Hughes Darren: Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill — Second Readings 
Hughes Darren: Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill — Second Readings 
[Volume:669;Page:15846] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to support the second reading of the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill and also the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill which we are considering cognately together this afternoon. Before I begin my remarks I acknowledge the speaker whom I have followed Hekia Parata—tomorrow to be legally honourable—and I wish her all the best for her— 
Amy Adams 
: She’s always been honourable. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: That was part of the joke I say to Mrs Adams. That was a subtlety lost on her I can see. But obviously being a member of the Electoral Legislation Committee has been very useful for Hekia Parata because it has enabled her to rise to much higher status with her new ministerial elevation so I offer my congratulations to her as she takes up her new duties. 
Having praised her now let me move to immediately criticise a couple of things she said. It is true there has been a high degree of cooperation and working together on this legislation but when she criticised my colleague for pointing out some of the inconsistencies that have occurred as though that was somehow unfair of him I think that was pushing the barrow out just a little too far. It cannot be the case that when National is in Opposition it can say anything it likes about matters to do with electoral law and then when it is in Government everyone else should just play nice. People should just play nice and play along with the rules of the Government of the day and pointing out any previous positions that have been held is just not cricket was the impression I got from the member as she spoke. It is true that although we ought to— 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: Darren the Australians lost by the way. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Well that was beyond doubt. If the Attorney-General had to check whether the Australians had lost the cricket to the English then it just shows how out of touch that man is. This has been clear for days and days and days but he has done a Google check to find out that this has happened. He must have a function out in the community tonight where he has to talk small talk with people and he thought he must check whatever happened in that cricket. He has taken the chance to do that and I congratulate him on it. 
Obviously matters of electoral law are ones where we would much prefer to see things settled. I recall my colleague Pete Hodgson the member for Dunedin North pointing out when he was speaking that it was 24 years—almost as long as John Carter’s career—since the royal commission reported on the electoral system and these are debates that have been going on for quite some time. When there has been a period of settled agreement across Parliament I think that is where things have worked well. Whatever the merits or otherwise of the Electoral Finance Act when the then Opposition made an overt decision not to cooperate or comply with that law in order to attempt to derail that law of course that became difficult just as this law would become unworkable if the Opposition of the day decided that we were going to mount a campaign about making it as unworkable as possible. There has to be a degree of acceptance and cooperation and a willingness to submit to not only the letter of the law but also the policy prescriptions in it. 
In that spirit I do join in the cacophony of praise to the Hon Simon Power that we are hearing. That has been a feature of the debate. We all have to line up take our turn and praise Simon Power. He pretends he is not listening to these things but I know they are being noted down. There will be another forum or another occasion not too far from now where I am sure these matters will be discussed in much greater detail and I look forward to that occasion. But in all seriousness Mr Power has set out with the overt strategy of getting the agreement being prepared to give and take on some things being prepared to signal things on which the Government was not prepared to move but accepting there was difference and allowing the Opposition the space to do the same thing. Mr Hipkins made the point that in respect of the disclosure for anonymous donations at electoral levels the current rate of $1000 is fine. This bill moves it to $1500 which was part of a genuine negotiation between all sides of politics and I think that has been most useful. 
Also just to continue with the theme of people who have played a role the Justice and Electoral Committee worked very very well. Amy Adams the chair of the committee deserves congratulations on that work because she was as a new member able to chair the committee on a very challenging topic. She did so very competently fairly and in a way I think that if submitters went away saying that they had not been listened to it would be an unfair conclusion to draw. A genuine attempt was made to hear submitters. I can confirm that she read every submission because she had the first two questions to every submitter. It was absolutely clear that the chair had been very diligent in her approach and we appreciated that as we did having the chance to make our point. It is important to reflect on the goodwill at the committee and to be able to place that on the record of the House. 
The area that the select committee reported back to the House as being different from the first reading was primarily in relation to third-party caps—the limit of expenditure for third parties to participate in the democratic process either in parliamentary elections or for those involved in referendums. I do think this issue is very important. Mr Hodgson made the observation that freedom of speech is a very important thing for every citizen to be able to enjoy. It is the basic principle of democracy. But it cannot be exaggerated into a position where people can purchase unlimited speech to the detriment of other political players and of people who want to have their voices heard fairly and equally because as we know our system says that every vote is equal. That is demonstrated in the way in which ballots are counted. So it makes sense that there be a common-sense regime for the amount of money that can be spent. Having just watched the mid-term elections in the United States I saw that there was a phenomenal amount of money spent. That amount of money would make the eyes water of even the National Party’s trustees of the Waitemata Trust. A large amount of money was spent even by the candidates who were not elected. The GOP nominee in the gubernatorial race in California spent over US$150 million on her campaign. Whether she received the endorsement of the Minister of Justice is unclear; I will need to check that in her electoral returns at the appropriate point. But there was a lot of money spent—to lose. Mind you as we have seen in this place sometimes if someone loses an election that person celebrates as if they won it; but that is a debate for another day. 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: That’s certainly my approach in Rongotai. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Speaking of defeated candidates for Mana I hear the Attorney-General pipe up. Defeated in Mana and Rongotai—who knows where he is off to next. He is the Richard Prebble of electoral defeat. That said we look forward to where he may well be heading. Maybe he could stand in one of the Maori seats. He enjoys inflicting electoral defeat on himself so much that he could be a candidate for Te Tai Tonga or Te Tai Hauauru. 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: Watch Rongotai next year. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: The Attorney-General says Rongotai is the seat to watch. I am sure the deputy leader of the Labour Party Mrs King will have a reasonably firm view on that matter. 
In respect of the caps I make the point that it is important to make sure a fair and understandable amount of money can be spent on these things. That is why we spend a lot of time talking about the equivalent of a retail campaign. I do not think the cap should be so large as to allow the kind of mass retail marketing that say Briscoes might allow. Voters would be absolutely sick and tired if they were subjected as much publicity as that for a constant amount of their time. So putting the caps in is important. 
The regulated period was an area on which there was a lot of disagreement and that is one of those things where there is political difference depending on which side of the House someone happens to be occupying. But I think that in the longer term the only way around that is to have a debate in New Zealand about the length of the parliamentary term. That issue was last considered by the country in 1990 with the referendum on a 4-year term. An issue also debated was whether a fixed date would be a more sensible way of handling our parliamentary arrangements. Our move to proportional representation 14 years ago has not resulted in an unstable Government; there has been government where different people have had different views on the policy agenda but we have stable government under MMP. Those who had previously argued against fixed terms had thought that our proportional system might not lend itself well to such an arrangement but I believe it would and that is something we should come back to. 
Finally I will mention in the remaining minute that we are passing the second reading of the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill. The bill seeks to amend the definition of “funding entitlements for parliamentary purposes” which was designed by Dr Michael Cullen and which was roundly ridiculed by the Opposition at the time. Mr Brownlee picked it up as Leader of the House last year. We were determined to get not an interim but a long-term definition of “funding entitlements for parliamentary purposes” and this bill does it. It is very very important that we have now resolved the issue about the use of parliamentary funding for legitimate constituency and parliamentary political party work and also the issue of not being able to use taxpayer resources to campaign either positively for one’s own party or against another. So we have the third-party situation sorted and we hope we never see the Exclusive Brethren situation ever again in New Zealand. We have a sensible regime around the referendum and now we have the Parliamentary Service funding worked out. I think those are all worthwhile reasons to support the second reading.