Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I move, That the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee for consideration.

The State agencies responsible for the administration of our parliamentary electoral system are a central component of New Zealand’s democracy. Those agencies facilitate both the right of New Zealanders to vote and their opportunity to be elected into this Parliament. They also undertake a challenging operational task. The general election commands a considerable budget and, at its height, it involves approximately 17,000 staff. Therefore, our electoral administration must be designed to provide first-class electoral services to New Zealanders and to safeguard the public’s continuing confidence in the administration of our electoral system.

Three electoral agencies are responsible for our existing system. First, the Chief Electoral Officer, as part of the Ministry of Justice, has responsibility for conducting general elections, by-elections, and referenda. The officer also administers the electoral finance regime for constituency candidates and supervises compliance with it. Second, the current Electoral Commission has a number of functions relating to political parties including registration, allocating broadcasting time, and funding prior to the election. It supervises parties’ compliance with the electoral finance regime. It also supervises compliance with the electoral broadcasting rules, and conducts public education and research on electoral matters. Third, the Chief Registrar of Electors, acting through the Electoral Enrolment Centre and New Zealand Post Ltd, is responsible for the electoral roll and enrolment.

The three-agency structure, although generally effective, has created some problems including duplication and increased costs and complexity for people dealing with the three agencies. As a result, there has been disjointed decision-making on electoral matters. Fragmentation has also become an obstacle to achieving any strategic overview of the sector’s performance and its priorities, and may limit technological development for use in future elections. There has been longstanding support for a better integrated form of electoral administration that includes the findings of the Election Framework Taskforce in 2001 and of the Justice and Electoral Committee, which has been recommending better integration since at least the 1999 election. More recently, the issue re-emerged during consultation with other political parties on the current review of electoral finance law.

Therefore, the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill establishes an independent electoral agency that will be given overarching responsibility for electoral administration—a new Electoral Commission. This new commission will be an independent Crown entity, placed at arm’s length from an executive Government, with a statutory responsibility to act independently when performing its statutory duties and functions. The measures in this bill have been the subject of consultation with all of the parliamentary parties, which is a longstanding convention for significant electoral reform. The new Electoral Commission will provide improved access to electoral services, as well as a more integrated, efficient, and strategic approach to electoral administration. Reform of the electoral agencies will be in stages.

The Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill takes the most significant step in the reform exercise by creating the new Electoral Commission that will take on the functions of the current Chief Electoral Officer and the Electoral Commissioner. If the bill is passed by the middle of 2010, the new Electoral Commission will begin operating on 1 October 2010 and will be ready to administer the 2011 general election. The second stage of the reform, a transfer of the responsibility for the electoral roll to the new Electoral Commission, will be dealt with in a separate bill. Enrolment will continue to be the responsibility of the Chief Registrar of Electors until October 2012. In addition to its status as an independent Crown entity, the new Electoral Commission is also assured by a specific statutory duty of acting independently in performing its statutory duties and functions and in exercising its powers.

The new Electoral Commission will be governed by a three-member board comprising the chairperson, the Chief Electoral Officer, who will also be the chief executive, and one other person. Electoral commissioners will be appointed by the Governor-General for a term of up to 5 years, on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice. To enhance the independence of these appointments, the bill requires the Minister to consult the leaders of all political parties represented in the House before making the appointment recommendations. This requirement was added following consultation with other political parties over the shape of the proposed bill, and the Minister of Justice, the Hon Simon Power, wishes to thank all parties in the House for engaging on these matters. The new commission will also be subject to the usual Crown entity reporting mechanisms in order to monitor the performance of electoral services and the expenditure of taxpayers’ dollars during the 3-year electoral cycle. The bill also provides certainty and consistency for the staff of the current Electoral Commission and the Chief Electoral Office during the transition to the new arrangements by transferring them directly to the new Electoral Commission on terms and conditions no less favourable than those they currently enjoy.

This bill is an important step in reforming the way in which our elections are administered. I would like to commend the current electoral agencies for the high calibre of their work to date and for their valuable advice during the development of this bill. Their assistance will be even more valuable during the transition to ensure minimum risk to ongoing electoral administration. It is their professionalism that has already contributed to New Zealand’s reputation as a country with effective, independent, and impartial electoral management. The Government is confident that this bill will create more efficient and accessible electoral services for New Zealanders as they exercise their democratic rights. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) : The Labour Opposition will be supporting the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill. I thank the Minister of Justice for the consultative process that has surrounded this bill. He has properly engaged with Labour, as, indeed, I am sure he has with other parties in this House in the preparation of this bill. As a consequence of that, Labour members are happy to support it in its reference to a select committee.

Initially, the Electoral Commission, which is a new body set up by this bill and not the current Electoral Commission, was to include the Secretary for Justice as a member. Labour and, I understand, some other parties said that would not be right. Of course, the Secretary for Justice is the head of a Government department, so it would not be appropriate for that office holder to hold a role on the new Electoral Commission. The Minister agreed with that, so the commission will now be fully independent, and we agree that that is appropriate. I think there is still a question as to how the commission should be appointed. I have heard some people suggest that the commission ought to be appointed by Parliament, rather than by the Minister as part of the Government. I think that some people may submit on that issue to the select committee. We in Labour would be interested to hear from submitters and be informed by them on that matter.

We agree that the new entity—which, as the previous speaker, Nathan Guy, speaking on behalf of the Minister of Justice, has said, merges the functions of the current Chief Electoral Officer and the current Electoral Commission—will provide an improvement in the way in which elections are run in New Zealand. New Zealand has a proud history of having non-corrupt elections. One of the reasons why we have those is our tradition of having strongly independent regulatory bodies to enforce the rules that surround elections, so that the public can have faith that they have an uncorrupted, honest, and transparent election process. That means they can trust the election result. That, in turn, means that people, because they think that our elections are open and honest, are more likely to participate in them. If we had a cloud over the transparency of our electoral processes, some people would be turned off from the electoral process and would not vote. That, of itself, would undermine people’s faith in democracy, because in the minds of some people it would be seen to be less representative of their interests than it currently is. They would not participate in the voting process, nor would they value the democratic institutions that we are endeavouring to protect. So Labour members agree with this legislation, and we will be supporting it.

I will make one negative comment, which is that this bill does not clean up the problem that we have in New Zealand about the lack of transparency of donations. It is all very well for the Government to say it wants to have agreement on issues relating to electoral law, but when agreement on issues relating to electoral law cannot be obtained because the Government refuses to move on its positions, then I say that is self-serving on the part of the Government. The Government could improve the degree of transparency around donations to political parties.

Paul Quinn: I can’t believe this.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Mr Quinn, who says he cannot believe this, sat on the Justice and Electoral Committee inquiry into the 2008 general election. After every election in New Zealand, we have an inquiry. It is part of the normal processes of Government; it happens every time that there is a general election. We look at the things that can be improved, and in that way we have a gradual improvement in our electoral system and it is updated to take account of recent events. This year’s inquiry, amongst other things, looked at whether we had transparency around donations. Mr Dave Henry, who is the chief executive of the Electoral Commission, gave evidence at the inquiry into the 2008 general election, and in particular he answered questions about donations.

In the select committee report back to Parliament, which I have before me, there is a record of the spending on the electoral process that was declared by the different parties. For example, the Labour Party disclosed expenditure of about $2.2 million, and the National Party’s expenditure was about the same. Other parties spent less than that: the Green Party spent $1.4 million, and the ACT Party spent $1.1 million. If there was transparency around donations, we would expect that for the majority of that expenditure corresponding donations would be recorded, for which we would know the source. But the only donations that we have transparency on were those to the Labour Party—a total of $422,000 of donations. There was $2.2 million of expenditure, but we knew the source of only $422,000 of donations. That is not transparent enough. If we think that was not good enough, I say transparency in relation to donations to the National Party was even worse. National disclosed far less than 10 percent of its sources of funds. It spent $2.2 million and disclosed the source of only $130,000 of donations. The provision of transparency about donations is one of the ambitions of our electoral laws, but they are not working when the source of less than 10 percent of the donations that came to the National Party was disclosed. In fact, that figure was very close to 5 percent; it was closer to 5 percent than to 10 percent. Between 90 and 95 percent of National’s donations were secret, and that is wrong in principle.

We ought to have transparency around donations. No one is calling for there to be transparency around donations of $5, $10, or $100; we do not need to have that kind of level of transparency. But we do need to have transparency in terms of larger donations. The amount that, at least in theory, we are supposed to make transparent as to the source of donations at a constituency level is $1,000. The Labour Party says that is what the figure should be in respect of donations to parties, as well. Without that kind of transparency, public confidence in our electoral system is undermined. We never know what policy is for sale.

Before the election, Merrill Lynch Australia said that if accident compensation was privatised—and National’s euphemism for that is “opening the work account to competition”—there would be $2 billion of accident compensation levy revenue up for grabs and $200 million of additional profit would be earned by Australian insurers. That is not in a report from me; that is in a report from Merrill Lynch Australia, in June 2008. We all know that private insurers stand to gain from the privatisation of accident compensation; there is no doubt about that. But what we do not know is whether those same private insurers were contributing to the National Party. I can never prove that they were, but it is wrong for our democracy to be tainted by that accusation. It is wrong for it to happen—and it may have happened; I cannot prove it—but it is also wrong, even if it did not happen, for our election process to be tainted by the implication that it might have happened. That, in itself, undermines public confidence in our electoral processes.

There is nothing wrong with people making donations to political parties. We rely upon donations to go about the business of democracy. But we should have transparency about who is making those donations, so that people can assess whether politicians are too accountable or whether they owe too much, if you like, to their donors in a way that reflects on a policy outcome. That is not fixed by this legislation. The Government says that is because there is no consensus around the issue of donations. But that is because the Government refuses to be part of the consensus. It is a self-fulfilling outcome, which National refuses to fix. I think there is a glaring problem with our electoral system: we do not have transparency around donations. This legislation does not fix that problem.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) : As I am sure the previous speaker, David Parker, will agree, the Justice and Electoral Committee is looking forward to having the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill come before it. The committee has a great mix of wise and sage counsel, and youthful vibrancy and enthusiasm from members such as Paul Quinn, Kennedy Graham, and Simon Bridges—I do not know which pigeon-hole he fits into. The committee is looking forward to having this legislation before it. It will be interesting, too, to be part of a consultative process in respect of electoral matters, which is a novel approach. It is something that we did not experience so much under the previous administration. I can give an indication to the committee and to Parliament at large that it will not be a case of the chair saying: “We’ve got the numbers, so we’ll just stick it to the vote and we won’t have any further discussion on it.” Committee members will enter into a debate around the table and with the submitters who come before us.

It is true to say that the threefold electoral process watchdogs that we have within our electoral system at the moment have been messy to deal with. It has been suggested for many years—in fact, for about 25 years—that they should be amalgamated into one. Although that task has been put off by successive Governments, it is good to see that the three agencies will be brought together as a result of the suggestions of the 2001 Election Framework Taskforce. It conducted a comprehensive review of the arrangements and recommended a single agency.

The taskforce recognised four basic flaws. The public, candidates, and parties were confused, and remain confused, over where and how to access electoral information services and advice, and this contributes to additional compliance costs. There is no natural coordination of effort in the system, and it succeeds only through the considerable time and work the three agencies put into coordinating their activities. But so often they overlap, and there is an expense to the taxpayer. Thirdly, there is the difficulty of coordinating decision making, which hinders organisational development, including the use of technology. In our review of the 2008 election, there appeared to be the opportunity to use technology in many ways in coming years that will see ease of use for the average voter, especially for those New Zealanders who are overseas, and a much quicker ability to get election results. Fourthly, there was no overview of the electoral sector’s performance and priorities. Although, for instance, the Justice and Electoral Committee is charged with, and always has been, reviewing elections in the year following a general election, those reviews tend to be a little staccato in that three different organisations come before the committee. There needs to be a far more coordinated approach.

Those issues will be addressed in a single agency that is being created—the new Electoral Commission. This body will have significant responsibility, performing all the functions of the Chief Electoral Officer and the Electoral Commission. It will be an independent Crown entity to ensure independence, accountability, effective discharge of duties, organisation capacity, cost effectiveness, and easy implementation. The board will have three members who will be appointed by the Governor-General, on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice, following consultation with the leaders of the political parties represented in Parliament.

The previous speaker made a lot about campaign donations and transparency. This Government is happy for transparency in those issues, and we are pleased to be supported by Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition now that Labour members find themselves sitting on that side of the House. We would like to have a lot more transparency, and that was what National was pushing for when it was in Opposition several months ago. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) : I too rise to support the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill. I was pleased to listen to my colleague the Hon David Parker advising the House of a consultative process that involved engagement with the Opposition, and I thank the Government for that process. I think it is important that we discuss matters such as electoral law reform as far as we can in order to obtain agreement. As the previous speaker, Chester Borrows, said, this matter has been the subject of review at select committee for a number of years now, and a merging of the functions of the three agencies—or three arms, as it were—that are now involved in our electoral system has been recommended.

In saying that we support this bill I want to make it absolutely clear that it is no reflection on the three agencies that will form the new Electoral Commission, nor, indeed, on the individuals who have shown incredible leadership in those areas over a large number of years. In fact, New Zealand has been very well served by all three agencies in terms of integrity and also dedication to the oversight of free and fair elections. I think in a place like New Zealand we sometimes take for granted the holding of free and fair elections. In other countries people are prepared to die for the right to vote. That probably would not be seen in any aspect of elections in New Zealand. I think some people find it hard to get out of bed and drag themselves down to the polling booth on election day, whereas in other countries people have fought for the right to vote and to have those votes freely and fairly given and counted. As my colleague the Hon David Parker has said, we have a well-deserved reputation in New Zealand for holding corruption-free elections, and this goes to public confidence in the process. When people go to vote they know that their vote will be received in confidence and that they can have confidence that the result will be a fair reflection of the votes cast on the day. What happens after the votes are cast and the count is done, when the various machinations occur for the forming of a new Government, may not necessarily go to public confidence in the process, but I think the process produces a much fairer system than any other system we have had in this country before.

When I look around this Parliament and I see people representing different ethnicities, I often reflect that when I first came to Parliament in 1990 there was not one MP from another ethnicity in this Parliament. We had Māori MPs and European MPs. I think one Pasifika MP made it into Parliament prior to the 1996 election—Taito Phillip Field in 1993—and that was it. There was no one else. Now we have two Chinese MPs, a Korean MP, and two Indian MPs, one of Sikh origin and one from Fiji, which is a tremendous advance. We also have a Muslim MP from Pakistan, so we have tremendous diversity in this Parliament under MMP that we simply did not have before. The number of women in Parliament has increased since we have had MMP, from a quarter of the Parliament to a third of the Parliament. However, sadly, with the loss of Sue Bradford tomorrow, I think we slip to just below a third, hopefully for a very short period of time. I think it is important that we have a system that reflects the integrity of the vote; we have that not only with our electoral system but also with MMP, as well.

Obviously there are benefits to be obtained from merging the three functions into a single agency. I quite like the way in which the Government has adopted this merger as a two-tier approach. The bill we are discussing today sets up the commission with two of the agencies before the next election, so by the time we get to the 2011 election the two agencies, the Electoral Commission and the Chief Electoral Office, will be merged into a single Electoral Commission, which will be in place to conduct the next general election. After that election the Electoral Enrolment Centre will come into the commission, as well. I think that that stepped approach is quite sensible because it gives the different agencies an opportunity to establish themselves in their roles before they are called upon to perform their function under the new regime. So I am very, very pleased with the approach that has been adopted.

I also commend the Government. I do not do this very often, so I will make this point, because I have criticised regulatory impact statements on many occasions since National was elected. Here is the regulatory impact statement—

Paul Quinn: Did you produce one? I can’t recall you producing one.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I congratulate the Government on an excellent regulatory impact statement.

Paul Quinn: Oh, leadership! Excellent.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I am happy for the member to interject across the House to say that the Government is showing leadership in this regard. It is about time. It has had a Minister for Regulatory Reform since the general election, yet here is one of the very few regulatory impact statements that meets my standard—that meets the test I want it to meet.

The Government has measured the status quo against two other alternatives. One was a new Electoral Commissioner within the Ministry of Justice, and the other was a new Electoral Commissioner created as an Officer of Parliament. Going through the regulatory impact analysis process, which I think is excellent, the Government has managed to identify the concerns and the benefits around each of those alternatives. I commend the Government for this very, very good process. The reason the status quo is not preferred—and I think it is important to place this on the record—is that, firstly, it would continue the unnecessary overlap of roles and duplication of administrative costs; secondly, it would provide for disjointed decision-making on electoral matters; and, thirdly, it would limit technological development for use in future elections. I think the third bullet point is the most important, because I am sure we will see a change in the way we vote in the future as technology develops. It will enable us to utilise different technologies that exist now and will exist in a better form in the future. Those technologies will not only ensure the integrity of the vote but also will enable us to ensure greater convenience. That is one thing I would like to see, because I get frustrated when I see people who think they have cast a valid vote—they have actually gone down to the ballot box on election day—but who discover afterwards that their vote did not count because they were not enrolled on the electoral roll the day before that vote was cast. I like to think that we will have the technology to enable somebody to enrol and vote on the same day. In my view, there is absolutely no barrier to that occurring, and the sooner we can put that technology in place the better it will be. I do not think we have to have an absolute prohibition on enrolling on election day, as we do at the moment with the roll closing the day before the general election. So I am very, very pleased to see that something is put in place to ensure that we can take advantage of technological development.

The last point I make is to comment on the points made by my colleague the Hon David Parker about the need for the transparency of donations to political parties. In the last inquiry into the 2008 general election, questions were put to Mr Henry, and I think it is worth remembering them. He was asked: “do you think there is a need for transparency of donations to political parties?”; he replied: “Yes.” He was asked: “Do you think we need to do better in respect of the transparency of donations?”; he replied: “Yes, I do. I think that in the new regime we need to look very carefully at how we might look through to the true donors.” That is what this bill is about. The public has a right to know who is funding the election campaigns. It is very, very important that we address the issues raised in these reports as they come up. With that one exception I commend the bill to the House.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) : I do not intend to take a long call on the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill. The Green Party will support its first reading to get it before the select committee. We look forward to submissions by the public on the bill.

We think that the overall purpose of the bill is very good. The bill establishes a new Electoral Commission. The commission will combine the functions of the current Chief Electoral Officer and the Electoral Commission, and it will eventually also have oversight over the electoral roll, which, as my colleague Lianne Dalziel explained, will be transferred by a second bill at a later stage. The intention of this legislation is to provide integrated, efficient, and consistent oversight of, and decision making in, electoral administration, and to have those measures in place well before the next election. So there are quite reasonable intentions behind the bill. It is fundamentally important that the oversight of our electoral system is run by an independent and impartial body that has the power to make fair and effective decisions about the running of our democracy. It is a crucially important part of our democratic process.

The bill is an improvement on the existing three-agency arrangements, which create, we agree, unnecessary duplication and potential confusion. The independence of the Chief Electoral Office, which is located as part of the Ministry of Justice, causes some problems, in our view, under the current arrangement. So this bill is an improvement, as it moves that office, to some extent, and therefore we support it going to a select committee.

The bill is by no means perfect, and we are interested in the submissions on how it can be improved. When the National Government consulted the Greens on the proposal, we suggested from the outset that an Officer of Parliament - type body should be established, that it would be preferable to ensure that the new agency is absolutely and fully independent of the Government, and does not report to a Minister. The Officer of Parliament model is used here in Aotearoa with the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, for example. It is also used in Canada for their electoral organisation and management. It places the oversight of the body with Parliament, as opposed to a ministry of the Government managed by one particular political interest. It reinforces its role to oversee and enable free and fair elections, which is a core concern of the House of Representatives and of Parliament. Certainly an Officer of Parliament model would be perceived by the public as more truly independent and would have more ability to comment on how the electoral process is operating, because it would not report to a particular Minister in the executive.

I note that in the regulatory impact statement there is a comment that the Officer of Parliament model provides a high level of independence because of the institutional separation of that body from the executive branch of Government, which is what we would like to see. But then the statement goes on to describe why that would not be appropriate, and it refers to criteria that were established by the Finance and Expenditure Committee in 1989, saying that the proposal does not meet the criteria. On my reading of those criteria, it does. The criteria state: “an Office of Parliament must only be created to provide a check on the arbitrary use of power by the Executive;”. But the role of the new commission would be to manage New Zealand’s elections, including referenda, for the public as a whole. That includes all of the electoral tools that the public have to decide who is in their House of Representatives. It is absolutely crucial that power over those issues is not held by the executive, and that there is a body that is fully independent from any potential arbitrary use of power by the executive.

There have been arguments about that in the not too distant past, saying that Governments and politicians have long had their sticky fingers in the business of electoral issues. The Electoral Finance Act was one. There was a lot of criticism from the public about that. The best way to deal with that criticism is to take those issues out of the hands of politicians, particularly those in the executive, and to put them in the hands of an independent agency.

The criteria further state: “an Office of Parliament must only be created to discharge functions that the House of Representatives itself … might carry out;”. I am not 100 percent sure—I have been here only 7 years, which is not quite long enough yet to work out all of the functions that the House of Representatives might carry out—but it seems to me that the integrity of Aotearoa New Zealand’s electoral system is a core concern of the House of Representatives, and that therefore the issues that the electoral body would be concerned with are sufficiently significant that the House itself would choose that an independent agency would have control and management of those.

We would still continue to argue that an Officer of Parliament model is the best model for the management of those issues, and that that discussion should continue through in the select committee. We will be very interested to see what the public thinks about whether higher levels of independence and accountability of that agency to the voters through their House of Representatives would be gained by the agency that this bill implements, or by an Officer of Parliament.

We would also like to see the new agency tasked with providing guidance and advice on electoral finance rules. That is another area where we do not want politicians’ sticky fingers in the business. We want there to be an independent assessment of those rules, and a great deal of clarity for the public and for political players so that they understand what those rules are and how they are applied.

We do not agree that the board of the new Electoral Commission should be appointed by the Minister. There is consultation in the process, with the Minister talking with other political parties, but it is a decision that is made by a recommendation by the Minister to the Governor-General, and we think that that power, again, could be taken out of the hands of the Minister, so that there is no imprint of any one particular political force on the board, and there is a greater sense of independence and separation of the agency.

That is one reason why we continue to advocate strongly for an independent agency to continue now with the process of the electoral system referendum that was proposed by National. Now that the timetable has been set, in our view it is crucial that the Government of the day takes its hands off the issue and allows for an independent agency to manage the questions—how those questions are set and how they are decided on.

There is a really interesting issue around whether a preferential system like single transferable vote (STV) should be used in Part B of the first questions of that referendum as to which is the most preferred system. The Electoral Commission, as it is established at present, could do that work, particularly around the establishment of the questions and how they would be managed. This bill and the agency that it establishes would not come into effect until 1 October 2010, and that is quite a long time away. Nonetheless, that new agency could certainly be charged with the responsibility for informing and educating the public about the different options that the Electoral Commission is proposing, on the issues around MMP, for example, and other kinds of proportional or first-past-the-post systems, such as supplementary-member representation. Despite the fact that the agency will not be set up until October of next year it is quite possible for the whole referendum issue to be transferred to the Electoral Commission at this stage, and then, from there to the new agency after October 2010, in time for the referendum in 2011.

The public do not want their electoral systems to be fixed for the benefit of any one particular political interest. Since this Government has clearly expressed a preference for a particular system—that is, the first-past-the-post system, supplementary-member representation—the issue is now tainted in the minds of the public. So it is important that the Government takes its hands off, because we must ensure that the questions that are put to the public on the electoral system are such that they believe that decisions are being made in their best interests, and not in the best interests of particular political players, particularly of the Government, which has the most power in these circumstances.

We support the bill, as far as it goes. We will continue to argue for a truly independent agency through an Office of Parliament. We look forward to the submissions on that issue, and to the continuing discussion that the country is having around the nature of elections, election finance, electoral donations, and electoral agencies. It is a very important discussion for the public to be having, and we hope that it will be managed in a careful and independent way, where political interests, such as those of the National Government, are not promoted. Thank you.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora anō tātou katoa. Parliament is one of the very few structures in our society that is inhabited by people who truly believe that elections, in and of themselves, make a crucial differences in our lives. I am reminded of a comment made by a person by the name of James Freeman Clarke. He said: “A politician thinks of the next election. A statesman, of the next generation.” The Māori Party supports the latter school of thought—that the future of our people can be greatly improved by the opportunity we can provide for them to participate in our democracy.

We come to this Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill and we consider how the various legislative amendments to be introduced will impact positively on the future prospects of New Zealanders. We absolutely welcome the move to get the electoral shop in order, to reduce the duplication of functions, and to get rid of the confusion regarding costs and complexities for political parties, candidates, and the general public. We do so for reasons that come from very recent history. Administrative issues arose on election day in 2005 for voters on the Māori roll. Those issues arose in 2008, as well. The issues included an insufficient number of Māori roll voting papers and a lack of Māori roll data at some polling booths. Both issues would have been extremely easy to rectify, yet a lack of information had the immediate and adverse impact of compromising the rights of individual Māori to vote.

In the inquiry into the 2005 elections, the Justice and Electoral Committee drew attention to the issues raised by the Māori Party. The select committee concluded that, although the problems outlined were isolated, they should have been avoided. We tabled three major issues with the committee. Firstly, there was a lack of, or an inadequate supply of, ballot papers. In the Te Tai Tokerau electorate, voting papers ran out in several polling places by mid-afternoon on polling day. In the Tāmaki Makaurau electorate, voting papers were not available in some polling places in the South Auckland area until about 10.30 or 11 a.m. I recall that one of the worst-affected areas in the north had a problem as a result of a large influx of people being in the area to attend a tangihanga. Those people had every right to be able to register their vote, yet many were turned away due to the lack of papers. They chose not to return and take up their voting entitlement, because of the lengthy delays experienced in waiting for the new ballot papers to become available.

The second issue was to do with reports that Māori electoral rolls were unavailable in some polling places in the Manurewa area in the Tāmaki Makaurau electorate until midway through the morning. That is another issue that needs some attention. The third issue was that electorate votes were disallowed because incorrect voting papers were issued. In some cases, the electorate vote was disallowed and only the party vote was counted. In addition to these issues, concerns were raised about others such as the incorrect pronunciation of Māori names by issuing officers in polling places and reported incidents of voters being confused about whether they were on the Māori roll or the general roll. It is well known that those administrative errors were not large enough to have an impact on the voting outcomes. In Tāmaki Makaurau and Te Tai Tokerau, Dr Pita Sharples and Hone Harawira achieved resounding victories despite the problems with the paperwork, but the issues give a particular edge to the need for the Government to review its organisation and resourcing of polling places.

We believe that all polling places must have sufficient supplies and trained staff to cope with the demands that they may face on polling day, and this is of particular importance for voters on the Māori roll. In thinking of the bigger picture, outside that one election day in 2005, we are concerned that the democratic entitlement of some Māori constituents was compromised and, therefore, future voting practices may be affected. We believe that the overhaul of both the Electoral Act 1993 and the electoral administrative regime is both timely and in the long-term interests of the nation. It is also in line with our policy position, which supports the call for a single administrative body for elections. Reviews have indicated there a need for the creation of a single administrative body for elections and the benefits that would come from having such a body. As the House has already heard, the responsibility for electoral administration is currently split between the Chief Electoral Officer, who works under the Ministry of Justice, the Electoral Commission, which is an independent Crown entity, and the Chief Registrar of Electors, who works through the enrolment centre, a business unit of New Zealand Post Ltd. Although the distinctions between the roles are clear, the overriding public perception is that this is an overly complex and complicated way of allowing the voting process to take place.

This proposal, which is intended to provide a better service to voters, candidates, and parties, is an idea that has been some years in the making. In 2001 the Election Framework Taskforce conducted a comprehensive review of the electoral agency arrangements and recommended that a single electoral agency be given overarching responsibility for electoral administration, along with mandated statutory independence. Therefore, we are extremely supportive of the intention to amend the Electoral Act 1993 and the Crown Entities Act 2004 in order to create a new, independent Crown entity and Electoral Commission. We are interested in how we can ensure that long-term outcomes will be achieved through the efficient operations of the electoral administration functions of the Chief Electoral Officer and the current Electoral Commission.

I will share with the House a particular matter of relevance, not just for the Māori Party but, more broadly, for the representation of Māori throughout this nation. In structural terms, the bill merges the Chief Electoral Office and the current Electoral Commission, with a projected cost saving to the Government of 3.19 percent expected from the bill. This is all very positive and we welcome the views of the public through the select committee process. However, we do not want the review to focus on the administration and structures of our political system without considering a far more comprehensive look into electoral law. Any reform of electoral law should be preceded by consultation with the public.

For the Māori Party, the focus is on increasing Māori electoral participation, including a review of the Māori electoral option and, in particular, timing constraints. We believe that electoral representation in a democracy not only is a basic human right but also enables our nation to move forward together. Some of the issues that we consider to be useful for public feedback are particularly located around the issue of Māori electoral participation. We would be interested in the views of New Zealanders about the decisions to be identified on either the general roll or the Māori roll. We believe that all New Zealanders should be automatically entered on to the general roll at 18 years of age, or, if Māori, entered on to the Māori roll with the option to transfer to the general roll. We are interested in the views of whānau, hapū, and iwi on whether electoral rolls should also identify constituents on the basis of iwi and hapū. Such a process could assist tribal development, planning, and the maintenance of identity.

We welcome the feedback of Māori as to whether the Government should also extend the provision in the census for people to identify tribally to electoral roll, where tribal affiliations are also stated. Finally, but not insignificantly, we will be interested in the feedback about a proposal to amend section 45 of the Electoral Act in order for it to be consistent with section 35 of that Act, meaning that no Māori electoral district shall be situated partially in the North Island and partially in the South Island. This has particular relevance for my colleague Rahui Katene as it will mean in effect that the voters on the Māori roll would be treated equally with voters on the general roll, in that voters living in the South Island would not need to be merged with voters living in the North Island.

Those are just a few of the issues that we look forward to hearing from the public on during the select committee process. We recognise that a move to a single body will be an enormous task, and it will not be easily achieved without the risk of some disruption to elections. We also acknowledge the high quality of the advice from the officials and the outcomes that have been evident in the current arrangements. As we move our eyes to the next generation, we say that it is about time to review the current system. Therefore, we support this bill at its very first reading.

SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) : It is good to take a call on the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill. This legislation amends the Electoral Act 1993, which is a constitutional statute in our country.

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

SIMON BRIDGES: As I was just saying, it is good to rise to take a call on the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill. I was warming to the theme that this Government legislation is in keeping with a theme of the National-led Government of removing waste, duplication, complexity, unnecessary cost, and confusion. We are moving from a multiplicity of electoral agencies to a single one. That is very important.

I come back to confusion, because we can well imagine situations where it would be easy to be confused with a number of bodies—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Yes, of course. Sometimes if your name’s Rick you might call yourself Phil.

SIMON BRIDGES: Exactly. It would be easy to be confused when there are a number of bodies. Look at the Labour Party and its situation. I think Labour members found it very confusing as to whom to go to, and whether to use genuine or made-up names. Here we are narrowing those electoral bodies down into one body, so it will not be so confusing. I know others might have rather more unparliamentary ways of describing what the Labour Party did, but I think it was just general unabashed confusion by the Labour Party. It did not know what to do. [Interruption] Exactly. Labour members were not really sure whether they should use real names or fake ones. We are doing away with some of the confusion. Of course, the Labour Party will still find other things to be confused about.

As I said, by going from a number of agencies to one we are doing a good thing. We are removing waste, duplication, complexity, unnecessary cost, and confusion. We are providing consistency and efficiency so that Darren Hughes, Rick Barker, and other Labour members will know where to go to get their answers on these significant issues.

Hon Nathan Guy: Darren might have been Rick, and Rick might have been Darren.

SIMON BRIDGES: Exactly. This bill reduces several bodies to a single agency. That is a recommendation that has been made a number of times by the royal commission and the Election Framework Taskforce. There are a lot of flaws in the current system that we are doing something about. In its first reading, I commend this bill to the House.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) : What a pleasure it is to rise to speak—

Simon Bridges: A pleasure to hear you.

CHARLES CHAUVEL: Thank you. It is indeed a pleasure to speak on the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill.

Paul Quinn: Charles Bronson!

CHARLES CHAUVEL: It is nice to have the customary acclaim from the Government on this matter.

An electoral management body takes various forms around the world. It is the body charged in a nation with administering the electoral process. These bodies typically take one of four forms. They can be independent, mixed, judicial, or governmental, and it often happens that they carry out different functions depending on what model is adopted. Obviously, in federated states there may be bodies that serve the federal jurisdiction and the states or provinces as well. In jurisdictions where there are very large cities, like New York City in the United States with its population of 8.2 million, or Los Angeles County with just under 10 million, there are municipalities that have very specialised bodies to perform their electoral administration. As we have just mentioned the New York example, it is interesting to note in passing that apparently the body that supervises New York City’s administration of elections is a real model when it comes to looking at the adoption of new technology like the Internet, and at continuous disclosure requirements and obligations—for example, donations.

Hon Maurice Williamson: The Internet’s nearly outdated.

CHARLES CHAUVEL: Mr Williamson tells us that the Internet is nearly outdated; no doubt he will reveal what will come next. I look forward to saying “Gee, Maurice, do you remember the Internet?”.

Let us consider the various models that could be adopted for an electoral management body. We have the mixed model, where perhaps we might have an independent board for determining the policy to apply to elections, but where implementation of that policy can be a matter for the executive, with varying degrees of supervision by the independent board. If we are looking for democracies that operate that model and that have some relevance to New Zealand, we might look to France, Spain, or Germany, or, if we wanted to look to our own Asia-Pacific region, to Japan, which also operates that model. Other Commonwealth countries include Jamaica.

Then we have the possibility of the straight-out Government model, where we have the Minister or Secretary of State operating within the executive, and where, directed by a Cabinet Minister, the department itself conducts the election. That is the sort of model that has been adopted in countries like the United States, Denmark, Singapore, Sweden, and Switzerland, and in some other jurisdictions around the world.

Then we have the possibility of a judicial model. This model is very much the vogue in Latin American countries. Because of the time at which they developed their constitutions, those countries thought that the way to go was to have elections closely supervised by, and ultimately responsible to, an electoral court. Countries that operate that model include Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico.

We also have the independent model. Typically under this model we have an electoral commission that is autonomous and independent of the executive, and that has and manages its own budget. Interestingly, this is the model that is operated in the jurisdiction with which we most like to compare ourselves—Australia. It is also the model in Canada—federally—in India, and in South Africa. From the point of view of our region, it is again interesting that this model is used in Timor-Leste, as well, a new country with a new constitution. The South African constitution has made permanent provision for this independent model, because the South Africans, on independence, decided that it was important constitutionally to do so.

The New Zealand model is the classic mixed model, but it is a bit of a mishmash. It contains five different bodies. There is the Chief Electoral Officer, who happens to be a senior employee of the Ministry of Justice but who is autonomous as far as the electoral function is concerned. That person is responsible for the conduct of general elections, by-elections, and referenda. He or she employs returning officers for the 70 electorates, receives donations and election expenses from parliamentary candidates, and provides information on electoral events to voters, candidates, and parties. That is one of the five bodies that are currently charged with our electoral administration in New Zealand.

Then we have the Electoral Commission. An independent Crown entity, the commission has four functions. It has to register political parties, allocate broadcasting funding, supervise financial declarations, and conduct public education. That is the second body. The commission is fairly independent of the executive. It must be headed by a retired judge, and the executive does not get an enormous amount of choice as to which retired judge is to be appointed. Generally speaking, the nomination tends to be that of the Chief Justice, and the Minister of Justice chooses from a relatively narrow range of people who can chair that body.

The third body that has a role in our system at the moment, funnily enough, is the chief executive of a State-owned enterprise, New Zealand Post. That person is responsible, via the Electoral Enrolment Centre, to maintain the electoral rolls and to conduct the Māori electoral option. When one drills down into that, one sees that a chief executive of a State-owned company is conducting this function, by contract with the Ministry of Justice, as one of the outputs that the Minister requires of the ministry. It is a very convoluted arrangement.

Those are the three bodies that are mentioned in the explanatory note of the bill, but at least two other bodies have a role in the system. The Representation Commission draws the boundaries. Often in overseas regimes the Representation Commission is included within the structures that are required to organise and conduct elections. There is also the police, and I will speak a little bit about their function, because the police are the enforcement body as far as our electoral law is concerned.

Although Labour supports this bill being read a first time, we believe that the bill does not address the issue of the enforcement machinery when there is a breach of electoral law. I suggest that that might be something the select committee looks at. The problem that the police always have, of course, is that electoral offences never go to the top of the queue. The police will always be concerned with crimes against the person, and with dealing particularly with violent crime. They will never be able to prioritise electoral matters, nor will they necessarily have the forensic expertise to do so. These days those questions require skills in dealing with tracking donations and financial disclosures, and so on, which call for quite sophisticated levels of skill that are probably more properly found in organisations like the Serious Fraud Office rather than the police. It might well be that with the forensic skills that are required, it would be useful to think about having an enforcement function under this new independent Crown entity rather than the police being responsible for that function, if we are truly interested in bringing all the functions together in an expert body that has the resources and the time to deal with the questions before it.

The final point I make is that if one has a look at the explanatory note, one sees that one of the options canvassed was to have an Officer of Parliament for this function. Personally, I think that would have been the most compelling option to go for. The explanatory note suggests there was not enough time to get that sort of apparatus going before the next election. But if we really want a truly independent body, charged with the conduct of elections in an honest and serious way, then, given the conduct of our other Officers of Parliament, in whom we have enormous faith, then that seems to me to be the best way to go.

PAUL QUINN (National) : I followed the exegesis of the previous speaker, Charles Chauvel, and all it demonstrated was that he was able to read his Political Science 101 notes to explain this bill.

The simple fact is that the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill is very simple. It brings order to chaos. It combines two bodies—administration is currently undertaken by the Chief Electoral Officer and the Electoral Commission—and enables them to bring the transparency and honesty that members have spoken of on both sides of the House. On this side of the House, we strongly recommend it to members and to this Parliament.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) : I am surprised that Paul Quinn took such a short call. I nearly was not ready to take my call.

Chris Hipkins: It was all he was capable of!

LYNNE PILLAY: I find that Paul Quinn usually has quite a bit to say, so it was a bit disappointing that he took such a short call.

In opening, I want to recognise and talk about what Lianne Dalziel referred to in her speech, and that is the diversity of our Parliament. A decade ago—it was even more so two decades ago—our communities were not reflected in Parliament. It is fair to say that Parliament is now far more representative of the diverse communities we have in New Zealand—although I have to acknowledge that some of those members are not sitting on our side of the House.

It is also important to acknowledge our democracy. Many MPs in this House have assisted in elections—I do not know whether Gerry Brownlee has—in a number of other countries where democracy is not so open, accessible, or safe.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I’ve never been one for a junket.

LYNNE PILLAY: I find that to be a very flippant remark. That member should be ashamed of himself. That was a very flippant thing to say.

In New Zealand we have the ability for all New Zealanders to freely engage in elections without fear of retribution and without fear for one’s life. We can all recall—Mr Brownlee might be flippant about it, but this side of the House certainly is not—that it was empowering and wonderful to see the indigenous people of South Africa attain their right to vote. Many voters walked tens of kilometres in order to celebrate having that right. That is something that we in New Zealand hold dear, and it is something we should celebrate.

When I attend a citizenship ceremony, I know that many new citizens from other countries find it very empowering. One of the first things they say to me as new citizens or as permanent residents is that it is great to have the right to vote. It is indeed the right of all permanent residents, as long as they have lived here for the right amount of time, to vote in New Zealand, and it saddens me when people do not use that right. When we are out and about in communities we find many people who say they did not participate in the previous election. They did not participate—and indeed they are not happy with the outcome.

I want to speak about some of the new initiatives, and I will acknowledge some of the agencies in terms of the 2009 New Zealand Effective Advertising Award. I have the document here to show to members of the House. Most members probably received it only a day or two ago. It tells us about the award for excellent advertising throughout New Zealand—obviously before the “plain English”, airbrushed Bill English advertisement came on. This document covers 2009. Members opposite are probably thinking about what this has to do—

Simon Bridges: We are.

LYNNE PILLAY: I dare say that the Assistant Speaker is as well. Let me enlighten members.

I note that that the electoral enrolment campaign attained a silver award for the campaign about easy voting. We all remember the little orange man on our television screens. He encouraged people to vote, and showed people the easy ways to vote. That campaign won an award. I congratulate the Electoral Enrolment Centre, because it owned that campaign in terms of making sure that those advertisements were on air. I hasten to add—and I know that Paul Quinn will find this extraordinary—that it achieved a higher award and was on a par with a number of others, such as the Saatchi and Saatchi “Irresistible to Men since 1889” campaign, which related to the DB Breweries advertisement with the women and the blokes and all that sort of thing. That is more in Paul Quinn’s line.

Paul Quinn: Commonly known as the Tui ad.

LYNNE PILLAY: No, it was not known as the Tui ad; it was the DB ad. But I want to say that promoting a very serious subject to attain a silver award is quite an achievement, so I say “Well done!” to the Electoral Enrolment Centre.

I return to the purpose of the bill, and in doing so I recognised the Electoral Enrolment Centre. The bill is about establishing a new, independent Crown entity. I congratulate the Government, because this was, as David Parker said earlier in the House today, done in consultation with the Labour Party, and, indeed, with other parties in the House—I would hope—to ensure a smooth transition. I will talk Justice and Electoral Committee, which will be chaired by Chester Borrows, later in my speech.

I know that the three agencies—the Chief Electoral Officer, the Electoral Commission, and the Chief Registrar of Electors—came to the Justice and Electoral Committee before the last election and talked about a process to amalgamate the three agencies, so that a far more user-friendly service would be delivered and so that issues could be worked through. As, I think, Lianne Dalziel said, we do not often get the opportunity to do this. I congratulate the Government on this bill, because it does do that and it does so in quite a sensible way by doing it in two stages.

When the amalgamation of these three agencies has been looked at, we have seen that there is some complexity around it. It is really important to do it in such a way that it does not disrupt democracy and so that at the end of the process we have a transparent, effective, independent agency.

I note that the new body will be called the Electoral Commission again, and that could create a little bit of confusion, but we can look at that in the Justice and Electoral Committee, and I dare say there will be some submissions on that. Bringing together two of the agencies in the first year will bring some stability in the first instance. Then, the following year, the third agency can be brought in.

We again need to stress that the new agency will be independent. As I said before, democracy is something we all celebrate in this country. It is something that is a right, but, indeed, if we compare ourselves with other countries not too far away we see that it is also a privilege that many, many citizens in other countries do not enjoy. Democracy is something we should all hold dear.

I am very happy—and we are often not as happy as this in Opposition—to support this bill. I look forward to it coming to the Justice and Electoral Committee, where I know we will have excellent submissions on it. I know that we will devote appropriate time to considering the bill very carefully, and we will return some very good recommendations to this House. Thank you very much.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) : Lynne Pillay was just talking about diversity in this Parliament. I am proud to be a member of the National Party, which has brought diversity to Parliament. As the first member from the ethnic community, Pansy Wong came to Parliament through the National Party. The Hon Pansy Wong was the first ethnic Cabinet Minister as Minister for Ethnic Affairs, a position given to her by National. So diversity came through the National Party. Labour is always talking about it, but it did nothing about it.

I stand to support the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill in its first reading. This bill will establish a new independent Crown entity to manage the electoral system, and will provide the best balance of high independence with good accountability and the ability to administer electoral functions to high standards. In 1986 the report from the Royal Commission on the Electoral System recommended that Parliament’s electoral administration be merged into a single independent Crown entity. They found that the current multi-agency structure did not provide the best service to the stakeholders or a sound platform for future development. The bill also provides for the new Electoral Commission to carry out the functions of the current Chief Electoral Office and Electoral Commission. Under this legislation, the new Electoral Commission will come into existence on 1 October 2010. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

• Bill read a first time.

• Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.