Power Simon: Electoral Matters Bill — In Committee 
Power Simon: Electoral Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17268] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I want to make some remarks about election broadcasting and in particular I will follow on from the comments made by my colleague Tony Ryall in respect of choice around opening and closing addresses and the funding required for those addresses to be made freely. 
I note in the commentary on the bill that the Justice and Electoral Committee had a job of trying to balance freedoms around the election broadcasting expectation while at the same time not wanting to prescribe too heavily on the political parties the exact measures. I listened with interest when Stephen Franks from the ACT party made the comment that other political elections enjoy much more freedom around the edges of these types of funding arrangements but of course are restricted in many ways by constraints that they impose upon themselves. 
If one looks at the US election recently held and in particular at the plethora of rules and regulations that was laid down when Senator John Kerry was to meet President Bush on the platform during the presidential debates we can see that there were rules covering such things as how far apart the podiums would be whether there would be one podium or two lecterns who would speak first whether the candidates would sit or stand what arrangements would be made about which topics would be debated at which debate that the first debate was on foreign policy and the second was on the economy and domestic policy and that they were not allowed to have an environment where those subjects overlapped in those two debates. Further concerns were expressed between the parties over things such as the number of questions that would be asked who would ask those questions—would members of the audience ask them—and whether each candidate would be able to chip in while the other candidate was speaking. Those sorts of rules were very tightly prescribed. It made the leader’s debate with Paul Holmes look like a bit of a walk in the park. 
But I have to say that for us then to form the view that other jurisdictions have much more freedom around the way they conduct these broadcast debates or political statements is not actually that accurate although to be fair in respect of those two presidential candidates I have to say that that was done by way of negotiation between the two parties as opposed to a set of rules that was set down. I think that the most intriguing thing though was that when all those rules had been set down when all the arrangements had been made and when the gofers had finished negotiating on behalf of the candidates for months on end both candidates walked out wearing white shirts and red ties! I thought that was quite interesting—completely immaterial to this bill but interesting none the less. 
In respect of the opening and closing debates broadcast during the election period in New Zealand new section 71 in clause 17 attempts to blend choice with prescription and as is so often the case it would seem to me that what some political parties would wish for is far more choice and far less prescription on this particular issue. In the end the political parties themselves are best placed to determine what particular market what particular sector and indeed what particular medium will appeal to their voters. It should not be left to the State to make those decisions completely on their behalf. In fact when one thinks through the logic of every party having to spend money on an opening statement and a closing statement it all seems a bit odd. Who could forget at the last election Winston Peters sitting behind his desk looking in his own mind one imagines seriously presidential and then holding up three fingers to recite a child’s nursery rhyme. Only if he had been forced to have an opening statement would he have restricted himself to such a series of bizarre approaches. Having said that I am sure the Rt Hon Winston Peters would have preferred the freedom to choose his own medium his own setting and his own time frame in which to make his opening statement in his own way. Whilst the select committee has tried hard to blend prescription with freedom we still are not left with a huge amount of choice.