colleague Lianne Dalziel said the objectives of the Electoral Commission are perfectly sensible and reasonable: to “administer the electoral system impartially efficiently effectively” to assist democratic participation to promote “understanding of the electoral system” and to maintain “confidence in the administration of the electoral system.” 
We have to go back to the 2005 election to see the origins of deep concern about the way that elections have been run. There was anonymous and even deceitful advertising full-page colour ads the day before the election and outrageous attacks—I will not go into the details; that would repeat the defamation—against Progressive candidates like me and also against Green and Labour candidates. The attacks were all in blue—but I will not blame the current people for that—and all subsequently sheeted home to the Exclusive Brethren of course. I must say that when I looked at my result I should not really complain because my majority went up. If we fast forward to the 2008 election the Government of which I was a coalition partner attempted to amend the Electoral Act to prevent a rerun of 2005. We had very good intentions but I have to say with the best will in the world we did not quite get it right—thus this attempt to amend that legislation. 
My press releases at the time which were already in the public arena having been sent out by email were reported to the police by the commission in the middle of the election campaign. My electronic ministerial newsletter that I sent out as Associate Minister of Health which I had been sending out for 9 years was reported to the Electoral Commission and it reported the newsletter to the police. The police had more common sense and better things to do and threw both of them out—peremptorily I might say. But I had to employ a QC to defend myself in the middle of an election campaign. Both of those reports to the police from the Electoral Commission displayed a level of incompetence and ill-informed analysis that was in my view simply unacceptable and outrageous. I will not miss that commission or the members of it and the sooner we get another one in place the better for me personally—from my experience of it. 
If this bill as I expect it will improves on that hopeless situation—it will be hard not to in my view—it will be welcomed by most New Zealanders including me. There will be some time pressures because elections roll around pretty quickly and by the time this legislation is in place and the commission is in place we will be involved in a general election and as my colleague said a referendum—not a definitive one but a necessary one and one that is important to the future of the electoral system in this country. I think we will have to give some attention to the resources that the commission has at its disposal for that purpose. 
But by and large the work that the Minister has done the clear intentions to improve the quality of electoral legislation and the work of the commission are supported I am sure by every member of the House and I certainly look forward to the implementation of the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I associate myself with the remarks made by my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel and the remarks made by my other colleague the Hon Jim Anderton. I will not repeat any of them in the interest of time but instead will make two other points. 
The first is a random act of praise to the Minister of Justice. His style is to be commended and should be acknowledged and I hope it continues. It is important to try to get these things right— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: He’s a good role model for others. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: He is a good role model for others yes. 
The second thing is to offer a quick history lesson. It goes back a wee bit further than the history lesson offered by the Hon Jim Anderton though I must say that I was sent off to the cops on any number of occasions too—especially in the 2008 and 2005 periods. But I will go back further than that and say that the second leg of the double for this Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill is to fold in the people who put together the rolls. We will have to do that carefully. The last time the rolls were tampered with—I suppose that is the way to put it—was in about 1977 and in 1978 the rolls were a mess. They were administered at that time by the Ministry of Justice. They had been taken off New Zealand Post or the Post and Telegraph Department or whatever the name of the outfit was back then. Then in the subsequent periods of our history especially the 1984-93 period we went through the big old “let’s deregulate let’s sell let’s corporatise etc.” period and New Zealand Post had to win the contract back against whomever else came along—I do not even know who it was. 
Surely by now those days have gone and surely by now we have worked out that New Zealand Post has a proven ability to put the rolls together. It seems to be an outfit that will not go anywhere. I hope the Government will not privatise it—not partly not at all—and I hope it is within the bounds of possibility that the Government will realise that removing the rolls from New Zealand Post especially with all of its data architecture and all of its experience would be deleterious. That is not to say that some change in the administration of electoral enrolments is not a good thing. This legislation is I suppose an architectural tidy-up. But I implore the Minister if he has not already—he was only a schoolboy at the time and could not possibly remember—to ask— 
Hon Simon Power 
: What year was that? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: 1977. 
Hon Simon Power 
: You were quite right; I was 7. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: That is right. But it has happened in my lifetime certainly and it was a shambles. I was a campaign manager in Dunedin North for the Hon Stan Roger when he was standing for Parliament and we did not have rolls that were reliable. They were unreliable. They were both overblown and under-recorded. They were especially overblown. There were a whole lot of people on the roll who did not exist—thousands and thousands of them. That was because a change was made between the 1975 and 1978 elections. It looks like we are going to make another change between I think the 2011 and the 2014 elections. Can we please make sure that history is studied before that change is made. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I have a brief contribution to make on the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill. Firstly I was on the Justice and Electoral Committee and I say we dealt carefully as the Minister of Justice Simon Power acknowledged with the issue of whether the structure should be an independent Crown entity or an Officer of Parliament. Through that process we had a very good submission from Dave McGee QC and good submissions from people who were in favour of the Officer of Parliament model being used. In the eyes of the committee those submissions were outweighed by the points that were made by Dave McGee against following the Officer of Parliament model. Amongst his good points though was to emphasise to us that the conventions that we have around our institutional arrangements are really important in a country that does not have a written constitution. Even countries that do have written constitutions often still rely upon unwritten conventions as to how they administer important institutions to maintain public confidence in the independence and impartiality of those institutions. 
One of the ideas that the select committee put forward reflecting the submission from Dave McGee QC was that we should have more rigour around the process by which we appoint people who are not Officers of Parliament but who are being appointed by Parliament to independent Crown entities. I know that the Minister has come forward with a letter dated 28 April that sets out how he proposes to make the first appointments to this commission. But the underlying point that Dave McGee made was that there should be perhaps some changes made to the Standing Orders in order to regularise the way in which we make appointments to not only this body but also other bodies such as the Abortion Supervisory Committee and the Independent Police Conduct Authority in order to have greater public confidence that those process will be continued impartially into the future. 
The other point I make is a more general one. Yes it is good that we are aiming for a consensus around these laws and the criticisms that were made by the then Opposition National Party of our last reform of the electoral financing law had some justification in terms of how some of it went too far in the absence of a consensus. On that basis the Minister retreated back to the prior status quo representing a consensus in respect of electoral financing and he has run a process to change it in future. But it has become apparent to me through that process that if we use the status quo as the foundation in the absence of a consensus on the changes that should be made the Government can always resist changes that it does not think are in its interests. It can say there is no consensus for the changes because it does not agree with them. I think that rather than the need for a consensus there is a need for give and take so that we arrive at a consensus whereby we give a bit on our side and other parties of opposing views give a bit on their side. 
I think that this point comes at us in respect of the issue which is unresolved in our law of third-party campaigning. I know that we have a different view as to what should be the rigours of the control on third-party campaigning compared with the National Party’s view but I also know that the royal commission said the absence of controls on third-party campaigning makes a nonsense of having controls on political party campaigning because political parties can go and use another vehicle that is related to them. That vehicle does not even have to be unrelated; the parties can control it and it can be completely unrestricted in the way that it campaigns. Now it seems to me to make a mockery of the underlying purpose of the election finance rules. If that situation prevails in the electoral financing legislation that comes out of the select committee it will be an example of the Government withholding a consensus and effectively saying that controlling third-party campaigning is not in National’s interest so the Government will stick with the status quo. I do not think that is what I mean or what most New Zealanders would think is meant by trying to provide fair electoral laws that have a broad consensus around them. 
That issue is not specific to this bill. I do value the work that the Minister has done but I just think that there is a need for a wee bit of give and take on the part of the National Party on that particular issue. 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I will address very quickly just two or three of the matters that have been raised. I assure the member who has just resumed his seat David Parker that I welcome any constructive discussion on these issues through the next 4 to 5 months. Give and take operates on both sides of the yin and yang so I look forward to continuing discussions as we try to work our way through what will not be straightforward as we beaver through these electoral finance laws. 
In respect of the Hon Lianne Dalziel’s comments on resourcing and the information campaigns that the Electoral Commission will need to oversee I am confident that there will be vigilance on that matter and I am confident that the commission will have the necessary resources and time frames to ensure that vigilance. 
In respect of the comments that the Hon Jim Anderton raised on time pressures around getting education campaigns moving I guess the only advice I can offer the honourable member is that the sooner we get through the Committee stage and the third reading debate the sooner the commission can get on with the task at hand. 
Lastly a number of members have raised the issue of encouraging the Standing Orders Committee to develop a procedure to apply for the appointment of members of the board of the Electoral Commission and for that matter of other similar bodies. The Government has no difficulty at all in that course of action being followed. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Consequential amendments and transitional provisions 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Part 2 of the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill provides for the transition from the old to the new and sets out how the existing Chief Electoral Office and the existing Electoral Commission become the new integrated Electoral Commission. Part 2 enables the new Electoral Commission to be established immediately after the bill comes into force so that it can—as the honourable member Jim Anderton was concerned about—immediately prepare itself to receive the electoral functions required. At the close of 30 September 2010 the bill disestablishes the existing Electoral Commission and revokes the appointments of the current Electoral Commissioners and the current Chief Electoral Officer. Employees of the current electoral agencies will be transferred if they agree across to the new Electoral Commission. These employees are also assured as far as possible of continued enjoyment of their current terms and conditions—their service will be deemed to be unbroken. Other mechanisms provide for the assets liabilities rights and responsibilities of the current electoral agencies to be transferred over to the new Electoral Commission on 1 October of this year. Part 2 also amends the Electoral Act 1993 and other relevant electoral legislation and regulations to make the technical and consequential amendments necessary to implement the policy of integrating the electoral agencies. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I will not take a lengthy call on Part 2; it is the machinery to bring into effect the new Electoral Commission. But I thought I would not let the opportunity go by to comment on clause 26 “Restriction of compensation for technical redundancy”. It identifies that when somebody moves into the new Electoral Commission from one of the existing agencies—the ministry or the existing commission—he or she has substantially equivalent employment which means substantially the same position and on terms of conditions that are no less favourable than those applying immediately before on terms that treat the period of service with the previous employer and any other service recognised by the previous employer as continuous service—sorry I left out that bit before—including any service-related redundancy and superannuation conditions. 
The point I make is that there is a whole stack of people out there in the private sector who get no redundancy when they are made redundant and this House had a really good opportunity recently to pick up my colleague Darien Fenton’s member’s bill which would have provided for at least some minimum redundancy to apply. I think what we see reflected here is that the Government is appropriately concerned about technical redundancy being picked up in an area where there are widespread redundancy provisions designed to protect people should they be made redundant from their position and not be able to take up substantially the same position on ongoing conditions that recognise all of their previous continuous service and that continuous service lasting. But that is not so for the private sector—in very few instances now do we see it. It is really only those areas where there are well-organised unionised workplaces that have built redundancy provisions into their conditions of employment. 
I will say one other thing because it is important. I would like the Government to reflect on this: in other parts of the State sector there is a practice being developed in order to get around those redundancy provisions which are quite widespread within the public sector. There is a practice of trying to develop short-term fixed-term contracts and then enticing people to resign their existing position when they are being made redundant and putting them into a fixed-term contract. That would not stand up in a court of law. It would obviously be challenged. But a lot of people are feeling quite vulnerable and want to maintain some income—facing alternatively redundancy and not knowing whether they will be able to pick up another job. I thought that it was an ideal opportunity to simply mention that this is going on. I hope that the Government will do something about it next time it has an opportunity. I acknowledge my good friend Darien Fenton for the good work she attempted to do in this area. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Schedule 1 agreed to.  
Schedule 2 agreed to.  
Schedule 3 agreed to.  
Schedule 4 agreed to.  
Clause 1 agreed to.  
Clause 2 agreed to.  
Clause 3 agreed to.  
Bill to be reported without amendment presently.