Smith Murray: Electoral Matters Bill — In Committee 
Smith Murray: Electoral Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17275] 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 In considering the title I must say that I am a little bit disappointed in the number of speeches that have come from National that have really relitigated the past in terms of Harry Duynhoven’s situation. I am also concerned at the attacks from National that I have perceived on Harry Duynhoven over this issue. I think he acted with integrity throughout the process. He was the unfortunate victim of a law that perhaps was not all that it ought to be. 
The Justice and Electoral Committee did get the opportunity however through this to readdress the issue as to what the qualification should be for membership in the House of Representatives. Really in essence what the select committee came up with was to say that there needed to have been some positive act while an MP and that it ought to have involved allegiance to a foreign power or State. That was the essence really of what we came to and I think that is probably the right balance as far as that is concerned. 
I want to address the fact that the title the Electoral Matters Bill really understates how minimal the bill is in terms of the alterations it makes. My concern is that the Government did not take the opportunity to make some other changes to the bill at the time and only took a very minimalist approach when it looked at making alterations. 
 I draw the Committee’s attention to a couple of matters that have been in urgent need of amendment and that this bill could have and should have addressed. They are matters that relate back to recommendations in the select committee reports on the 1996 and 1999 general elections. I note that the select committee’s report on the inquiry into the 2002 election listed 20 matters that had arisen in previous reports that we felt needed attention. The committee then listed another 12 matters that we felt were additional recommendations that ought to be taken into account. 
Obviously some of those matters have been around for a long time without being addressed and whilst the Minister has indicated that he will look at a thorough review it is impractical for that to happen before the next election—it is impractical for it even to be looked at before the next election. Certainly it will not be implemented before the next election. So we will be looking at at least another 3 years before some of those pretty essential matters are addressed. 
The most important recommendation in the select committee’s report is recommendation No. 17 which stated that the Broadcasting Act should be amended to include a clear distinction between an election programme promoting a constituency candidate and an election programme promoting a political party. That was reinforced by new recommendation No. 6 in the report which indicated that clarification be provided on whether a constituency candidate’s broadcasting may promote a party or its list and whether a party’s broadcasting may promote a constituency candidate. That is a huge area of confusion as I know from my position of having been involved in the last three elections mainly from an official point of view as secretary of a political party. When we get to the situation of what a constituency candidate can advertise and what a party can advertise there is a huge amount of uncertainty. I think that that could have reasonably been cleared up without too much effort and placed in the bill. 
We face silly situations such as whether a constituency candidate can even have the party logo on his or her advertising without falling foul of the provisions that require that separation. There is difficulty particularly for radio broadcasters as well as other people in authority in determining whether what is being promoted by way of a programme is really something that should come out of party funding or something that should come out of the constituency candidate’s own funding. That desperately needs to be cleared up. Certainly United Future’s point of view is that there should be flexibility so that the constituency candidate and party can nominate to a large extent where it will come from. In the MMP environment it is simply silly that a constituency candidate cannot even put a party logo on his or her advertising which is the narrow interpretation of the provisions that has sometimes been taken. So that is one thing that could have been fixed. The other one that also directly involved me was recommendation 20. The select committee was looking at section 71A of the Electoral Act. 
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to. 
The Committee divided the bill into the Electoral Amendment Bill and the Broadcasting Amendment Bill  
divided into Electoral Amendment Bill Broadcasting Amendment Bill 
pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper308. 
Bill reported with amendment.