Roy Eric: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
Roy Eric: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13601] 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 When the House rose last evening the Committee of the whole House was considering new Part 2B on Chris Finlayson’s Supplementary Order Paper 166. This part is about the indexation of the amount allowable in the reconciliation of costs leading up to an election. I wish to speak in support of this provision as it is a fundamental issue in the democratic process of the way this bill will impact on the election process. 
The reason why it is important that the Committee considers and votes in favour of Mr Finlayson’s Supplementary Order Paper is the limitations that will occur in the democratic process if this provision is not put in place. As an example I will cite what actually happens. We have a $20000 limit. When I first stood for Parliament in 1993 the limit was $20000. What has happened since then? There have been some elements of inflation. It was generally reckoned in 1993 that it cost 50c to put out a letter. That is the cost of the paper the envelope the packaging and the stamp. Today it is generally reckoned that that cannot be done for less than $1 so that limits by at least 50 percent a candidate’s ability to communicate with voters in an electorate. 
The first issue is that we have had a significant increase in the cost of communication. The second thing that has occurred since 1993 is MMP. In 1993 when I first stood there were some 16500 houses in the electorate in which I stood. In the electorate I represent today with the new boundaries that have just been locked in for 2008 there are 27000 houses. Again that diminishes by another 50 percent one’s ability to communicate today in comparison with 1993. So if candidates want to communicate as they should do they cannot send out even one letter. If the only single thing that candidates are to do is to post a copy of the party’s manifesto to every home or to go to every home in the electorate $20000 is not enough. To do that would completely rule out any other form of advertising be it billboards radio advertising newspaper advertising or any other single thing. It is hugely important that this issue now be addressed. 
I wish to make another point in connection with this. During the process of this bill the National Party has made several claims that the process was flawed in that we were excluded from the development of this policy. Therefore one can assume that the promoters of this bill—the Government—actually have some reason for wanting to limit anybody other than Government members from being involved in the democratic process. That is why I say that this bill not only is flawed but also is tipping the playing field directly in favour of those who are elected. How can it be a fair and equitable democratic process if an already elected member who has the profile and opportunity that surrounds all of that is favoured? One need only make the comparison with buying advertising. We could compare the column inches that are available in an editorial in any newspaper or publication in an electorate with having to purchase that space in the paper. There would be a significant cost difference between buying that newspaper space and having editorial space generated from press releases or from any other means and put in daily newspapers. 
There is a serious flaw in this whole process in terms of the democratic process. We are curtailing and limiting spending for anybody who is not currently an elected member who might be standing and challenging an elected member. I say that that is flawed and it tips the balance considerably in favour of those who are already elected.