Date 12 February 2009
Speech in the House

Electoral Funding Act repeal

I welcome the bipartisan approach the minister has taken to reviewing this Act and the undertaking he has given to try to bring all parties together to get broad agreement on a new Act.

If I have any regret about the legislation we are repealing, it is that there was not a consensus around it. It is highly undesirable to have a great controversy around the rules surrounding elections.

To be fair, though, the reason for that lack of consensus didn't all go one way.

I think some of the people who led the attack on the previous Act would have had a lot more credit if they had been much more willing to acknowledge the ugly practice we experienced in the 2005 election.

Let me give you one example - in my electorate, the day before the election a newspaper published full page advertisements from a fictitious promoter using a fictitious address, practically accusing me of mass murder!

It went to every home in my electorate and it was much too late for me to do anything about it.

How was that fair? Why didn't we hear nearly as much outcry over practices like that as we have heard about the Electoral Finance Act?

The Police did not even act on my complaint!

There were two basic principles in the Act we are repealing that I think need to be kept: One is that the name of the promoter of a political advertisement should have to be clear. It should be obvious who is taking responsibility for a statement made in an election context.

The second principle is that there should be some fair limit on the amount that can be spent to buy an election. We all know that money makes a difference to elections. That's why we spend so much time trying to fund raise.

When elections are decided more by money than by the clarity and strength of ideas, then our democracy is in trouble.

That's why nearly every country in the world has some kind of cap on election spending. And it stands to reason that if you have a cap on the amount that can be spent to buy an election, then you have to identify the people who are spending.

You can't have secret expenditure if you want to have a reasonable cap on election spending. You can't have people quietly co-ordinating their spending in backroom deals if you are going to cap election spending. Having said that, I actually support an increase in some of the caps.

One example is the spending cap of $20,000 per electorate. The sum is $40,000 for a by-election. Those limits were set in 1995, and it is fair to say the cost of election expenses has risen a bit since then. In today's money, $20,000 is worth $27,000 and the by-election limit of $40,000 would be worth around $53,000.

So I would like to see those limits on election spending, at least at the electorate level, increased from where they are today.

I want to mention one other area that is going to have to be improved, and that is the administration of the Act by the Electoral Commission.

I believe the Commission simply somehow 'lost the plot' before the last election and it didn't approach the administration of this Act in a calm and considered way.

I have already expressed my frustration with having been referred to the Police, when I was confident the issues I was referred for would not result in a prosecution.

Indeed that was what the police decided too. They investigated the issue and determined no offence had been committed. But of course, they couldn't make their decision before the election. So we suffered all the reputational damage of being referred, when it turned out no offence was committed.

And why would we have committed an offence?Â

The Progressives were the only party that observed the law strictly in 2005. We were the only ones who did not have to pay anything back. So all those people who sneered at me - saying it served me right for voting for the EFA in the first place, might have considered this: There was no offence.

I had no idea when the Act was passed that the Commission would be so obtuse in administering it. It is very unusual for a state agency to set out to frustrate its own Act. But here is how obtuse it could be: On 19 June the Commission wrote to us saying ".the Commission has observed some items on a Progressive website which might be considered an election advertisement". It told us, "the website does not appear to contain any promoter statement."

We pointed out to them the promoter statement was highlighted in bold type right in the middle of the page. It was the high tide mark of silliness, and I put it to the House that no legislation could withstand an agency that careless or belligerent and that determined to avoid intelligently applying the law.

Whatever Act replaces the one we are repealing, I want to say that it will need to be administered with a lot more caution and a lot more intelligence.

Electoral law never seems to be universally admired. I remember when I was in this house alone, representing a party that had polling support higher than any other party or leader - and the electoral law then was carefully tailored to fit the big parties.
I don't recall there were screaming campaigns in the NZ Herald declaring that democracy had been gagged.

I don't recall members of the National Party rushing to declare the arrangements were odious. So I ask for some reflection on that point as the old law's opponents reflect on the most recent Act's repeal tonight.

There has been a long history of using electoral law tactically - often with reasonable intentions, even if they did just happen to suit the major party of the day.

I accept that members of the government feel aggrieved by this law. And I have come to the conclusion that it is right to repeal it and to look for a better law. I largely agree with the holding arrangements this Bill puts in place while we pass a new law.

And just as we have come, on this side of the House, to this view, I ask members opposite to be constructive too. The minister has certainly given that undertaking and I am pleased to acknowledge it.

ENDS

© Scoop Media