Chauvel Charles: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Chauvel Charles: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13459] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 The main criticism of this part of the Electoral Finance Bill has clearly been that the definition of “election advertisement” could have been interpreted to include issues-based advocacy and would thus have regulated and effectively limited public participation in political life which is the opposite of the goal of this bill. 
I remind members that this Labour Government is the heir to the party in Government that enacted the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and that the party of members opposite voted against that legislation. We are the party that upholds and values freedom of expression and this legislation gives real effect to that value not just effect in form but also effect in substance. Accordingly the Justice and Electoral Committee has recommended that the definition of “election advertisement” be amended. It has been reviewed carefully in the committee and the majority of the select committee—that majority comprising Labour Green New Zealand First and United Future members—has recommended that it be changed. So clause 5(1)(a)(iii) is to be omitted as was suggested by the Human Rights Commission amongst other bodies including many non-governmental organisations that came before the committee. It is now abundantly clear that taking a stand on the issues will not fall under the definition of “election advertisement” for the purpose of the legislation. 
Let us make this point perfectly clear: the bill does not limit anyone’s right to comment on the issues. It is only where people seek to advocate for a vote for or against a candidate or a party or a combination that the law will intervene and when it does so it does so lightly. The requirements are simply that those who seek to participate in that way should do so openly rather than covertly they should do so transparently and they should do so subject to the very high expenditure cap of $120000. That is an important point to have cleared up right from the start. 
The original clause 10 has also been omitted. This related to the need for a candidate to appoint an auditor. This was seen to be a burden with no practical value. So here again we have proof of the select committee process working as it should. The submissions were heard on this point and the majority of the select committee agreed that there ought to be a recommendation to omit that provision. Accountability and transparency are still ensured for candidates because they are required—as they are now—to file a return as to election expenses. 
Another point that I draw the attention of the Committee of the whole House to is the eligibility criteria for membership of third parties. These have been revised. As long as a majority of the members are registered electors in respect of an unincorporated society then third party registration is open and no minimum age limit will apply. So any person who wishes to be involved in a third party and satisfies those eligibility criteria which essentially include that there should be a majority of people onshore can participate freely in the affairs of a third party. Any person involved in the administration of the affairs of a party or a candidate may not be listed as a third party. Again this excludes the possibility of covert undeclared conflicting interests or collusion between primary and third parties. 
Another significant change that appears in this part is that the Electoral Commission will administer third party listing under clause 15 of the bill and under clause 16 it will be empowered to prescribe an application form for the registration of third parties. I am very confident that this change will require all the necessary information for that process to be provided transparently so that people can know the true identity of third parties seeking to involve themselves directly in advocacy for political parties candidates or a combination of these. 
This part of the bill is greatly improved as a result of the select committee process. Once again freedom of expression is protected and preserved as is the principle of one person one vote rather than one dollar one vote.