Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:11005] 
Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. This bill is part of a suite of legislation that gives effect to National’s commitments to reform the electoral process. The bill transfers the functions of the current Chief Electoral Officer and Electoral Commission to a new Electoral Commission which will be fully functional from 1 October this year. I am pleased to say that this bill received widespread parliamentary support during its passage through this House. Such consensus is a longstanding convention for progressing significant electoral reform and it also embodies this Government’s general approach to such matters. I acknowledge and express my appreciation for the cooperation of all parties throughout this process. 
The new Electoral Commission will be established as an independent Crown entity overseeing the administration of the electoral system. The bill seeks to maximise existing resources and to reduce costs by combining the functions and powers of the two agencies into one entity. Some submitters to the Justice and Electoral Committee proposed that the new electoral agency should be established as an Officer of Parliament instead of as an independent Crown entity. I gave that matter serious consideration before introducing the bill and the select committee gave serious consideration to it while it was before that committee. However for the reasons canvassed in this House and in the select committee’s report I remain convinced that an independent Crown entity is the best fit for the new Electoral Commission. 
There are a number of protections in the bill that will ensure the commission’s independence. First the Electoral Commissioners will be appointed and removed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the House. Second the Electoral Commission will have a statutory duty of independence. The commission’s objective under this bill includes a specific direction to administer the electoral system impartially effectively efficiently and in a way that maintains confidence in the system. Third the Electoral Commission will be able to provide information and advice to the Minister of Justice or to the House at any time and of its own volition or during its regular post-election report. Finally as the responsible Minister the Minister of Justice is unable to direct the Electoral Commission to give effect to or have regard to Government policy. I am therefore assured that the public and this House will be able to hold full confidence in the new Electoral Commission proposed by the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill. 
I signal to the House that should this bill pass its final reading the Government will proceed with a further electoral administration bill to implement the second stage of electoral agency reform. That bill will provide for the transfer of the functions of the Chief Registrar of Electors to the new Electoral Commission in 2012. The new Electoral Commission will administer the 2011 general election and a simultaneous referendum on the electoral system. This is as was pointed out in the Committee stage by various members a very large task. The new Electoral Commission will therefore need to be fully functional in a relatively short period of time. For this reason I wrote to the leader of every party in this House to advise them in advance of the approach that I intend to take to appointments to the commission and to invite them to take part in that process. 
I will take a moment to express my thanks—on behalf of the Parliament I hope—to the Chief Electoral Officer and to the current Electoral Commission. I know that their consummate professionalism will continue during the transition to the new commission. I also thank existing staff and management in advance for their assistance. 
The new Electoral Commission will provide an independent cohesive and transparent regime for the administration of elections in this country. It will contribute to the maintenance and to the operation of a core element of New Zealand’s democracy being the electoral system. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I rise to thank the Minister of Justice for his contribution to this debate and to reassert Labour’s support for this bill the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill. We think that it is a good measure. The objectives described in this bill are certainly ones that we support. We certainly feel that the new Electoral Commission which will take over the functions of the Chief Electoral Officer and the current Electoral Commission will improve confidence in our electoral system. The timetable is challenging. I think the Minister indicated that with 1 October I think it is intended to be the date when the new commission takes effect. I believe that it was right for the Government to make the decision to hold off the second tranche of administrative changes until after that process is established and for the remaining functions to transfer to the commission after the holding of the next general election. That makes very good sense indeed. 
However it would not be appropriate to end the contribution I am making on this bill without reinforcing the deep and abiding concern I have about the impact of this new body having to focus its attention on its first general election—its knowing that many of the personnel will be the same personnel and knowing that they will want to do that really well for the first time—and at the same time having to administer an incredibly important constitutional referendum with no spending limits on third parties. That is a serious issue which this House needs to take a good look at. Even though that provision is contained within another bill the fact that this commission will be looking at the detailed application of MMP and different parts of MMP if MMP survives the referendum means that is right and proper that we raise this in the debate on this bill as well. 
If MMP as a system of electing MPs into Parliament is retained then this commission will have a vitally important role. It will be one that we have previously assigned to a special committee of Parliament chaired by the Speaker and in this future case under the Electoral Commission. I personally support that. It is better to have an independent Crown entity taking up that role. The public can have confidence in that. That will be one of the advantages that we will go with into the referendum on MMP. But the strong disadvantage that we will continue to have is that people can spend anything to achieve their objective. I am sure they will not be as unsophisticated as putting paper bags over the heads of a few unidentified list MPs which was the best they could manage last time. This time the campaigning will be much more effective and it will be tied up with an election campaign which will be a pretty major test between two parties and the other parties competing perhaps for the second to last time if we end up without a proportional system in Parliament given the timetable that has been proposed. I am just reinforcing how important it is to have caps on spending on the referendum. I am very strongly of the view that we need to have caps on spending on parallel campaigns as well. But on that note I am pleased that the bill is receiving its final reading. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 It is with some satisfaction that I rise to take a call in the third reading of the Electoral (Administration) Bill. It is a bill that has taken some time to come together but it is one that enjoyed support across the House. All members of the Justice and Electoral Committee contributed to its work on the bill with everyone being in accord. 
As has previously been outlined the only real issue was whether the authority should be an independent State entity or an Officer of Parliament. It was decided after taking advice from a number of experts and consideration of advice from officials that it should be an independent State entity as suggested in the bill. We decided for a number of reasons that that was the best fit and that it should stay as that. It seems good sense and submissions along that line expressed the same opinion that the various three agencies be amalgamated over time—initially the first two and the third joining at a subsequent date. I am pleased to report that submissions were in favour of that albeit there were a number of submissions that suggested the authority should be an Officer of Parliament. 
I commend the bill to the House. Thank you. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 It gives me extraordinary pleasure and something of a surprise actually to be able to take the opportunity to speak in the third reading of the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill. As always it is a pleasure to follow the member of Parliament for Whanganui Chester Borrows. Mr Borrows never fails to acknowledge the work of the select committee in what I think is a genuine way particularly where there has been cross-party agreement as there clearly has been on this issue. 
It is somewhat rare for both Labour and National to be supporting the passage of a bill but in the area of electoral administration it is particularly important that the parties put aside any game playing or any opportunity to score political points—tempting though it may be—for the greater good of the process of democracy which we obviously hold very dear. 
This bill establishes the new Electoral Commission. It is proposed that it be an independent Crown entity and I was very interested in the debate about the options that were considered during the select committee process and during the Committee stage. So from 1 October this year the new Electoral Commission the independent Crown entity will carry out the functions of the Chief Electoral Officer and the current Electoral Commission. 
I understand that again on 1 October a second bill will transfer the responsibility of the Chief Registrar of Electors for the electoral roll to the new Electoral Commission and that is something that we will all be greatly interested in. The integrity of the data on the electoral roll is obviously very important not just to us as members of Parliament but to our entire process of democracy. 
As well as acknowledging Chester Borrows and his comments I also want to acknowledge the Minister of Justice Simon Power. He made a rare foray into question time today and he made a very interesting contribution. It is not often that we have the Hon Simon Power able to take questions but I think there was a shortage of questions today and perhaps that was because the Hon Wayne Mapp did not have questions for oral answer at question time today. Suddenly we seemed to have a lot of new Ministers popping up instead of the Hon Wayne Mapp hogging question time. And of course Mr Boscawen had not lodged any questions about the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research. So the Minister who is responsible for this bill the Hon Simon Power was able to take an oral question. 
I want to acknowledge that the process of development of this bill has been genuine and consultative and that is to the Minister’s credit. There will be more rigorous debate I am sure about aspects of the Government’s proposed electoral reforms especially issues like the regulation of parallel campaigners but on this particular issue it is my pleasure to offer Labour’s support and to commend the bill’s progress. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 It gives me pleasure to stand and speak to the third reading of the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill. I think it is appropriate that in speaking we canvass just the key issues because I have noticed a tendency particularly from the Opposition benches to focus on matters that are not part of this bill and to canvass issues around campaign financing and third-party financing which have nothing to do with this bill. So I would like to focus my comments on the key issues of this bill because those other matters are being dealt with in other bills two of which are currently before another select committee. 
This bill is really a reorganisation bill that focuses on restructuring the current two organisations namely the Chief Electoral Office’s functions and the Electoral Commission’s functions into one consolidated organisation. Like any efficient Government we look to bring together and reduce overheads and reduce bureaucracy and this is just another simple example of what this bill does. In due course there will be a second phase which will occur after the next election when the electoral rolls will be moved under the umbrella of this organisation. The reason that has been delayed until after the next election is simply the magnitude of the task required. 
During the select committee deliberations there was only one contentious issue. I guess it was not even contentious but it was one issue that engaged robust thought and discussion—the appointment process and whether the organisation should come under the purview of Officers of Parliament or whether it should be a Crown entity. As has been referred to at various stages of the bill’s passage through this House we received a number of very thoughtful considered and concise submissions from well-qualified people. Having given due weight to those thoughtful considered and concise submissions in the end it was the unanimous view of the select committee that for reasons best captured by the submission of David McGee QC the organisation should not come under the purview of Officers of Parliament but rather should be a Crown entity. 
For the record I note the main reason for that and will read the relevant part of his submission: “Unlike the other Officers of Parliament”—here we are talking about the Auditor-General the Commissioner for the Environment and suchlike—“who are not themselves primarily deliverers of programmes the Electoral Commission would have a major programme to deliver at least once every 3 years—the administrative arrangements for a general election. Even with its other functions … the Commission is an active player in this area of activity. This contrasts with the existing Officers of Parliament whose involvement in government is more as an auditor of how agencies have performed rather than as performers themselves.” It was really over this business of the Electoral Commission having to administer a programme as opposed to auditing and commenting on other programmes that the select committee was swayed by this very thoughtful and considered submission of David McGee QC. So with those few words it gives me great pleasure to join with all sides of the House in support of the third reading of this bill. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I am delighted to stand today in support of this third reading of a very important bill the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill which will create an amalgamated electoral administrative entity that will improve the effectiveness and efficiency of our electoral system. The Maori Party has been pleased to support this bill throughout its passage in the House and we thank the Minister of Justice for his good work in making such good and rapid progress. 
The quality of the administration system is fundamental to improving and increasing Maori electoral participation—a goal that is of course of the utmost importance to our party. I bring a particular experience with me to this bill in light of the history of Te Tai Tonga electorate. Te Tai Tonga or its predecessor Southern Maori has suffered more than its fair share of administrative complexities over the years. It is easily the biggest electorate in the country. In fact I tried to tell some Australians that it was the biggest in the world but they just laughed. It covers 161000 kilometres and we have had ongoing issues in relation to access and administration. 
Dr Tiopira McDowell has presented a historical overview of Southern Maori recording that in the 19th century the number of polling places in the south declined in comparison with other Maori electorates. So although in 1868 Southern Maori was assigned along with the other Maori electorates the grand total of 11 polling places by 1887 Southern Maori had only 25 polling places compared with 35 in Northern Maori 61 in Eastern Maori and 86 in Western Maori. So it was a huge electorate with only 25 polling places which was totally unfair. According to Dr McDowell the iwi of the south made up for those difficulties by sending some of their most articulate outspoken and tireless members to take on that seat. They were people of the ilk of H K Taiaroa Tame Parata who was a whanaunga of our colleague Hekia Eruera Tirikatene and Whetu Tirikatene-Sullivan. 
I raise this history today because I think it is important that one of the first tasks of the new Electoral Commission will be to look at equity and parity across all electorates to ensure that there is a coordinated overview that makes a priority commitment to effective administration for all electorates and subsequently for all voters. It is somewhat dispiriting to know that in the 2005 inquiry into the general election the Maori Party raised a very similar issue to the one first mooted in 1887 in recommending that the Chief Electoral Office review its organisation and resourcing of polling places. The view from the Maori Party was that all polling places should have sufficient supplies and trained staff to cope with the demands they face on polling day and that this standard must be equally applied across all electorates. 
In a previous reading of this bill I raised the views of the Nelson Bays Community Law Service which raised a range of issues that the new Electoral Commission could look at to ensure the health of democracy and the electoral process. That excellent community law service raised issues such as an insufficient number of Maori roll voting papers and a lack of Maori roll data as being issues that could have been easily rectified. A point raised by Dr Helena Catt during the Justice and Electoral Committee hearings was that she welcomed the inclusion of a clear education role for the new entity. That is something that the Maori Party holds as critical to the effective functioning of electoral democracy. We were interested too in the comments from Dr Catt suggesting that in time the education role should be expanded to include all elections for public office. Although we note that a cost saving to the Government of 3.19 percent is expected from this bill it does make me wonder about a broader value that we could expect to emerge from improved representation and participation in the electoral process. Better services for voters candidates and political parties should we hope result in a more reliable and fuller participation at the polling booths. 
Finally we are happy to support this bill as a sound platform for future development. If I can I will share just one more topical snippet from the impressive records of Dr Tiopira McDowell: “History records the fate of one Deputy Returning Officer J T Large who was sent on a 15 day trek from Lake Waikaremoana to record votes in the remote Urewera ranges. After being lost and injured on his journey he arrived to find that most of the community had left to go to Whakatane and was told to count the trees for votes.” From time to time issues of administrative overload or error continue to confront us. Indeed sometimes they have been so significant that we literally cannot see the forest for the trees. I can only hope that at the 2011 elections we can see a way forward through the forest and through the trees to a future in which all voters have the benefit of being able to participate in a healthy democracy in an effective electoral system. We are pleased to support this bill. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 It is good to speak on the third reading of the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill. It is a bill that provides us with a new unitary Electoral Commission. It has also been good to listen to what the member Rahui Katene said. I was intrigued to hear about Mr Large’s 15-day trek through Waikaremoana. He would not have been so large by the end of it no doubt. 
The House is proceeding through this third reading without controversy and with substantial agreement by all parties that having three entities dealing with the matters that our new unitary Electoral Commission will deal with was not efficient or strategic that it held possible confusion for various actors involved with electoral matters and that there were increased costs. There are a number of reasons why what we are doing here makes eminently good sense. There is no controversy at all. 
The only area of what my colleague Paul Quinn called controversy—I would not put it as highly as that; rather the only issue of substance—that we came across at the Justice and Electoral Committee was whether the office we are creating should be an Officer of Parliament or an independent Crown entity. As Paul Quinn has traversed we went to and fro on this issue. There was a lot of discussion and we heard from not just experts but the best experts in the field of electoral law procedure and practice in this country. In the end we came down squarely on it being an independent Crown entity. 
I finish by commending the Minister of Justice Simon Power for the style with which he conducts electoral affairs. He manages with aplomb to get these bills through Parliament with agreement and without acrimony which is exactly as it should be when dealing with important electoral matters. Thank you. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 As previous speakers on this side of the House have indicated Labour will be supporting the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill. It is sensible legislation and on balance we think it will see more effective regulation of elections by the new Electoral Commission. It is appropriate to note that it has come about through a consultation process that has been thorough and fair. 
The Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill will establish a new independent Crown entity called the Electoral Commission—not to be confused with one of the bodies that it takes over from the current Electoral Commission—to regulate elections. In passing it would be appropriate to record the House’s gratitude—and hopefully other members will agree with this sentiment—to the bodies that have supervised elections in the past given that we are effectively bringing those bodies to an end and replacing them with a single entity. I do not think there can be any doubt from any member that the country has been extremely well served by the entities that regulate elections in New Zealand. I certainly think it is appropriate to put on record our gratitude to them for the work that they have done. 
Under this bill—if the House passes it which it gives every indication that it will—from 1 October the new entity will carry out the functions of the current Electoral Commission and the Chief Electoral Officer. This bill is the first part of a two-step reform of electoral administration. The second part—which we are told will be enacted by a second bill—will on 1 October 2012 transfer the responsibility for the electoral roll to the new Electoral Commission. It seems that this two-step approach is sensible as it ensures that the general election next year will not be disrupted in any way by complications in the transfer of the roll. 
Although Labour agrees that merging the institutions is the best way to streamline our election processes as I said I do not want anything in this speech to be taken as demeaning or discrediting the work that has been done to date by the current Electoral Commission or the Chief Electoral Officer in their administration of elections which has always been done to a high standard. We should as a House celebrate their integrity. It is important that we never take for granted the free and fair elections that we have largely seen run in this country. It is a matter of celebration also that the new entity will adopt all of the functions of the predecessor entities: conducting elections; dealing with the donations to and expenditure of parties and candidates; informing the public about election matters; apportioning broadcasting time and funding; registering parties and logos; and maintaining the electoral roll. There can be every hope that the new body will do those tasks in a way that reflects the very high standard to which they have been performed to date. 
I join with other speakers across the House in congratulating the Minister of Justice on the consultation process over the bill. It was introduced on 22 October last year had its first reading a week later and was reported back from the Justice and Electoral Committee on 26 April this year. My colleagues who sit on the committee tell me that the submissions heard were extensive and that people had a fair chance to have their say so it is appropriate at this juncture to also acknowledge the work of the chair of the select committee who ensured that that process could be followed. It is a lesson I think that other select committee chairs and other Ministers could take some learning from. 
Although Labour supports this bill and thinks it is a sensible one that has passed through this House so far with good process we hold serious concerns about some of the other aspects of the Government’s electoral reform. I follow the example of our first speaker Lianne Dalziel in reminding the House what those concerns are. The first relates to the upcoming referendum on MMP. The rules surrounding parallel campaigning as I have said in previous contributions should be a cause for serious concern. If the Government were serious about fairness and transparency across the board then there would not be just one decent process of consultation—such as I have acknowledged we have seen via the bill that we are discussing today—but instead that approach would be adopted wholesale in respect of electoral reform. We have not seen that approach around the parallel campaigning issues. It is not appropriate that there be no spending cap in respect of the upcoming referendum which is to be held in conjunction with the next general election. That is inherently unfair and non-transparent as it neither allows voters to see the real deal of what is going on nor allows everyone to have a fair and equal say. I repeat what I have said in respect of that matter in previous contributions: if we are to have a proper consensus about what is going forward fair and meaningful electoral reform the issue of parallel campaigning must be dealt with. 
Although this is a good bill we need to look at the bigger picture. One successful piece of legislation—this is one and I have paid appropriate tribute to the Minister and the select committee chair—does not justify the failure to consult widely in respect of many other issues. One good piece of legislation does not allow the Government to draw a line in the sand under the issues of fairness and transparency when other aspects of electoral reform like the parallel campaigning issue— 
Hon Members 
: And donations. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: —undermine those values; and there is the issue of donations as my colleagues remind me. I challenge the Minister to extend the good process that he has without a doubt adopted on this issue to every piece of legislation that he introduces to the House but I am not holding my breath. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I want to read into the record only a few remarks. First I acknowledge the role of the Minister of Justice in the lead-up to this phase of the legislation. Not only has he been consultative but also we have something resembling a consensus on this legislation. I acknowledge the Minister’s role and his consultative behaviours and I want to return soon to the issue of consensus in respect of other aspects of electoral law reform. 
Second I endorse the remarks of my colleague Charles Chauvel in respect of the regards that he paid to the two organisations that are being taken out by this legislation and being replaced by one and thank them for their efforts including during the really rather interesting phase in our electoral history when we made the move from first past the post to proportional representation midway through the last decade with the challenges that arose for those organisations. In fact one of them was set up precisely because we had made that change—the Electoral Commission. 
Third I point out that the good work and the harmonious and accurate nature of our elections have not always been the case. Although we have had 150-something years of elections during which time no shot has been fired and we can be pretty pleased about the long history of change of Governments backwards and forwards over those decades the second leg of the double for this amendment bill is to fold in the Electoral Enrolment Centre. In recent times the electoral enrolments processes in this country have been a joke—not that recent; actually I am referring to the 1978 election when the rolls were hugely inflated by hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people who were either non-existent or who were double counted on more than one roll. In the event I suspect the amount of dual voting that took place was not huge but the reason that happened was that in the 1975-78 period the then Government decided to give the job of putting the rolls together to the then Department of Justice. To cut a long story short the department stuffed it up. Post-1978 the process was put out to tender and it was taken up by New Zealand Post or whatever its predecessor name was and since then the process has been managed by the Electoral Enrolment Centre as part of New Zealand Post. 
I make that point because it is within living memory and things can go wrong in modern democracies and sometimes they do. Whether it is the “hanging chads” of Florida or the mess that we saw a few decades ago in our country these are very expensive mistakes. I say that to the House because I hope that the next piece of legislation the second leg of the double is one that is being written with the lessons of that history in mind. 
I want to make a point about consensus and to say that we do not it appears yet have consensus in this House. In fact by one perspective we have never particularly had it—I will explore that a little—and we do not have consensus or broad consensus or mostly consensus on what I think will be the next few bills regarding electoral reform as it applies to donations spending caps parallel campaigning and all of these things. We know what we are talking about here. I do not want to talk about the issues; I want to talk about the value of consensus. I acknowledge we have never had it but in the 1980s and in the 1990s when there was near-consensus throughout those decades—and they were turbulent enough in general but as far as electoral law was concerned they were rather quiescent—the main point of contention was when the rolls should close. Should they close 28 days prior or should they close the evening prior? As Governments changed in that time so did the electoral law. 
The point of that is that the electoral law is part of our constitution. We always say that we have an unwritten constitution; in fact we have it written in several places and the rest of it is just tradition or by arrangement. It is part of our written constitution and it is not a good idea for the written constitution to change reliably upon the change of Government. If one is to address that the question is how we get somewhere close to a near consensus on it. We are some distance away in respect of donations spending caps and parallel campaigning. 
Let me put it on the record that the electoral law that existed in this House at the time of the last election is not one that I think Labour would die in a ditch over. That is to say we would be up for negotiation. I think that is the mood on this side of the House; we will see whether other speakers condone that sentiment. It is also important that the Government’s opening bid is not its last. We do need to make some sort of attempt to partially close the gap. 
Hon David Parker 
: But that’s not consensus. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No it is not consensus. It is a movement towards some sort of agreed plank that is broad enough that all parties can find— 
Hon David Parker 
: They just want the status quo. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Well the status quo is not consensus. Members will see that the thing about the status quo is that if one reflects on the status quo and says that because we do not have consensus about where we can move to we cannot move at all—if that is the line that the National Government takes and I hope it does not—then we will be changing our constitution every time we change the Government. That is a bad idea because it changes reliably. 
Paul Quinn 
: You should have thought of that last time. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Indeed indeed; I accept the member’s comment absolutely. We have our set of truths which I will not rehearse here about whether we attempted to achieve consensus. But certainly whether or not we attempted to we failed; there is no doubt about that. I think that saying that we cannot move anywhere from the status quo because we do not have the perfect position to land is not very smart. I think that we should think afresh about whether we can move closer so that if you will parties are equally unhappy about the way that the electoral law stands. Then there is more or less a balance of terror and quite possibly the electoral law would withstand endless changes of Government without having endless big changes. 
So if it is to be part of our constitution one of the things about our constitution is that it is supposed to be reasonably reliable. If we do not manage to get somewhere closer to agreement broad agreement equal unhappiness or something like that we will be in a position where we as a nation are going to change part of our constitution every time there is a change in the Government. That is just wrong. So I say to the National members opposite that I do not think we have got that aspect of our electoral law correct or anywhere near it. I am saying that for me anyway I think we would be wide open to a negotiating position that left us somewhat uncomfortable. That is the nature of a deal. I think that defending the status quo on the basis that there is no consensus on the point of destination is just wrong. 
HEKIA PARATA (National) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Tena tatou ki te Whare. I am delighted to stand and take a short call on the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill. Unlike the previous speaker I will confine my remarks to the bill at hand. But like the previous speaker I also emphasise the need for constitutional integrity because that is the basis for confidence and certainty by the New Zealand polity in the democracy that we have in New Zealand. It is important that we have institutions upon which people can rely and this bill focuses on an institution that is central to the constitutional arrangements that we have here in Aotearoa New Zealand. 
This bill will provide first-class electoral services. Ongoing reviews have found that the existing electoral arrangements have some flaws and the select committee process or indeed the consensus consultations by the Minister that preceded the select committee process found that some flaws needed to be addressed. I join with members on both sides of the House in acknowledging the leadership of the Minister and the approach that he has taken to ensuring that there could be consensus on this. I equally join with members on both sides of the House in commending the chair of the select committee for navigating the process to the point that we are at now. 
I joined the Justice and Electoral Committee at the tail-end of discussions about this bill and was impressed with the submissions and the commentators who participated in the process. Some very distinguished and very experienced people brought that experience to bear in helping the committee report back to the House on this bill. 
The current structure though generally effective has created some problems including duplication increased costs and complexity for people dealing with the three agencies and the disjointed decision-making on electoral matters. I am aware that speakers on this bill have commented in some detail on those particular flaws. However there has been longstanding support across the board for a better integrated form of electoral administration and we are confident that the proposal for a single entity will address the existing flaws and will alleviate the pressure on current agencies political parties and candidates and of course on the all-important public. As I said this bill will provide for first-class electoral services. 
National is confident that the new Electoral Commission will provide better access to electoral services and encourage a more integrated efficient and strategic approach to electoral administration. Having one agency will remove duplication and confusion over responsibilities. Of course that is very important in the critical area of ensuring that the electoral process can withstand the scrutiny of all people involved in it and that it continues to stimulate interest both for participants at our level who are interested in the representative capacity and for voters who turn out on election day. It will also save costs and reduce complexity for political parties constituency candidates and the public. Of course it is all-important that the Electoral Commission will be an independent Crown entity that is separate from executive Government. The adoption of an independent Crown entity for electoral administration will provide the best balance of a high level of independence with good accountability and the ability to administer the electoral functions to a high standard. 
Comment has already been made on the fact that the reform is in two stages to ensure transition to the new commission does not create risk for the administration of the 2011 election. It is clear that all speakers tonight are confident that that will indeed be the case. I join with the other members of the House in commending the bill to the House. Kia ora. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 The Labour Party as has been noted by previous speakers is supporting the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill. I will follow on from some of the previous Labour speakers including Charles Chauvel and Pete Hodgson. I will talk first in relation to the issue of the dangers of a simplistic view of agreement as to what should be our electoral law. If we view consensus as being a desirable attribute of electoral law—and I certainly do—we have to go under that word and define what we mean by appropriate consensus. This bill is an example of consensus because its provisions improve the administration of New Zealand’s elections in a way that is acceptable to all political parties and in a way that is patently fair. 
New Zealand has as Pete Hodgson said a very proud history of having election processes that our public have confidence in. That is one of the reasons that New Zealand has one of the longest histories in the world of fair and non-violent elections. That is something that we ought to treasure in New Zealand as one of the essential features of our country because we know that countries that do not have fair elections are more likely to descend into uncivil violence and disorder. Democracy and fair elections are fundamentally important to peace and to freedom from violence in society. The importance of the democratic process and fair election processes cannot be overstated. 
This bill has broad cross-party support because it improves the administration of justice but the issue does not end there. In order to have fair process we have to have fair rules as to the running of elections. Those fair rules do not relate just to the agencies that administer elections but also they relate to the rules that apply to the participants in elections. 
This Government has been very critical of the rules that the previous Labour Government made in relation to election finances. National members were so critical that they said that if they were ever elected they would repeal the law. That is fair enough; that is their right as members of an incoming Government. But then they said that they would proceed by way of consensus to new laws. That is fair enough as an objective but if they sit there as the Government and refuse to be part of any change they can say if that is their definition of consensus that there is no consensus; therefore the status quo will prevail even though the status quo is patently unjust. 
The status quo in New Zealand in respect of electoral financing is wrong. Charles Chauvel in his contribution gave one example. In respect of the upcoming referendum on MMP there is absolutely unlimited spending permitted for any interested party in pursuit of its position. Freedom of expression does not mean freedom to buy an outcome. Freedom of expression in New Zealand would be retained if all people were able to spend 100 percent of their time out there in pursuit of their political ideals. But freedom of expression does not mean that we can go so far as to say that corporates for example should be able to spend unlimited amounts of money in respect of their pursuit of an electoral outcome that might be in their financial interest. That point was made very wisely I thought by—I forget the name of the Supreme Court Justice in the United States who is about to come up to retirement— 
Charles Chauvel 
: John Paul Stevens. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Thank you Charles. John Paul Stevens made that point very eloquently in a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America by saying that if corporates have the same rights as individuals—which they have in New Zealand in respect of electoral financing laws—why do they not have the right to vote? Plainly a corporate cannot vote. There is a difference between corporates and individuals. There is a difference in principle between a corporate being and an individual. In New Zealand we blur that distinction by allowing unlimited spending by corporates—for example in respect of the referendum on MMP. 
The Royal Commission on the Electoral System which reported many years ago at the time of the introduction of MMP made the very obvious point that if we do not have some control on non-political party spending at elections then we make a mockery of any controls we have on the political party. If the political party can spend to its limit and then through a separate entity that it controls—and under New Zealand law it can control it; it does not have to be independent from it—it can spend unlimited amounts of money in pursuit of its political ideals to buy an election outcome then we make a mockery of having any limits in respect of a political party. If we as a country agree that there ought to be controls on political parties buying election outcomes rather than competing in a contest of ideas and if we believe in the principles that underlie our limits to election spending then we must agree that there has to be some control on non-party expenditure. Otherwise we make a mockery of the controls that there are on political party expenditure. That is what the royal commission said and it is patently true. The commissioners were right. 
That is why I make reference to the consensus approach that the National Government says it favours. Consensus does not say just that we all have to agree in respect of any change from the status quo. If that is the approach then any one party in this Parliament can withhold its consensus for a necessary change. Consensus requires give and take from all political parties. In respect of the issues of campaign financing third-party campaigns and transparency of donations it is abundantly clear that Labour is willing to give and take. We have agreed to the repeal of the legislation that we passed. We have acknowledged that it is not perfect and we have said that we are willing to look at changes. But if National is not willing to look at changes from the status quo then its members are the ones who are withholding consensus. They ought not to pretend that they are on some plane higher than that of Labour based on the assertion that there is no consensus to change because it will be those National members who are withholding consensus. 
I endorse Pete Hodgson’s comments that said that it is beholden on us as a Parliament to carry forward the long tradition we have in New Zealand of fair elections of peaceful elections and of non-violent elections a tradition we have in New Zealand that is very rare in world terms. In fact I have heard it said that there is only one country in the world that has a non-violent non-revolutionary and uninterrupted democracy that is as longstanding as the one we have in New Zealand. Underpinning that is the confidence of the people that we have fair election processes. As a consequence we have a duty in this Parliament to reach across our political self-interest and to reach reasonable compromises as to what is in our nation’s interest. There seems to be general agreement in New Zealand that we ought not to have US-style elections where money buys a result and that there ought to be limits on the amounts that political parties can spend. 
Charles Chauvel 
: There’s general agreement in the US. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: There is general agreement in New Zealand on that even if not in the US. Charles Chauvel says that there is general agreement in the US—and that 80 percent of Americans agree to it—but that country cannot achieve that. We have achieved it in New Zealand; we must hold fast to that as a principle. For that to be real there have to be limits on how much we as political parties spend and on how much non-political parties also spend. 
There is also a need for more transparency as to donations. I quite like the idea that National is floating at the moment about disclosing donations below a certain amount in bands. That is good. But if we are to have transparency around donations to political parties and if we have third non-political parties that are electioneering and spending millions of dollars in a campaign then they have to have transparency as to their sources of funds as well. Without that political parties can never escape the imputation that they are being funded by a particular lobby group that is advocating a particular policy outcome. That is wrong; that is corrosive of public confidence in election outcomes. 
So yes I support this bill but I really encourage the Government to depart from the fiction that in the absence of universal agreement as to change we stick with the status quo. That is not consensus; that is the Government hiding behind the status quo to avoid consensus. Thank you. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I was not planning to take a call on the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill but I have been moved to do so by listening to the speeches of two speakers who preceded me. 
Mr Parker and I share a profession. Mr Hodgson and I do not—neither profession nor political persuasion—but I agree with him very strongly that it is most undesirable to have electoral law all over the place. We have a limited written constitution and are heavily dependent on convention. I do not think that anyone could disagree that it is a bad idea to have electoral law changing with Governments whatever hue they may be. 
I thought that Mr Parker’s contribution also made some very good points particularly on the absence of complete consensus—if that is not tautology—not precluding any movement at all. Pete Hodgson used the phrase “equally unhappy”. I do not know Mr Parker’s specialisation in the law but as a litigator I know that oftentimes when both parties are equally unhappy at the end of a case the judge has fairly well got it right. It was certainly the case when I practised employment law. The employers were often very unhappy about what they had to pay out and the employees thought they should have got twice as much so the adjudicators had fairly well got it right. 
I agree with many of the points that have been made by those two speakers. The ACT Party for that reason and obviously for others will happily support the bill along with the rest of the House. Thank you. 
Bill read a third time.