Mapp Wayne: Electoral Amendment Bill Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
Mapp Wayne: Electoral Amendment Bill Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
[Volume:622;Page:17333] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 The legislation that is now in its third reading raises a number of issues some of which National supports and some of which it does not. It raises issues of broadcasting and whilst we support those issues for the upcoming election as necessary changes some broader questions have been raised that I referred to last night in the Committee stage which I will deal with further today. The second point is the rules around new section 55AA—the nationality rules—and I will deal with those also. Finally there are the matters to do with hoardings. Our concern there is fundamentally one of procedure and I will deal with that issue as well. 
In relation to broadcasting there has been a long tradition in New Zealand that there is State-funded broadcasting for political parties. That in large measure reflected the way we had for a long period in our history what were effectively monopoly channels. Then there was a modification whereby we had a very small number of channels and a limited number of radio stations. The whole issue really comes out of a traditional way of campaigning. I suggest that we might be in the twilight of those kinds of rules. I believe that it is time for the Justice and Electoral Committee to take a first-principles approach to this matter. 
For a number of years now serious questions have been raised as to whether it is practicable or reasonable for this Parliament to be setting out detailed and comprehensive rules in the contemporary broadcasting environment. We are no longer in an environment in which we just have three free-to-air channels. We now have huge numbers of radio stations. They go in and out of business on a regular basis and no one is surprised at that. And of course we have the explosion of the Internet. Who could doubt that in the world’s largest and most important democracy the role of the Internet was very significant in that country’s last election? We have virtually no rules on the role of the Internet—and frankly neither should we. After all one of the foundations of our society is free speech. As long as the general requirements of the law on defamation and so forth are met then freedom reigns. Yet today we are passing law that seeks to tightly circumscribe how parties use the State broadcaster. Whilst I recognise that it is necessary for the coming election which is why National will support it I do say that it is time for a fundamental review. If we are to allocate public money for broadcasting maybe a fairer and more reasonable result would be to allocate it using a fair formula around proportionality and a whole variety of indices which has been discussed so that the parties themselves then choose how to spend it. They will choose in different ways according to the way they think is most effective. That I believe is an issue that the Justice and Electoral Committee will have to address after the election. 
The second issue I turn to is the rules around nationality. One cannot help but note that Mr Duynhoven is present in the Chamber today. He is in the invidious and somewhat unfortunate position of being the only member of Parliament who is present here by way of a particular Act of Parliament. I know he was elected in 2002 and I know he had a substantial majority and I have no doubt that had there been a by-election he would also have been returned with a substantial majority. That should be the lesson. If this kind of event ever occurs again then a by-election should be the natural and proper course because that is the way it is done in other democracies. 
We have the extraordinary situation whereby legislation will be passed that would not actually cover the situation that Mr Duynhoven found himself in 2 years ago. Section 55AA does not cover that precise situation. It is unfortunate that in essence there has been an affirmation of the old legislation with some modification but there was a special law for Mr Duynhoven. The Government has never satisfactorily explained that situation. It did not take the opportunity through the Ministers in the chair yesterday to explain why it was OK to pass special legislation for Mr Duynhoven and in effect not repeat that in the new legislation. After all the Government by dint of its majority could have done that and it chose not to do so. 
Serious questions have been asked and never answered. My colleague Simon Power raised the question of whether there were other members of Parliament who were effectively being protected by that legislation. Every whip other than those of the Labour Party was able to say clearly to the House—and a member’s word must be accepted in the House—that no one in their parties was in that situation. Mr Benson-Pope the Labour Party whip at the time when invited by other parties to make that declaration chose not do so. The question has to be asked: why did he do that? We will never know the answer I suspect so the question therefore remains hanging. Now one can actually do something of a work of deduction. It can apply only to people who could possibly be eligible for nationality. That rules out quite a large number of members of the Labour Party but it does not rule out all of them. It is a particular issue actually for list members because the consequences for a constituency member would have been a by-election whereas for a list member it would have been removal from the House completely. So one has only to go down the list of Labour list members and ask oneself which one was possibly covered. Was it Dr Cullen? Was it Mr Choudhary? There are no doubt others that I have not mentioned. We will never know the answer to those questions I suspect. 
The third issue I want to deal with is the matter around hoardings. Now this is not so much a critique on the fact that there are to be national standards but rather the way they have been introduced. In essence Parliament is seeking a special rule for itself—for its members and for the political parties I guess as well—which is not being extended to anyone else. Now the Government has claimed on numerous occasions that it wants to have national standards on a variety of issues—a fundamental reform of the Resource Management Act. I keep hearing that from various members of the Government. They say it from time to time in this House. As yet that legislation has never been produced. So what is the Government’s response instead? Its response is to do a special deal for the benefit of political parties and members of Parliament generally. I suspect that does not go down well with the public. They do not like seeing Parliament making special rules for itself that other people cannot take advantage of. 
A more principled approach would have been for the Government to front up with a resource management amendment bill that would have dealt with not just issues of hoardings for members of Parliament but with a whole variety of national standards. That is not being done in this case and that is why we voted against that particular provision which is procedurally and constitutionally a flawed procedure. Members of the public will not be impressed by the way the Government is seeking a special rule for members of Parliament. So I want to conclude on this point. National only reluctantly supports this bill. It has raised a number of issues and questions remain hanging especially around section 55AA.