Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister of Justice), on behalf of the Hon Rick Barker (Associate Minister of Justice): I am pleased to move, That the Electoral Amendment Bill and the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time.

The Electoral Amendment Bill does three things. It amends section 55 of the Electoral Act to ensure that a New Zealand member of Parliament must demonstrate an ongoing commitment to New Zealand and to the people he or she represents. In particular, section 55 will clearly set out that a member of the New Zealand Parliament must be a New Zealand citizen at all times, and the circumstances when an MP must vacate his or her seat. Secondly, the Electoral Amendment Bill cures an anomaly in section 55E of the Electoral Act that could see the Governor-General or a senior judge take a role in the party-hopping procedure. Thirdly, the Electoral Amendment Bill implements a regime to manage certain aspects of electoral signs.

The practice within local government is for election signs to be governed by a local authority’s district plan and bylaws. That approach has resulted in differing requirements between individual local authorities, and it is difficult for political parties to conduct coordinated campaigns on a national level for the party vote under MMP. In accordance with the unanimous select committee proposal, the bill amends the Electoral Act to specify national standards to manage certain aspects of electoral signs. The maximum size of electoral signs is 3 square metres. Electoral signs that meet the specifications may be displayed for a period of up to 2 months before polling date. In addition, regulations may be passed to standardise the design of electoral signs and procedures to be followed by any person before displaying an electoral sign. Extensive consultation will be held with interested and affected parties before any regulations are finalised.

The Electoral Act is the cornerstone of New Zealand’s democracy. The Electoral Amendment Bill includes extensive safeguards to ensure the integrity of those sections of the Electoral Act are maintained. Safeguards include obtaining the consent of at least half the leaders of parties represented in Parliament whose members make up at least 75 percent of the House before regulations can be passed. Discussions with the representatives of local government suggest that local authorities want to continue to have the ability to control location and density of electoral signs, fees payable, and actions in relation to non-complying electoral signs. I agree. Local authorities are in the best position to take into account local conditions and manage these matters.

I wish to thank the Society of Local Government Managers and Local Government New Zealand for their efforts and assistance in developing the regime to manage electoral signs. I also wish to acknowledge the cooperation of other parties during the Committee of the whole House in agreeing to include the provisions to manage electoral signs.

The Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 2) makes a number of procedural and technical amendments to the electoral broadcasting regime to allow the Electoral Commission to allocate funds for electoral broadcasting for the next general election more effectively. It does this by removing some of the well-recognised anomalies and administratively burdensome processes of the current broadcasting regime. These amendments have been recommended following inquiries into the 1996, 1999, and 2002 general elections.

The major changes to the electoral broadcasting regime proposed in the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 2) are that the bill will repeal the outdated requirement for the Electoral Commission to invite broadcasters to provide free or discounted time for electoral broadcasting, and, secondly, the bill amends the provisions of the Broadcasting Act so that only registered parties will be eligible for allocations of time and money.

In conclusion, the main objectives of the Electoral Amendment Bill are twofold. This bill amends the Electoral Act to clarify when a member of Parliament must vacate his or her seat to ensure that MPs demonstrate an ongoing commitment to this country. The bill will also assist political parties to plan nationwide campaigns for the party vote during general elections. The Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 2) makes procedural and technical amendments to the electoral broadcasting regime to enable the Electoral Commission to allocate funds for electoral broadcasting for the next general election more effectively. I commend these bills to the House.

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.

DAIL JONES (NZ First) : New Zealand First supports this legislation. It is very straightforward. The amendments were unanimously supported by the parliamentary select committee that considered the bill—now split into two bills for its third reading—in its original form. It is hard to believe that anyone could object to any aspect of the legislation when all parties had unanimously supported it. There was even a reference to the question of hoardings in the report back of the Justice and Electoral Committee. The last sentence of the commentary on the bill states: “We note this proposal corresponds with a recommendation in our Inquiry into the 2002 General Election report; namely, that: Amendments to electoral legislation for the 2005 General Election include national guidelines on hoardings.” That was said in the report on the 2002 general election, and it was said generally in so far as this bill was concerned. It is hard to believe that anyone could have opposed those unanimous provisions, although as the previous National Party speaker indicated, his party decided to oppose something that had been part of a unanimous approval.

The change to the hoardings requirement is so logical that it is difficult to believe that anyone could possibly have opposed it. Often, at a general election, when one’s electorate covers three or more local authorities, one might have to design three or more types of hoardings to meet those various local body requirements. That just creates more tension around regulations and more work for bureaucrats. This legislation gives one an opportunity to have one type of hoarding if one so wishes up to a certain specification. This bill also provides that 50 percent of the number of parties—or half the number of parties—or 75 percent of all the parties must be involved in discussions with the Government of the day if any changes are to be made. It is a very simple requirement that every other party in the House but the National Party has supported, although the National Party did support it at the select committee. There is really nothing else to say about this legislation. New Zealand First supports it, and I look forward to it being passed.

ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) : It is with pleasure that I rise to support the passage of this electoral legislation. It is excellent legislation as far as it goes. The most important aspect is the one that is least contentious, and that is to fix up the rules around election broadcasting so that the Electoral Commission does not have to write to every single broadcaster in the country asking them what discounts they will give political parties, only to get letters back from them stating that they will not give any discounts to political parties or their candidates that are any different from any commercial discounts that they already give. It will be of some relief to the Electoral Commission that we have finally tidied up this bureaucratic nightmare.

I would have to say that it has taken this Parliament far too long to fix up this nonsense. I happen to have been on the inquiry into the 1996 general election where we recommended sorting out this matter then. A bill to sort out that problem was subsequently introduced into the House on 29 September 1998 under the former National Government. It had its second reading on 12 November 1998, and the committee reported back on 6 May 1999. For reasons that I cannot fathom, the bill languished on the Order Paper throughout the remainder of the National Party term of office and right through under the Labour Party’s governance until 18 February 2002, where, inexplicably, the Labour Government at the time discharged the bill for no apparent reason. There could not have been any apparent reason, given that all the provisions in that bill have now come back to this House in today’s legislation. So thank goodness, the Government has finally seen sense and sorted out this particular nonsense.

The other nonsense that the Government has wisely sorted out is the issue around the creation of vacancies for people who are entitled to dual citizenship. It is an excellent move that members in this House, not only Harry Duynhoven, but as he said during his speech in the Committee stage, perhaps up to 30 members of this House who are entitled to dual citizenship, or who hold a passport of another country, will now be able to maintain that citizenship and renew those passports without any fear of being evicted from this Parliament.

On behalf of the Green Party I have no regret saying that we did the right thing in supporting the legislation to stop Harry Duynhoven being kicked out of this Parliament. It would have been an outrageous injustice for him to have had to relinquish his seat, even though he had not broken the law, and even though he would certainly have won a by-election. But now we have fixed the law, we have tidied up that particular anomaly, and it sits alongside the other amendment that was made several years previously, I understand for the benefit of another member of this House, either current or former, who married someone from overseas, and therefore was entitled to dual citizenship. A tidy-up was made, perhaps, given Mr Mapp’s interjection, for the benefit of someone in the National Party at that time. So I guess it is a case of one all on that particular matter.

However, the major anomaly that still exists in relation to electoral matters that this legislation does not address, despite my moving an amendment yesterday that I am sure was supported by both the ACT party and the United Future Party, is the issue around the old two-party club having representatives on the Electoral Commission. It is an absolute outrage that National and Labour each have a person on the commission representing their interests. Those two people allocate the broadcasting funding to all of the parties, not only in this House, but those outside this Parliament, and allocate the time for opening and closing addresses to all of the registered parties contesting an election. That is simply not acceptable. It is archaic, part of the first-past-the-post era, and should be done away with. Without wishing to offend any of the people who have represented National and Labour, I say that they simply cannot also represent the other parties in this Parliament simultaneously.

At the moment we have the ridiculous situation of the United Future Party, which has a confidence and supply agreement with the Government, being represented by the Opposition member on the Electoral Commission, which just shows how foolish that current provision is. So I do look forward to the day when that anomaly is removed and the Electoral Commission is a genuinely independent body that is not subject to any party political pressure.

I also look forward to the day when the Government will proceed with its wider review of electoral legislation. That is something that should have taken place, and should have been part of this particular legislation. Sooner or later we do need to grapple properly with the issue of State funding for political parties. More important, we need to deal with the problems that we currently have around our rather woeful and inadequate donation disclosure regime. It is so inadequate at the moment that parties can merrily set up front organisations to launder donations, without those donations having to be declared.

To give members one example, there is the Free Enterprise Trust, which seems to give money only to the National Party. It does not even seem to give money to the ACT party, although some would claim that those party’s members are more free entrepreneurs than National’s these days. Notwithstanding whom the trust should be giving money to, the fact is that whoever gives money to the trust should be required to declare those donations, so that party political funding is transparent, and so that voters can see exactly who are the puppeteers for those parties that receive donations. I hope the Government will proceed with the donations disclosure regime amendment soon.

Partly for the sake of ACT, but partly because it deserves debate, I also would want that inquiry to look into the full issue of the broadcasting funding regime. On the face of it, there is an anomaly at the moment that the two old parties get the bulk of broadcasting funding, which is self-perpetuating, whereas, every other party is barred from spending its own money to match the spending of the two old parties. Personally, I do not think that that is fair, although it is a matter of some debate within our own caucus.

So, in closing, I look forward to the passage of this legislation. I am pleased that the Government was able to get it through before the cut-off date, which I think was 8 December. If this legislation had lingered any longer, the Electoral Commission would have had to send letters out to all those broadcasters for no apparent good reason. So let us hope that the legislation gets the royal assent in time to save them all that paperwork and all those postage stamps.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) : I rise for the ACT party to also comment on the two bills—the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Electoral Amendment Bill. First, the Electoral Amendment Bill: we will support it on the basis that it is an improvement on where we are, but not nearly as much as might be expected. We think that it could have been done a lot better. There is an embarrassment for Parliament in that bill. The principal amendments to the Electoral Act deal with the Duynhoven scandal. When Harry Duynhoven, a very popular member, discovered that he had taken a step that had apparently renewed his Dutch citizenship he fell foul of a provision that appears in the Electoral Acts of most similar countries that means the voters get a chance to decide whether they still want to be represented by someone who has signed allegiance to a foreign prince, monarch, or power. They are very old provisions. As I said, they are in the electoral laws of a number of countries and they are pretty easy to understand. The voters can decide that they want to be represented by someone who might have divided loyalties, by someone who has citizenship of another country as well as that of New Zealand, or by someone who has a relationship with a foreign power, as long as they know about it.

The voters can make that decision, elect the member, and, so long as that position does not change, the member’s entitlement to sit in this House should be unchallenged. But for very good reason the Electoral Act had a provision that said that when a new foreign allegiance is created, the voters should get a chance to decide whether they still wanted to be represented by someone who might have a funkhole to bolt to—who had another country he or she could dart off to when they had made a mess of this one, by their voting or party support in Parliament.

Harry Duynhoven was in that position. He no doubt knows that the “Cullen Superannuation Fund” is smoke and mirrors; it is not going to give him, in his old age, a cent. So he decided he needed to qualify for the Dutch Government superannuation scheme. He renewed his citizenship, which was a very sensible precaution, I would say, given he probably knows more about the Labour Government’s superannuation provisions than we do.

However, that action triggered the Electoral Act. So the Speaker failed to apply the law, and held off for long enough for the Electoral Act to be changed. Well, the Electoral Amendment Act will reverse that change. Yes, it has what Rod Donald called “cosmetic tidy-up”; it now states expressly that if a member acquires citizenship by reason only of his or her birth in another country, the member does not automatically trigger that re-election requirement. But that was the position anyway, because the previous law required some positive step. So we have now fixed it up for Mr Duynhoven and all of those who are hiding behind him, and reverted the law to the status quo ante.

However, it is really plain what we have been doing there; we revert it to the status quo only as from after the next election. So the Government did not want to risk any more of its folk being found out. This applies only after the next election. The Electoral Amendment Bill does not cover what should have been the other side of consideration by the Parliament of nationality and citizenship in relation to members of Parliament. It does not cover entitlement to vote. I believe that the bill should have made sure that only New Zealand citizens could vote for New Zealand representatives. It is long overdue that we require people to show their loyalty to New Zealand, their long-term interest in being here, by becoming citizens, before they are electing representatives to govern this country.

The other bill that we are debating in its third reading, and for which I put the ACT position strongly, is the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 2). We have 11 pages of amendments to the Broadcasting Act to govern the broadcasting of election programmes. Now, most New Zealanders probably find those about as dreary as anything that one gets on television. In fact, most New Zealanders probably never come across it. Because if one does not watch Television One or listen to National Radio one will not see anything of an election nature that has not been filtered by the media establishment. The two old parties decided a long time ago that they were not going to risk any challenges to the status quo getting direct access to the voters through the electronic media. TVNZ and Radio New Zealand will be the only ones that we can speak to directly, and that is only in the allocated time given by the Electoral Commission, and for the parties other than National and Labour that is only in the fractional moments that they get. As I said yesterday, it would not be enough time to launch a decent dog roll in a supermarket advertising campaign. The time that New Zealanders expect to learn about the issues facing their country and where the parties stand on them, would not launch a new bus timetable on radio. It is utterly pathetic, and that is New Zealand’s excuse for free speech at election time.

The consequence of the amendments to sections 70, 72, and 73 of the Electoral Act is that New Zealanders hear about their politicians only what the media establishment wants them to hear—that is, what news editors decide is appropriate. If we want to think about what that practice has meant over the last 20 years, just think how often people have said: “Why hasn’t someone been speaking for us about the treaty industry? Why wasn’t some politician arguing, why didn’t we hear at election time the sorts of things that Dr Brash said at Ōrewa early this year?”.

Well, the answer is that parties were. The ACT party has had a one-law-for-all policy since 1998, but how will people know what their politicians are standing for, if the only access to the media that most people use—the radio and television—is filtered, first through the Electoral Commission, and, secondly, through media editors and journalists? Actually, those people do not share the views of most New Zealanders. They think they are so much better than the rest of us, so much more noble and unselfish, that they had better filter out those ugly individuals who speak directly, as Dr Brash did in January this year. That sort of discussion gets filtered out by the elite who dominate our media. So we have an impoverished form of democracy, and this Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 2) simply cements that in place.

We had an opportunity in the Justice and Electoral Committee to make a timid change, which would have said: “OK, we have spending limits in New Zealand on political campaigns, so that people can’t go out there with big money and buy an election.”—although there is not any evidence that that can be done, anyway. The spending limits could have been applied very simply across all the expenditure that parties make in an election campaign; and parties could have chosen whether they spent it on radio, television, direct mail, postcards, hip-hop gatherings, or whatever else they wanted to do. The Greens could have been advertising directly on youth radio, if they think it is only young people who vote for them. The National Party could have gone only on gardening programmes and those that appeal to the elderly. Winston Peters, of course, could have gone to the people in the rest homes and elsewhere, where his support comes from. But we could have chosen who we were going to. Instead the parties in the select committee ganged up to make sure that, once again, this Parliament did not get a chance to vote on a proposal to allow free speech on—

Hon Tony Ryall: Uncharitable.

STEPHEN FRANKS: That was the effect. They would not allow free speech through radio or television for fear of disturbing the status quo, for fear of upsetting the applecart for a Government that has maintained a very tight restriction on the realms of permissible political debate in polite society, and on radio and television, for many years. The ACT party will support the bill because it is a slight improvement on where we are, but it is a woeful bill compared with where this country should be in terms of freedom of speech and freedom of debate around elections.

MURRAY SMITH (United Future) : It is pleasing that what was originally the Electoral Matters Bill is passing with the unanimous support of the House. This is legislation that, although dealing with fairly minor matters, does tackle the fundamental nature of our constitution in so far as it looks at the way that we run our elections and elect our Parliament. It is therefore important that it is not passing on just a majority vote, as we have seen happen with quite a lot of legislation over this last year, but, rather, is getting the unanimous support of the House.

The disappointing part of the legislation is that it deals with only a very few technical matters when some more significant issues, even some that could easily be resolved, have been sitting around for election after election, and have been the subject of report backs from select committees, but have yet to be addressed. Despite the promises of the Government to address them, in its response to the select committee’s report on its inquiry into the 2002 election, we have yet to see any discussion papers on those more fundamental matters. There are two in particular that need comprehensive review—one relating to donations to political parties, and the other with regard to the funding of political parties.

In respect of donations, the threshold for disclosure, the ability to have anonymous donations, and any cut-off points as far as anonymous donations are concerned are matters that, at the very least, ought to be part of the debate at this time. They have been hanging around for years and years. It is time we got on to debating those publicly, in terms of the sort of election we want and the protections that should revolve round it. We have had three MMP elections, and the public have had a chance to look at those factors. Some of these issues have now quite clearly become issues that are contentious.

The funding of political parties is another issue that, since MMP, has become important. The memberships of political parties have all reduced. There are not very many New Zealanders now, as a proportion of the general population, who are actively involved on a regular basis with political parties. But political parties do provide a very important part of our democratic system, and it is important that political parties are strong and that there is the opportunity for a wide variety of viewpoints to be recognised, in elections in particular but also in the House. I think the time has come when we should be seriously considering, as a nation, the funding of political parties to allow them to operate between elections, and have at least some level of resources with which to do that, without their being reliant on membership fees and on going cap in hand. That leads to distortions, in terms of sector groups that have funds being looked to for the provision of funding—in particular, the business community. If there was some funding from parliamentary resources, it would take a little bit of pressure off that, at least.

It would also be part of providing a level playing field. Parties that are in Parliament have a distinct advantage, as far as funding is concerned, over those that are outside, because of the parliamentary resources that all parties here have, and their ability to use those resources on the promotion and recognition of their political points of view. They are, effectively, campaigning in terms of their points of view under the guise—quite legitimately—of going to the public and getting feedback on a situation. Certainly, the line is very blurred there. Everybody would admit that there is a grey area as to when the legitimate role of a political party in Parliament to use funding to promote its point of view turns into campaigning. So parties that are not represented in Parliament face discrimination as far as that matter is concerned, because they do not have any access whatsoever to that funding, even though they may have a reasonable level of public support.

There is also the question of the funding for broadcasting, which I addressed in my speech during the Committee stage. We are well overdue for a significant increase in that funding. It has been many years since it was increased. I sincerely hope that in the next Budget, particularly with the money that is available to the Government, there is a substantial increase in the funding that is provided to political parties for broadcast advertising. Broadcasting—in particular, television—does pay a very central role in helping people to determine what political parties believe and whom they should vote for. It is therefore critical that that information is provided, and that there is adequate funding for that—recognising that the only funding that can be used for broadcasting at this stage is the funding provided by parliamentary resources. So I would encourage the Government to look at that seriously. Again, it is part of our whole constitutional democratic tradition that the public are well informed about what political parties are offering, and that means using television and radio to do that, and that means using parliamentary resources.

There is one other option, and, again, I alluded to it in the Committee stage. Given that elections are meant to be level playing fields where all parties go back to square one, with zero seats, and have to campaign to win their seats, effectively there should be the ability for parties that do not get so much public funding to top up their funding for broadcasting purposes. This would help to level the playing field as it ought to be levelled when it comes to election time. It would mean that a party that did not get public funding would have to go out and solicit funding from the public in order to have that funding provided from private sources, and that in itself would provide indications of the level of public support for parties. Certainly, United Future does not believe that it should be open slather. There should be caps on that level of funding, but nevertheless we believe that the opportunity should be there for parties that do not get funding, or that get limited funding, to increase their resources.

One of the critical issues covered in this legislation is members of Parliament creating vacancies. While I do not want to go back and relitigate the Harry Duynhoven situation, which has been thoroughly chewed over, I would say that the way the Government handled it at the time was very disappointing. I am sure that if it had been a National MP, we would not have seen that legislation. I am sure that if it had been a National MP, we would not have had Government members of the Privileges Committee denying what was the obvious—that is, that Harry had indeed taken steps that vacated his seat. The way that the Government handled that situation brought the whole institution of Parliament into disrepute, and brought partisan politics into something that is fundamental in terms of our constitution, and that should have been addressed at that time. I know that Harry was willing to—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member cannot refer to members by their first name—the member has done it twice. Members must use their title, their portfolio, or their whole name.

MURRAY SMITH: I was referring to Mr Duynhoven. Nevertheless, the Justice and Electoral Committee has now been able to look at the situation and to determine the basis on which an MP would lose his or her seat. I think the fundamentals of there having to be a positive act, and an act that creates an allegiance to a foreign power or State while that person is an MP, is the right balance. Ceasing to be a New Zealand citizen, and accepting nomination as a candidate for an election in a foreign country, have been added. But we have the exceptions that one can become a subject or citizen of a foreign State by reason of it being one’s country or place of birth, or by reason of descent, and that one can renew a passport issued by a foreign State. I think those are welcome. The existing exception is still there—that if someone becomes a citizen of another country by marriage, that person is not disqualified.

I must say I was very disappointed that the House did not agree to the amendment to clause 18 that would have amended section 74B(2A) of the Broadcasting Act to give the Electoral Commission discretion with regard to the payment of late invoices. As a party secretary I believe that is short-sighted and inevitably will result in unnecessary financial harm to broadcasters. The Minister and the Government will have that on their heads.

JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) : I rise in support of the legislation. I would like to say that the debate on this legislation has been constructive. Electoral law is important in this country. I think that, largely, all members across the House have done their level best through the select committee process and through the debate in the House to improve the legislation as much as possible. We cannot expect everybody to agree on every fine point, but I would say that members in the majority have worked constructively to ensure we have good electoral law in this country. We have to remember that New Zealand has a very open democracy. We have general elections that are conducted in a sophisticated and effective way, and this legislation will help to ensure that situation prevails. While the public at large may not necessarily always be happy with the outcome of each election, the way that our elections are conducted is the envy, I suggest, of many other countries. I am very pleased to support the legislation, and thank all members for their contributions.

RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) : It is a rare occasion when a substantive contribution is made by a Labour member to a debate, and from that member who just spoke we had such a contribution. I also express the hope that Mita Ririnui, who is seated in the House, may be tempted to add to the Labour contribution on these particular bills, which National supports. I say bills because, of course, these two pieces of legislation started off life as one bill, the Electoral Matters Bill. Now that bill has been transmogrified, or perhaps there has been a secular transubstantiation, to produce two bills: the Electoral Amendment Bill and the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 2).

It is invidious to rate the performance of particular speakers in the course of this debate, and I do not wish to do so in any detail. But I have certainly reflected on the very thoughtful contribution that Dr Wayne Mapp made earlier in this third reading. There is no doubt that he brings to this House a real ability to contribute on constitutional issues. He certainly is a hard-working and conscientious member, representing so well the interests of the people on the North Shore, but, added to that, he has constitutional insight that is almost second to none amongst members in this House. I say that, of course, against the background that he has a doctorate from Cambridge University in a very specialised area of constitutional law, the Iran - United States claims tribunal work. That was an amazing piece of work, and it has been followed through with continuing research by him in the constitutional law area, including, of course, election law.

When speaking to these two bills, which National supports, I would like to make the point that the electoral framework and its integrity is the hallmark of a constitutional democracy. I am sure that if Dr Mapp had an opportunity to contribute in this debate even further, he would make that same observation, but, sadly, he may be denied that opportunity. New Zealand has no written constitution, and we must be very careful that, in making piecemeal changes in a non-constitutional setting, we do not affect the integrity of the framework. It is a strong framework, but it is a framework that is not wrapped together in the way that occurs in the many countries that have written constitutions. Indeed, it is the case that there are only three developed countries in the world that do not have a written constitution. They are—

Simon Power: Israel.

RICHARD WORTH: The member behind me reminds me that Israel is one, and that is quite correct. The other illustration, apart from New Zealand of course, is the United Kingdom. That is not to say we do not have a whole lot of written constitutional material, and members may suggest what, in fact, comprises those constitutional materials. It is fair to say that they are an assemblage. They would include the Constitution Act, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, the Electoral Act, the Human Rights Act and, I guess, the parliamentary Standing Orders and conventions, and various writings.

I would like, if I may, to turn now to some critical aspects of the legislation that have caused National some concern. The one that has caused the most concern is now enshrined in the Electoral Amendment Bill with the insertion under clause 7B of new section 267A, concerned with the making of regulations relating to advertisements of a specific kind, and section 267B, “Requirements before Minister can recommend that regulations be made”. What we are talking about is the placement of hoardings during the period beginning 2 months before polling day, and ending at the close of the day before polling day. National’s particular gripe with these provisions centres on the process that has been followed—a process that only yesterday saw these far-reaching changes documented in the form of a Supplementary Order Paper and delivered to the National caucus. If there is to be considered debate on issues of constitutional importance, then it is critical that time be afforded for consideration to be given to the merit of particular proposals.

I have heard the complaints that members of minority parties in this House have made about aspects relating to electoral legislation. I have heard Mr Franks, with the background of all his experience, say that the fate of a minor party is similar to the fate that confronts a proprietor seeking to launch a new dog roll. I would not so quickly dismiss the contribution of ACT and other minor parties in that way, because in the MMP environment all players have an opportunity to contribute—albeit not equally, and albeit not with equal funding. But there are some who, in respect of these hoarding provisions, have expressed the hope—and I do not put it higher than that—that the Regulations Review Committee may well be able to deal with anomalies or deficiencies that arise in the regulations. That is not so, because the Regulations Review Committee is constrained by the Standing Orders in what it can look at, and one area that is a no-go area is the policy area. I believe we are probably, in the context of the shape of any regulations—unknown as they are at this present time—to be confronted with a raft of policy decisions rather than regulatory content that would give the Regulations Review Committee some jurisdiction to intervene.

In the Electoral Amendment Bill as it hits its third reading there are amendments to section 55 of the current legislation. Fairly or unfairly, the finger was pointed at Mr Harry Duynhoven and the actions he took that, it is asserted, led to the need for this legislative change. But it is a fair point that New Zealand law tolerates, and even encourages, dual nationality. That is clear from the Citizenship Act. Double nationality frequently occurs by descent, as it did in Mr Duynhoven’s case. Dutch nationality has to be governed by Dutch law, so there was an argument that the retrospective nature of the law that was passed in the Parliament of the Netherlands meant that Mr Duynhoven always had Dutch nationality. In New Zealand, of course, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act provides that every New Zealand citizen who is 18 years or over qualifies for membership of the House of Representatives. Members here present may recall that at the time when the Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill was passed, it was asserted that some 20 members of Parliament might have been captured by the current law. Those issues are now matters of history, in the context of the third reading of the Electoral Amendment Bill.

There have been some significant changes—Mr Franks spoke about this—to section 55 of the Electoral Act, and the Justice and Electoral Committee itself made certain changes that I would assert are reasonable changes. The phrase “foreign Head of State”, which has been included in clause 5 with reference to swearing allegiance to a country, is akin to swearing allegiance to king and country or queen and country. The other change that has been made, and that I think is also reasonable, is a change to provisions by addition, in that a member of Parliament will have to vacate his or her seat if he or she accepts nomination to a governing body that might not fall within the definition of a country. One can think, for example, of a territory such as the Northern Territory in Australia.

There was an opportunity for the select committee to say that it is not really on to be both a mayor or councillor and a member of Parliament in this country at the same time. That is an issue that has drawn the attention of the media, of course, in the case of one of the members of New Zealand First. How one can discharge responsibilities as both a local authority councillor and a member of Parliament beggars belief!

• Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) : I rise to take a very short call in respect of the third readings of the two bills that are before the House at this time. Most of the matters addressed by members have referred to the Electoral Amendment Bill, but I want to make a very brief comment on the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 2) because I think it assists political parties in their planning for general elections and streamlines the process by which this matter is treated, particularly the part of the bill that repeals the requirement on the Electoral Commission to invite broadcasters to provide free or discounted time for electoral broadcasting. What will happen now will be a far quicker process for political parties to register the fact that a general election is about to occur and for broadcasters to respond in a way that is favourable to both parties so that political broadcasts can begin.

The other important change made by the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 2) will be that only registered political parties will be eligible for the allocation of time and money. I think that is important because with the move to MMP, under which registered parties with 500 members or more are the formal parties in our political system, this just means that the legislation is catching up with that fact in that regard.

There are two bills before us at the present time. I, of course, support both. I wanted to make a few brief remarks about the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 2). I am sure that the Hon Tony Ryall will be able to expand far more on these important points given his 14½ years of experience in the New Zealand Parliament.

Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) : That sort of speech proves that members can come to Parliament when they are far too young.

Darren Hughes: But you were 25.

Hon TONY RYALL: Has the member ever heard of irony? With regard to this legislation that the Government has introduced, I would like to report on a point that the National Party in Opposition raised continually throughout the debate. It related to Mr Harry Duynhoven, the member for New Plymouth. The Speaker will recall that an issue arose about Mr Duynhoven and an application he made, which he says was not an application. Mr Duynhoven did something that, in essence, saw him pledge allegiance to a foreign power and thereby disqualify himself from being a member of Parliament. The matter was referred to Mr Speaker. While he was spending some time in considering the matter, the Government announced that it would introduce legislation to regularise the actions that Mr Duynhoven had taken. At the time the Prime Minister dismissed Mr Duynhoven’s actions as a technical breach of a minor nature, related to some archaic legislation that had never been considered by Parliament, and that was completely out of touch with the modern world. So changes were to be proposed to the Electoral Act in the electoral amendment legislation.

What is interesting about the legislation that has been returned to Parliament—and the National Party drew this to the attention of the House in the Committee stage—is that, contrary to what the Prime Minister said, this legislation does not change the circumstance that would have existed with regard to Mr Duynhoven if it had been law. That is to say that if Mr Duynhoven did now what he did then, he would be out. Mr Speaker, you would be required by this legislation to have his seat declared vacant. I think that is very clear, and I do not think it would take the number of days that it took previously for you to draw that conclusion.

Mr SPEAKER: The Speaker cannot be brought into the debate. I warn the member.

Hon TONY RYALL: I accept that. But the legislation makes it clear that if Mr Duynhoven was to pledge allegiance to the Queen of the Netherlands today, as he did then, he would be out of Parliament. So how can the Prime Minister claim any consistency or moral authority for her earlier statements? Where does she stand, given that she said what Mr Duynhoven did was a minor breach of no consequence whatsoever, and the law should be changed? The Prime Minister is the woman who is supposed to be on top of everything in this country—except for her speeding motorcades, it would seem—yet she has delivered legislation to this House that does nothing about the situation that Harry Duynhoven was in.

I consider it to be a long-lasting stain on this Parliament that Mr Duynhoven’s seat was not declared vacant, because any reading of the Act made it clear that he had breached the law. There was only one consequence of his breach of the law, and it should have been immediate—he should have gone. But the Government bailed him out with nasty, cynical legislation that was covered in the Prime Minister’s rhetoric that the breach was something that did not matter, that was inconsequential, that was archaic, and that would be fixed. If the breach of the Act was inconsequential, archaic, and of no relevance to New Zealanders or Parliament, why has the Prime Minister left the rules exactly the same? I will tell members why. The Prime Minister was too scared to have a by-election, with the seabed and foreshore issue swirling around at that time. She knew that the Government’s plan to give Māori a veto over the operation of, and access to, the seabed and foreshore is deeply unpopular with the people of New Zealand. She knew that if she had a by-election in New Plymouth, Labour would lose the safest Labour Party seat in the country.

Where is the Prime Minister in this debate? I ask her to take a call. I know the Prime Minister has been overseas 48 times in the last 60 months, at an extraordinary multimillion-dollar cost to the New Zealand taxpayer. I know she has been running her campaign for a UN job for after the election, but why is she not taking a call in this debate? I will tell members why. Because she knows that she cannot stand up in this House and defend what she said about Mr Duynhoven. If the Prime Minister is so confident about what she said, why is she not taking a call in this debate? The point is that the Prime Minister said that what Harry Duynhoven did did not matter, and that the law could be changed. Yet she has brought legislation to Parliament that does no such thing. She accepts that if Harry Duynhoven pledges allegiance to the Queen of the Netherlands again, and if all the other Labour MPs who kept their mouths shut during that debate renew their passports, they will be out. I wonder whether a Government whip could take a call and give an assurance to this House that no other Government member has breached that provision of the Act. There is silence, which proves just what we have always thought.

This legislation contains a major stain on this Parliament, and I suspect that in years to come people will look at the way that the Harry Duynhoven matter was handled and realise that it was a cynical manipulation, wrapped up in deceitful rhetoric. It was just appalling that the Prime Minister told the people of New Zealand that what Harry Duynhoven did was of no consequence, but has left it as an offence on the books of this House. We simply cannot have members of Parliament pledge allegiance to another country or to another queen while they are members of Parliament. That is simply appalling. If Mr Duynhoven did it again, I would expect him to be out within 24 hours, because if that was good enough for Donna Awatere Huata it should be good enough for Harry Duynhoven.

GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) : What a disappointment it is to hear a speech like that from the member who has just resumed his seat. That was a mean-spirited, lacklustre attack on one of the finest Prime Ministers we have seen in this country for many, many years. It betrays the real depression that is descending upon the Opposition, as it slides in the polls and slides into oblivion. Tonight we are dealing with the third readings of the Electoral Amendment Bill and the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 2). I would like to focus very briefly on the Electoral Amendment Bill. It amends provisions in section 55 of the Electoral Act, relating to when a member of Parliament must vacate his or her seat. It also cures an anomaly in section 55E of that Act that could see the Governor-General or a senior judge take a role in the party-hopping procedure that would be inappropriate to their constitutional functions. It also implements a regime to manage certain aspects of electoral signs, by amending the Act to specify national standards for the management of those signs. Those are just some of the matters that are encompassed in the Electoral Amendment Bill, which is one part of the bill that has been split in two. The other bill, of course, is the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 2). I support the bills.

• Bills read a third time.