Worth Richard: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Worth Richard: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13542] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 I am glad that the Minister Annette King is here because I would like to focus on a particular provision and strongly urge that it be looked at afresh by her and her officials. The particular clause is clause 84(1) which is headed “Maximum amount of party’s election expenses”. It is a deceptively simple provision but there has in my view been a drafting slip. I know that view is shared by others including Mr Finlayson because he has a Supplementary Order Paper that is calculated to deal with the issue. When rights are involved I would say there must be precision in language and this is such a case because democratic rights are involved with this legislation and with this particular provision. Clause 84(1) purports to set some maxima. It reads: “Where a party is listed in the part of the ballot paper that relates to the party vote the party’s election expenses in respect of any regulated period must not exceed—(a) the amount of $1000000; and (b) the amount of $20000 for each electoral district contested by a candidate for the party.” 
The courts have a very straightforward way of approaching issues of statutory interpretation. One of the starting points is to look at provisions that are set out in the Interpretation Act 1999. Section 5 of that Act is headed “Ascertaining meaning of legislation”. The legislation states: “The meaning of an enactment must be ascertained from its text and in the light of its purpose.” Section 5(2) states: “The matters that may be considered in ascertaining the meaning of an enactment include the indications provided in the enactment.” Section 5(3) provides examples of those indications. 
The issue centres on the word “and” in clause 84(1)(a) of the Electoral Finance Bill. The use of “and” in statutory drafting can often give rise to ambiguity. That is what has happened in this particular case. The use of the word “and” in this setting can mean one of two quite different things. Does it mean a cumulative amount or is it setting separate tests? Clause 84(1)(a) states that a “party’s election expenses in respect of any regulated period must not exceed—(a) the amount of $1000000; and (b) the amount of $20000 for each electoral district contested by a candidate for the party.” The ambiguity around the word “and” is that it could be read as meaning that a party’s expenses must not exceed $1000000 and must not exceed $20000 for each electoral district. Clearly that is not what was intended. 
If one goes back to the predecessor legislation which is section 214B of the Electoral Act one sees that it states that the limit is $1000000 plus $20000 for each constituency contested by a candidate for the party. If this issue arose in a court setting the judges would look at the predecessor legislation and see the wording change that has occurred and they would draw from that an inference that change was intended. But that is not what is intended. It is intended that “and” means “plus” or that “and” means “together with”. That has not been said. I urge the Minister to look critically at this issue because there has been a significant change and that is reflected in the predecessor legislation. It is a little like what Humpty-Dumpty said in  
Alice in Wonderland 
 in that memorable line “When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” This issue of “and” and what it can mean in various settings has been the subject of academic writing.