Dunne Peter: Appointments — Electoral CommissionText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDunne Peter: Appointments — Electoral Commission[Sitting date: 10 December 2013. Volume:695;Page:15425. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): I hesitate to break the consensus but I do not support Government motion No. 1 and I want to just briefly set out the reasons why. A number of speakers have made reference to the fact that the Electoral Commission which was established in 1993 is there to oversee fairly impartially and properly the administration of our electoral system. That is the point of my objection. It is based on United Future’s experiences with the commission earlier this year over the matter of party registration and Sir Hugh I am afraid played a leading role in those discussions.What to my way of thinking breached the whole issue of fairness was that first of all the commission told us that what we were seeking was not possible because it was contrary to the legislation. It was in fact a matter of the Electoral Commission’s own internal rules not the legislation and the Electoral Commission refused to alter its rules to allow for the electronic registration of party members. So we complied eventually through the old system only to have the Electoral Commission which had told us that itwas not possible to have electronic registration change its rules to allow electronic registration less than a month after our process had been completed. That action breaches fairness. That action breaches the swift and proper administration of the electoral system that we ought to expect.I have to say with some sadness and due respect that Sir Hugh did not acquit himself well during that process. When I explained to him that the situation had arisen because parties supplying the statutory declaration needed to provide no other information and that had we signed a statutory declaration the situation would not have arisen he kept saying to me “But Mr Dunne that would have been wrong.” and I kept saying to him “That is precisely the point. That is the absurdity of this exercise.” He said: “But Mr Dunne you could not have signed a false declaration.” Of course—and we did not. There was a complete incapacity with due respect on his part to actually understand the problem.I think that as we face electoral situations in the future which will become complex because of the variety of parties that contest them because of the new technologies that are available and because of the pressures we have seen even as recently as the local authority elections in terms of what people expect by way of participation it is important that the Electoral Commission be as nifty smart and up to date with reality as is possible. I have no confidence that the combination of the current president of the commission—sadly because he has had a distinguished career—and a chief executive who seems to rely on the Nuremberg defence whenever challenged saying “I am merely carrying out orders.” does not give the public the confidence it deserves.So unfortunately I cannot support the motion. I think it is important in general that appointments of this nature enjoy unanimous parliamentary support and I am not going to be part of that today. I hope that the commission does reflect upon its responsibilities and does act in future in a way that is commensurate with the high obligation that Parliament has placed upon it to fairly properly and smartly administer our electoral law.