Ardern Jacinda: Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Ardern Jacinda: Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10631] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I am very glad to now know or to have learnt where Simon Bridges’ inspiration for becoming a lawyer came from. It was from  
The Castle 
. I think that that filled in a few gaps for me so I thank him for that. 
I will start by saying that all of my colleagues have mentioned our appreciation of the level of consultation that has gone into the development of this bill. I guess I would say that long may that consultation continue because we anticipate that coming before us soon is some electoral legislation that probably in the grand scheme of things will be even more significant in the way that it will impact on each and every one of us. More important it will impact on the general public. 
The select committee approached the analysis of this bill with two key objectives in mind and I think that that probably unified our work. There was the ultimate goal of transparency in the way that our electoral matters are conducted in New Zealand and also the idea of public confidence. We approached all our discussions with the idea of judging whether the legislation instilled confidence in the public that transparent free and fair elections would be undertaken in New Zealand. I think we probably have reached that point with this particular bill. I shall reserve judgment on any future legislation about the transparency of donations. 
The point I will dwell on most though is probably that which some other speakers have talked about. I think that submitters from their perspective will be most interested in how we decided to choose the entity type we did for overseeing electoral matters in New Zealand. That new body of course is the Electoral Commission which will be an independent Crown entity so I will dwell on the justification used by the select committee to settle on the Crown entity model because as some of my colleagues have mentioned very strong cases were put before us to advocate that the new commission be an Officer of Parliament instead. It might seem from an outsider’s perspective that that is not a significant point of difference but there were some differences and I will go over those. 
I also say up front that some of the submitters had some scepticism that perhaps the Ministry of Justice had not provided us with an adequate breakdown of the rationale behind the Crown entity model. I will just allay those concerns by saying at the outset that if from the submitters’ perspective it did not seem as if those justifications were provided we certainly asked for the justifications. As a committee we certainly held the ministry to task and it certainly provided us with the information required to make this decision. 
A lot of persuasive arguments were made around the idea of the new commission being an Officer of Parliament but ultimately the evidence produced by David McGee in particular was pretty compelling and that has been touched on by my colleague the Hon David Parker. From the outset it was explained to the committee that the Finance and Expenditure Committee had already in the course of its business determined the two criteria that have traditionally sat around the establishment of an Officer of Parliament. The first is the requirement that an Officer of Parliament provides a check on the arbitrary use of power by the executive. We discussed at great length the point that the Electoral Commission’s primary role would be the responsibility of delivering quite a wide range of electoral services but by and large its key role would be the responsibility to deliver impartial and transparent elections in accordance with the law. I think that when we contrast that with the role of the other Officers of Parliament the Ombudsmen the Controller and Auditor-General and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment we see they have a much more direct scrutiny role of the executive in power at that particular time. 
Probably if we draw on some of the comments we heard from an Officer of Parliament we can really see that coming to the fore. For instance the Parliamentary Officer for the Environment just this week came out and presented a view on the Government’s proposals on mining. It was quite a critical review. I think that she called the Government’s proposals vague. I think there was also criticism of the cost-benefit analysis. It was quite a damning report I would have thought from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment so we see in that the key scrutiny role that an Officer of Parliament plays. I think that in the Electoral Commission we are probably looking for a much more functional role a role that is involved in policy development and the like and something that is probably quite different in terms of our expectations. 
If the Electoral Commission were to be established as an Officer of Parliament it would also mean that the Speaker would then be accountable to Parliament for its operation. We have to take into account the practicalities of that: the role that the Speaker already has and his or her responsibility with regard to the House. The Speaker has a number of responsibilities. The Speaker already oversees the Office of the Clerk the Office of the Ombudsmen the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General and other Officers of Parliament. It would probably be an unreasonable expectation to put such a weighty body under the arm of the Speaker—not to mention I think that there are some conflicts in that proposal in and of itself. We took that additional accountability structure then into account in our decision making. We also discussed the board structure of the Electoral Commission and that as well would be a departure from the way in which Officers of Parliament exist now. 
I guess ultimately that the select committee approached this matter from the perspective of asking what elements already existing for an Officer of Parliament submitters wished us to hold and carry over into the way the Electoral Commission would operate if we could approach it from a different angle. So we made some changes to the legislation relating to the appointment process for the people who would be on the board of the Electoral Commission in order to add some greater transparency which is what I think submitters were seeking from us. 
I will come back to just one more point though—because again this is about a differentiation in the Crown entity model versus that of the Officer of Parliament—and that is our expectation that the new electoral agency will have a role in the development of policies related to electoral administration or an advisory role in reporting directly to the Minister with regard to the administration of the Electoral Act and related legislation. Again the example I have already drawn on from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment shows I think the distinction between that very strong scrutiny role and the role that we expect which is much more of a policy development role. 
Having said that I tell the House that we did not want to create a situation where the Electoral Commission was not able to raise with a Minister the concerns or issues that might exist relating to the operation of our electoral law. We recommended inserting a new section that allows the Electoral Commission to provide information and advice to the Minister at any time and on the commission’s own volition—it does not have to be asked to provide that information; it can trigger that process itself—and for the sake of transparency the Electoral Commission can also set out a process whereby it can ensure that that information if it so wishes is tabled in the House within a set time frame. 
I will touch quickly on the membership of the Electoral Commission. A concern was raised in the select committee that inappropriate people who perhaps demonstrated some bias might be appointed to this really important body. Some people specifically submitted that former politicians should not be eligible for the board. To emphasise the independence of the board we recommended replacing section 4D under clause 4 of the bill and putting in place a new appointment process for the Electoral Commission that involves an appointment by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the House of Representatives. I hope that that process will cover off any concerns that were raised with the select committee over the neutrality of the people being appointed to that body. I think that when we involve members from across the House we are more inclined to get that kind of outcome and we demonstrate from time to time the ability to do that. 
All in all finally I reiterate my thanks to all of those who submitted and gave their expertise to the select committee. I just highlight once again the importance of the Government continuing to consult all parties in this House on an ongoing basis on the very important electoral reform that will come before us. 
Bill read a second time.