Electoral Amendment Bill

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) Link to this

I move, That the Electoral Amendment Bill be now read a second time. I thank members of the House for their support for the Electoral Amendment Bill, and I am hopeful that this is just a first step in a return to cross-party consensus on electoral law. Even the Green Party members, who have indicated they are to vote against this legislation, have said in their first reading speeches that they wish to participate in the cross-party approach to further discussions on electoral law, and I am pleased that all political parties will be involved in that.

Notwithstanding the complexity of electoral law, the structure of this bill is relatively straightforward, and, as the House is in urgency, I do not intend to speak for long. This bill repeals the Electoral Finance Act 2007 and amends the Electoral Act 1993. The bill establishes an interim electoral finance regime, pending the completion of a comprehensive review of electoral finance law. The interim regime will return to the election expenses provisions that governed previous elections, retain the provisions in the Electoral Finance Act 2007 that relate to donations to political parties and candidates, and reinstate the general rules that governed the publication of campaign advertising as previously known.

The bill contains two parts. Part 1 amends the Electoral Act by inserting new Part 6A into that Act. New Part 6A contains the rules that govern the regulation of election expenses, and donations to political parties and constituency candidates. It appears in the same place in the Electoral Act as the provisions that previously existed. Subparts 1 and 2 will regulate candidate and party election expenses.

As indicated by other speakers, first, those subparts will return to setting a 3-month period prior to polling day during which the election expenditure of political parties and candidates is regulated. The regulated period in the Electoral Finance Act could last up to a year, and that was simply too long a period in which to monitor and potentially restrict people’s rights. Secondly, those subparts will define an election activity, and the election expenses of political parties and constituency candidates.

As I said earlier, the Government recognises that there are some shortcomings in the old rules. One clear example is the problems with regard to the expenses regime that were highlighted by the High Court in its decision in Peters v Clarkson. That focused particularly on the law relating to the apportionment of advertising expenses between constituency candidates and political parties, and the rules for accounting for the commercial value of materials and advertising space. The purpose of the interim regime is to return immediately to a law that is certain and credible. Those shortcomings will be addressed during the development of an enduring electoral finance regime.

Subparts 1 and 2 of Part 1 also set overall expenditure limits for political parties and constituency candidates, as well as specifying the obligation for political parties and constituency candidates to submit expenditure returns.

Subparts 3 to 6 of Part 1 take the provisions from the Electoral Finance Act that the Government has decided to retain and put them into the Electoral Act. Those provisions govern donations to political parties and constituency candidates. In short, those provisions “regulate donations funded through contributions, anonymous donations, and overseas donations”; “establish a procedure enabling donations to be made to political parties via the Electoral Commission so that the identity of the donor is protected from disclosure”; and “specify obligations for political parties and constituency candidates to submit donation returns at specified times”. As I said in my first reading speech, the Government recognises that the donations provisions of the Electoral Finance Act provide greater transparency about donations to political parties. Those provisions are to be retained because of the necessity of maintaining a fair and workable electoral system throughout the entire electoral cycle.

Clauses 7 to 9 reinstate the general rules from Part 7 of the Electoral Act that governed the publication of campaign advertisements that were in force at the 2005 general election, and that were repealed by the Electoral Finance Act 2007.

I draw the attention of the House to a couple of ways in which the Electoral Act provisions differ from those in force in 2005. The first relates to the drafting of those provisions. In parts, the Electoral Act 1993 is somewhat antiquated legislation. Many of the sections of that Act were taken directly from the Electoral Act 1956 or its predecessors, and reflect some obsolete drafting practices. Despite its faults from a policy perspective, the Electoral Finance Act reflects modern drafting techniques, which we generally find easier to understand. For that reason, the language in some sections of the Electoral Act that are being reinstated has been redrafted in a modern style. That is necessary to ensure that the language and structure fit within the modern sections that now sit alongside them in the same part of the same Act.

The second change to the old electoral law relates to compliance and enforcement, as mentioned by previous speakers. The Electoral Finance Act significantly raised the penalty levels for corrupt and illegal practices, and also significantly raised the penalty levels across the board for all electoral finance offences. The Electoral Finance Act also increased the time limit over which prosecutions could be brought for offences relating to the filing of returns, and for corrupt and illegal practice. The time limits in the old Act were problematic, because by the time the offence was discovered the time limit for prosecution might well have expired. That was not in the best interests of anyone, and this bill retains the amendments. The changes are discrete, and had broad cross-party support at the time they were enacted.

Part 2 delivers on the Government’s promise to repeal the Electoral Finance Act. Because the 2008 general election has already been conducted under that Act, transitional provisions are required that will continue any obligations that exist under that Act in respect of that election. In short, the transitional provisions do three things. First, they ensure that political candidates, political parties, and third parties are required to file returns for the 2008 general election. Second, they enable offences committed under the Electoral Finance Act to be investigated and prosecuted until the time limit for those offences has expired. Third, they preserve the procedure established under the Electoral Finance Act for claiming, paying, and disputing election expenses claims. Once those obligations have expired, the Electoral Finance Act will cease to have any effect. We can then turn our minds to the development of an enduring electoral finance regime that enjoys strong cross-party support as well as the confidence of the voting public.

I commend this bill to the House.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) Link to this

I rise to, largely, summarise what I said in the first reading debate of the Electoral Amendment Bill. Of course, that reading was on the most recent sitting day of this Parliament, last Thursday, and I do not think I need to repeat my speech in detail. Suffice it to say that the Labour Party does acknowledge that there are imperfections in the law that we passed in the last term, and accordingly we backed the first reading of this bill.

I think the difficulty in terms of reaching a consensus is likely to coalesce around a couple of pretty important issues. The first is something the Minister of Justice has just referred to in his complaint that counting an expense as an electioneering expense from 1 January in the year of an election is too tough. Conversely, as the Hon Pete Hodgson said in his contribution to the first reading debate a few minutes ago, a 3-month period is too short, as we know from the experience of the 2005 election, when a billboard campaign was run at some considerable expense. That was clearly an electioneering activity, but occurred outside of the then rules. The old 3-month rule was not right, either, so there is some discussion to be had around that issue.

The other issue that is, for me, the most difficult to resolve is around third-party expenditure. Although it may not please everyone, I think a compromise is probably possible on the issue of the period of control. But if there is no effort to have some limits or controls around third-party expenditure, there is really no point in having any controls. I invite members to ask whether the previous legislation, which we are reverting to, had the intent of having some control of total expenditure by political parties in order that elections were fought fairly and not won just by the highest bidder spending the greatest amount of money. If we think that that was the ethic that underlay the old Act, and that back in those days people did not try to get round those limits by using devices like the creation of third parties that were notionally different from the political party, but were really just another vehicle for the political party to get round the spending limits, then we see that, obviously, the issue needs to be tidied up. For me, that behaviour would offend the intent of the original law. It is something that does need to be tidied up. It is a bit like tax legislation, which needs to be tidied up periodically because there is always a clever tax accountant who is looking for another way round the rules that are intended to achieve fairness.

The other point is that, quite apart from the fact that political parties can get round the rules unless there is some control on third-party expenditure, I do find it somewhat surprising to hear some of the people who promote freedom of speech without any constraint say they think it should be permissible to have a limit on the amount a political party can spend on advertising and other election activities, but there should be no similar constraint on people who are not in political parties. Taking the example of the Exclusive Brethren, as I have previously said, I will defend the right of the Exclusive Brethren to attack the Labour Party and our policies, and to spend money either promoting the political cause they believe in or attacking political causes they do not believe in. That is the Exclusive Brethren’s right, but I do not think they should be completely unrestricted in the quantity and value of the amount that they spend, just as political parties ought not to be. There are some difficult lines to draw there. Some of these issues are easier to talk about in the abstract rather than to legislate for in a way that actually has practical effect. We have to keep an eye on whether these things are practical and will work, as well.

With those comments, I say I look forward to cooperating throughout this process as we develop more settled electoral law to go forward.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) Link to this

I thought that was a very careful and analytical speech from Mr Parker, and I think he correctly raised a number of important issues that will need to be addressed in a constructive way by the Justice and Electoral Committee. I can see from that very careful, thoughtful, and intellectual analysis why that member is the shadow Attorney-General, and why other lawyers in his party are not.

The Electoral Finance Act does need to be repealed, for the reasons the Minister of Justice has identified. One has only to look at, for example, the issues relating to candidate and party advertisements to see that. I agree with Mr Parker that the devil is in the detail and in the words. But the problems with regard to those particular sections were there for all to see. Far from being hysterical criticisms, as Mr Chauvel would have had the House believe them to be, my very constructive and measured comments, which tried to address those issues, went unheard at the select committee. Therefore, that is why there was a problem with Mr Rodney Hide’s excellent Brooks Brothers jacket when he tried to put his party’s name on it without an authorisation. That would have constituted an advertisement, which was absurd.

Indeed, when Katherine Rich retired at the end of the last Parliament and was cleaning out her cupboards, she found some National Party socks left over from a fund-raiser a few years back. Those socks would also have breached the Electoral Finance Act, because they had no authorisation on them. Those were the sorts of examples that we tried to bring to the select committee, but no one listened to us.

On the issue of donations, the Minister said that essentially the donations regime has been picked up and put into this bill. I think there does need to be an open and transparent donations regime, and I am sure that we will be able to get something that will be workable and acceptable to the public when the new legislation emerges from the Committee stage. Members can contrast that constructive approach with what happened regarding the Electoral Finance Bill in the select committee. There was no donations regime in the Electoral Finance Bill as introduced. Then, during one morning tea or lunchtime, Lynne Pillay and the troops shot off to get some instructions, and the donations regime was put upon us without any kind of discussion. That is not the way to legislate. That is not the way to move forward in order to get enduring and acceptable electoral legislation.

I am very disappointed in the attitude of the Greens. For Metiria Turei to stand in this House and claim that the Green Party has a record on human rights that is second to none, as I think she has done on a number of occasions, is evidence of a dangerously myopic view of the world. The Green Party voted with Winston Peters and the Labour Government to inflict on us one of the most self-interested and unworkable pieces of legislation in New Zealand’s history. Not only do the Greens refuse to vote to remove that legislation but also they are voting against a donations regime that they agreed with, essentially, when the Electoral Finance Bill was going through the House.

There is only one other point that I wish to make. It is that my careful historical analysis clearly upset Mr Chauvel, but, as usual, his facts were wrong. Many of the administrative problems of the 1978 general election were caused by Labour’s 1975 electoral legislation. Indeed, in the run-up to the 1978 election, Dr Martyn Finlay, a former Labour Attorney-General, admitted that his party’s experimental and radical change to electoral law had given rise to some problems. It was only after the 1978 election that National moved to fix up the situation caused by Labour’s 1975 legislation. That is yet another example of National having to fix up Labour’s sloppy interference in electoral law.

But I really do not want to dwell on Mr Chauvel’s lightweight analysis of the history—and ancient history, at that. Rather, I think it is highly desirable to pick up the statesmanlike tones of Mr Parker and say that efforts should be made to get back to the position that has prevailed throughout history. When all sides are prepared to make concessions to others an acceptable balance of interests is achieved, and enduring legislation is therefore enacted. That is what all parties should be aiming to achieve over the next months.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) Link to this

Mr Finlayson nearly managed a statesmanlike contribution on that occasion, and he is to be congratulated on that.

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) Link to this

Greg Palast, one of the great political authors of our time, wrote a book called The Best Democracy Money Can Buy. When we look at the influence of money, particularly in US politics over the last decade or so, we can get a good sense of why the buying of that democracy by big oil and coal interests is one of the key reasons why we have failed to make any serious progress on climate change over the last decade. The involvement of the Republican presidency in the US coal, oil, and auto industries is one of the key reasons we have failed as a planet to make any progress—it is because the US democracy is being deeply undermined by money. Of course, Barack Obama has done something to address that, but only through a massive campaign.

The concern with the influence of money in politics is right around the world. Everywhere around the world we have a major problem with the influence of money in politics, and we need to address it. To start with I will read out a couple of quotes that I thought might interest people. The quote goes like this: “Corporate donations are a major threat to our political and democratic system, whether it be state governments fawning before property developers, the Prime Minister providing ethanol subsidies to a party donor, or the immigration minister using his visa clientele to tap into ethnic money.” Now this quote could be from a hard-left critic of our current system, but in fact this quote is from John Menadue, who was a senior public servant in the Fraser Government and later was the chief executive officer of Qantas. When one of the leaders of one of the largest corporations in Australia is concerned about the impact of money and corporate donations in politics, I think we have reason to be concerned.

Then, from the conservative side of politics, there is John Hewson, the former Liberal Party leader. When he was talking about donations to political parties John Hewson said: “If they were all publicly declared, you would find some corporations behaving differently. … There are a lot”—of corporations—“who give to political parties with the expectation of getting a benefit. If they really believed in strengthening democracy, they wouldn’t do that.” This is a major threat to democracy and freedom across the Western World.

We know that political parties need money to run election campaigns, but that money can be a source of undue influence on our democratic process. We need to do our best to prevent it. As we have seen in this country, non - political party actors can intervene in the political process using their millions of dollars. Undue influence on the democratic process has two dimensions. One dimension is that one side of politics tends to get an awful lot more money than the other side of politics; so the Greens, who rely on small donations from party members and others, do not tend to get as much money as those parties that promote the big wealthy developers. So it means that the electoral field tends to be stacked. The other side is that it gives people who make donations favoured access into Government decision-making. It is undue influence, because the history of the influence of money and politics is that people and corporations who make big donations into political parties tend to get undue access to politicians and Government decision-making.

It is for this reason that the 1986 Royal Commission on the Electoral System wrote, it is “not fair if some in the community use their relative wealth to exercise disproportionate influence in determining who is to govern and what policies are to be pursued.” It is for that reason that over many years we have introduced a series of laws of which the Electoral Finance Act is simply the last one, in an attempt to try to restrict the influence of money in politics.

Now I want to look at donations. The Greens are pleased that the donations regime that we managed to twist Labour’s arm, with some considerable negotiating finesse, to get put into the Electoral Finance Act will be protected in this move, and that those parts—which will go back into the Electoral Act 1993—of the Electoral Finance Act will be retained, which is good. The donations part of this is all incredibly important and I want to quote the royal commission again. The 1986 royal commission said: “Disclosure of donations would give valuable information to the voters about the character of the parties. It would, as well, provide healthy confirmation that political parties are not dominated by big business, unions, or overseas interests. It’s vital to our democratic system that we have a decent donations regime.”

The donations regime that we have in the Electoral Finance Act is still far too weak. There are enormous holes. The Greens were aware of it. We wanted to lower the disclosure, so that instead of a $10,000 donation, it was $1,000 donation, but in our negotiations we were unable to achieve that. Nonetheless, that remains the Greens’ view. We believe, hopefully along with other parties, that any donation over $1,000, should be identified so the public can be sure who is funding political parties.

I want to talk about third parties, which is non - political party involvement in elections, and is, I think, one of the hardest issues in all of this and always will be. I want to quote the royal commission again. The royal commission said in its 1986 report: “It is illogical to limit spending by parties if other interests are not also controlled. Supporters or opponents of a party or candidate should not be able to promote their views without restriction merely by forming campaign organisations unaffiliated to any party; nor should powerful or wealthy interest groups be able to spend without restriction during an election campaign while the parties are restricted.”

The royal commission was very clear that we need a regime—or, rather, a set of rules—around spending by non - political party actors if the caps on spending by political parties are to work. It is essential. There has been an enormous uproar about the set of rules put in around non - political party spending, but it is absolutely essential to protect our democracy.

The limits on spending in the Electoral Finance Act were probably too low, but we can talk about that. There was enormous complaint about the need to register. But unless we have a register of third-party actors who are involved in the election campaign, how can we have transparency in our electoral system? How can we have transparency in our democracy unless we know who those non - political party actors involved in the election campaign are? So it is an essential part.

The other thing I want to touch on briefly is the regulated period. The Greens always agreed that the regulated period was too long, and we wanted a shorter one. However, it is important to say the 3-month regulated period is not long enough. I quote from Steven Joyce, who was the National Party campaign manager in 2005. Mr Joyce said: “Under MMP the lead-up to the campaign is just as important as the campaign itself. It is imperative that National maintain a high level of activity during the next 2 years”—2 years—“prior to the commencement of the campaign itself.” That is because, Mr Joyce, as campaign manager, understands what all of us in this Chamber understand, which is that the election campaign does not last for 3 months. It goes on for a much longer period than that. It is for that reason that we need a regulated period that is longer than 3 months.

I think that a 1 January start date for the non-regulated period was very problematic, and the Greens were pushing for an April start date. But, certainly, it needs to be longer than 3 months, because 3 months will not work.

I want to pick up on the question of State funding. The Green Party has supported partial State funding for political parties, and, again, the royal commission report is clear. It states: “Moreover, if election and other costs outstrip the capacity of ordinary party members to meet them, parties may be forced to rely on Institutional sources, such as corporations or trade unions, to find their activities. We consider that too great a reliance on such sources would be detrimental to our democracy and might, in the long term lead, to corruption of our political process.” That is why we need an element of State funding—to protect our democracy.

In terms of how we go forward, the Green Party thinks it is essential that we build a system based on the principles of transparency—that is, that one has a right to know where the political funding of parties is going, and who is involved in the election campaign, including non-party actors. We need a level playing field so that the contest is between ideas and not between who has the most money and can buy the most “iwi or Kiwi” billboards. We want to avoid State or corporate dependency. Political parties should not be dependent on the State, nor should they be dependent on corporate donations. Those things are essential. We would once again promote the idea of a citizens’ assembly to inform the process of looking at how we will reform electoral finance laws. The citizens own this democracy; the members in this Parliament do not. It belongs to the people of New Zealand and they should have a say as to what happens.

The Green Party will not be voting for this bill. We do not think it is progress. There is no need to repeal the Electoral Finance Act while we look at what we will do. The National Government is doing it because of an election promise, but there is no need to do it. We can look at what we will replace the Electoral Finance Act with, without repealing the Act. So we will vote against the bill. We think that the principles of the Electoral Finance Act, around making sure that we are clear about the role of money in politics, are sound, and we should deepen those principles in the next round. I welcome the Minister’s comments that he will be consulting with all parties on how we will look at electoral law as we move forward.

JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) Link to this

I always laugh when politicians talk about the State funding of political parties. I wonder what they think we actually have. We are all here on salaries, so there is massive State funding of political parties—massive State funding—and anyone who suggests anything to the contrary of that has his or her head in the sand.

There should be no misunderstanding whatsoever as to why the Electoral Finance Act was passed. It was passed for one reason and one reason only. It was passed to help re-elect the Labour Party. It helped to re-elect the Labour Party by restricting what people could say about it, and by restricting people’s ability to criticise it and campaign against it. So credit is due to the people who criticised the Act, to the people who rose up and protested against it, and to the media who called the Labour Party to account.

I find it very interesting that most of the divisions in this Chamber are won by 69 votes to 53, but, as I said on Thursday night, the election was actually very close. An extra 10,000 party votes for the New Zealand First Party would have seen six New Zealand First MPs in Parliament. There would not have been a majority of ACT and National MPs, and who knows how the Māori Party would have voted? I suggest to members opposite that they could very well be in Government if it had not been for the Electoral Finance Act.

I would also like to talk about transparency. Everyone talks about transparency, and says how important it is to have transparent donations. The reality is that when the Electoral Finance Bill was introduced into Parliament in July 2007, there were no provisions on anonymous donations. The 600 submissions that were received on the bill were not received on anonymous donations, because there were no such provisions in the bill at that time. They were introduced after the public of New Zealand had had their chance to speak.

I sat in on the select committee when the Chief Human Rights Commissioner, Rosslyn Noonan, said to the committee members: “The commission’s position is and remains that the bill should be withdrawn.” The majority of the members of that select committee voted to ignore the Human Rights Commission. The Chief Human Rights Commissioner also went on to say it would be essential that if the bill was not withdrawn, there be a second round of public consultation. Once again, I always laugh when I hear the Greens talk about citizens’ assemblies and public consultation. When the Human Rights Commission called for a second round of public consultation, who in the committee was to lead the charge against the Human Rights Commission? It was Metiria Turei and David Benson-Pope. I know that, because I was there. I listened to how Metiria Turei tried to undermine the submission of the Chief Human Rights Commissioner. Rosslyn Noonan went to the select committee and said the commission’s first choice was that Labour should withdraw the bill and start again. She said the bill was wrong. Finally, today, 15 months later, the truth has finally been spoken. The Labour Party has acknowledged her.

The Chief Human Rights Commissioner was right when she said the bill should be withdrawn, but, fearing that she would be ignored, she went on to say that if Labour was not going to listen to her, it was essential that Labour changed four things—not one thing, not two things, but four things. The Government moved to change two of those things, but it left in place a regulatory period of 11 months rather than 3 months. The Government voted for restrictions that were three times longer than our Human Rights Commission argued was reasonable. The commission also said that if we were to restrict third parties—and I am not going to have my position misrepresented—it was reasonable to restrict people, and if we were to restrict third parties we should allow them to spend between $250,000 and $300,000. The Electoral Commission and the Human Rights Commission both said the major political parties had $4.8 million each to spend, and if we were to restrict third parties we needed at least to allow them to spend $250,000 to $300,000. What did this Government do? It put on restrictions: a total maximum spend of $120,000, which is 2.5 percent of what the Labour Party was allowed to spend at the last election. The Human Rights Commission was ignored on those two points.

How did we get into this mess? There are protections—Chris Finlayson has referred to them, as has Charles Chauvel—and they are in this document, called the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. It is a very small Act of about 10 pages, and ironically it was passed by the fourth Labour Government, under Geoffrey Palmer. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act does not guarantee rights to New Zealanders, but it affirms them. One of the rights that the Act affirms is that of freedom of expression. I will quote: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.” The Act affirms the right of New Zealanders to speak out freely and to criticise their democratically elected Government, and in section 7 there is an obligation on the Attorney-General to report any inconsistencies between bills and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

Charles Chauvel referred to the fact that the Attorney-General received an opinion that confirmed the Electoral Finance Bill was not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It is very interesting that Mr Chauvel raised that issue, because I have a copy of that opinion in front of me. It is 19 pages long—a 19-page opinion on the Electoral Finance Bill. I said earlier that there were no provisions on anonymous donations in the bill. The bill was never about election finance; it was about shutting New Zealanders down, it was about censoring New Zealanders, and it was about making it easy for the Labour Party to be re-elected.

What did Val Sim, a counsel in the Crown Law Office, say about the original Electoral Finance Bill? There was no provision to do with anonymous donations. There was a provision in the bill that said every New Zealander who wanted to speak out and criticise his or her Government, as a minimum, had to either sign a piece of paper in front of a justice of the peace or register with the Electoral Commission. What did Val Sim say? I will tell members what she said, as it is only four lines in 19 pages: “The bill requires candidates, parties and third parties to undertake registration and reporting requirements. These impose a procedural constraint on electoral expression but, as they appeared necessary for the administration of the substantive regulation of election advertising, no further issue of justification arises.” Val Sim of the Crown Law Office, the Government’s lawyers, thought the requirement that all New Zealanders who wanted to speak out freely should first have to sign a piece of paper was a procedural requirement.

I heard Mr Chauvel say that the Attorney-General had to form an opinion as to whether the restrictions were justifiable in a free and democratic society. The previous Attorney-General, the Hon Michael Cullen, had an option to override that Crown Law opinion, but he did not. Why not? I can presume only that the Hon Michael Cullen thinks that requiring New Zealanders to sign a piece of paper, as a minimum, if they want to criticise the Government is justifiable in a free and democratic society. That speaks volumes about Michael Cullen—absolute volumes.

It was interesting that Mr Chauvel made the comment that Michael Cullen deserves better. I was very careful in my maiden speech to acknowledge the Hon Michael Cullen in respect of KiwiSaver. I am a convert to compulsory saving. As far as I am concerned, making KiwiSaver compulsory cannot come soon enough. That is one thing I support the Hon Michael Cullen on, but I certainly have no respect whatsoever for the fact that when he acted as one of the safeguards, he used his position as Attorney-General for purely political purposes.

Following that opinion on the Electoral Finance Bill, and following what was obviously going to be the rejection of the Human Rights Commission’s submission, I launched a legal challenge to the Attorney-General. I was joined by the late Graham Stairmand, the previous national president of Grey Power, and by Garth McVicar and Rodney Hide.

Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH (Associate Minister of Justice) Link to this

I am very pleased to support the second reading of the Electoral Amendment Bill. No tears will be shed over the repeal of the Electoral Finance Act 2007. I wish to make just two comments. The first is that our Government is delivering on its promises. We are committed to working collaboratively with all parties in Parliament to gain broad consensus on electoral reform. The second comment is that it is fair to say that the legacy of the Labour-led Government in the last term was an electoral finance regime that was neither fair nor workable. Opposition members—and good on them—now acknowledge that fault and flaw.

Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) Link to this

First of all, I want to respond to some of the comments made by the last speaker but one, the ACT member John Boscawen. In his contribution to this debate he became somewhat more shrill and somewhat more strident than had other speakers from all around the House. He has a 19-page legal opinion on something or other, he has a story about a court case about something or other else that finished at 11.30 this morning, and he has clearly spent many long and lonely nights looking hard at this issue. My response to Mr Boscawen is simply to suggest to him that, as we go forward to try to get ourselves what the Attorney-General called a durable solution, he is going to have to learn to give ground like the rest of us. It is important that we try to get ourselves a resolution that will last beyond this Parliament. I say that to Mr Boscawen because the way that he conducted himself in the speech before last did not fill me with a great deal of hope that he will be able to give ground. I acknowledge his considerable energy, his history, his background, and—I have no doubt—his expertise in these matters. None the less, the fact remains that the electoral law is the nearest thing we have to a central constitution and we ought not to kick it around.

I have two other comments to make and I hope I will not take too long. The first is about free speech. Here we are playing a game. Throughout 2008, and also in the House today, some people have said that the Electoral Finance Act is damaging to free speech. It has been said in the press by people other than politicians, and it has been said today also, that the Electoral Finance Act was self-interested legislation put forward by the Labour Government. Let me respond to that. First of all, if the legislation was self-interested—and I am very happy to acknowledge that it did not work well—then the self-interest was to stop the radio waves, the television waves, and the newspaper columns being dominated by paid speech. You see, there is free speech and then there is speech that we pay for. Free speech, I would assert, is untrammelled by the Electoral Finance Act; one can still write a letter to the editor, go on talkback radio, carry a placard down Lambton Quay, or do some skywriting. All of those things are as able to be done now as they ever were.

LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) Link to this

I am delighted to speak in support of the Electoral Amendment Bill. I am speaking in support of a bill that repeals ad hoc, anti-democratic legislation that ironically, I might add, was the responsibility of the previous member for Taupō in his then role of Minister of Justice. While the people of Taupō were concerned and outraged about increasing levels of violence in their town, the then Minister of Justice was busy with the Electoral Finance Act. Instead of progressing laws on gangs and violent crime, the local MP was focusing on the Electoral Finance Act, which was strangling the voice of democracy and stealing the rights of ordinary New Zealanders to fully participate in the democratic process.

Despite grave concerns from the Electoral Commission and the Human Rights Commission, the Electoral Finance Act was rammed through. The result was poor quality law that was unworkable and unintelligible even to the Minister responsible for it. What was the impact of this law? It was a playing field that was so blatantly tipped in favour of the Government it was shocking. It was self-serving, it was created in self-interest, and it was all about self-preservation.

Kiwis value fairness and they saw right through the previous Government’s desperate attempts to cling to power. On election day the message was clear: New Zealanders wanted change, and one of the changes they wanted was the repeal of the Electoral Finance Act. This is what the National Government is delivering on tonight.

The Electoral Finance Act created confusion and chaos, and it was all about protecting the Government. The priority of the Government should have been protecting the public. The Electoral Finance Act was given a higher priority than legislation that would create a safer community, not just for the people of my electorate but for New Zealand.

Let us make a contrast and look at our Minister of Justice, the Hon Simon Power. He has his priorities straight. Within the 100-day window he has introduced legislation to remove the right of the worst repeat violent offenders to be released on parole. He has introduced legislation to clamp down on gangs, toughen bail laws, and require DNA testing for every person arrested for an imprisonable offence. He has also given the police the power to issue on-the-spot protection orders for victims of domestic violence. This Minister has his priorities clear—all this, and he has introduced the Electoral Amendment Bill.

The new National Government will work towards having an enduring legislative framework to guide electoral finance—legislation that will involve all parties in Parliament. This will ensure that the legislation is not only fair but also actually workable, and that the law will ensure democracy in our electoral finance laws.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) Link to this

I am standing, along with my colleagues, to speak in support of the Electoral Amendment Bill. In doing so, I remind the House of the fundamental principles of our democracy: the transparency, the accountability, and the ability for all New Zealanders to participate in the democratic process, irrespective of their bank balance or their ability to raise funds. We know, sadly, that in practice that did not work. We know that in fact in the last two inquiries into the general election there were concerns. There were concerns around the mockeries of those principles that are part of electoral law. We saw the rorting of the third-party provisions, and the most obvious example, of course, was the exercise undertaken by the Exclusive Brethren. We saw the inadequacies and rorts that happened under the declaration of the donations regime, and the mockery of the 3-month election period—we all know that campaigning starts much earlier than 3 months before the election.

I would be the first to admit that the Electoral Finance Act has been cumbersome, but I also say to the House that we have not seen those rorts under this legislation—

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) Link to this

Eighteen months ago New Zealanders were incensed when a Labour Government and its equally culpable allies were so desperate to cling to office at any cost that they rode roughshod over the longstanding convention that electoral laws were enacted by consensus in our Parliament. It was a Labour-led Parliament that trampled over the precious democratic tradition that our forebears fought for, and in many instances died for, in two world wars. It was an election where non-MP candidates had to play by a much tougher set of rules than did the MPs who had written the rules. That is what we expect in Zimbabwe but not here in New Zealand.

The evidence that the Electoral Finance Act inhibited our democracy was clear every week in local newspapers throughout the country last year. Labour, Progressive, New Zealand First, and Green MPs who had supported the Act effectively prevented candidates outside Parliament from advertising their candidacy for most of the year. There was clear evidence in my city of Hamilton that the impact of the Act was significant. Mid-year I knocked on doors and met many people who did not know that it was an election year, because there had been none of the usual campaign advertising from non-MP candidates at that point. Just a few weeks before the election few voters knew the names of their local candidates, other than sitting MPs, because of the gross imbalance in advertising that the Act enforced. The incumbent Labour MP who was my main opponent was legally entitled to outspend me by more than four to one in the bell-wether Hamilton West electorate throughout 2008. That was outrageous enough, but worse was the fact that the Act so fundamentally suppressed the democratic rights of members of the public, and of an array of lobby groups, that many dared not take advantage of election-year interest to promote their causes and concerns for fear of incurring heavy penalties under the Act.

That is why the Electoral Commission reached the alarming conclusion that the Electoral Finance Act was having “a chilling effect” on participation in our election last year. So I am very proud to be part of a new National-led Government that is determined to restore our democratic tradition. A fair and workable electoral finance regime is a fundamental pillar of any democracy; that is why repeal of this Act is one of our priorities on coming into office, and that is why we will close the book on that sorry chapter in our electoral history and work with all parties in this House to reach a broad consensus on the laws that will replace it.