Electoral Matters Bill

At 7 minutes to 5 this Tuesday evening, this Parliament is about to debate the most self-serving electoral manipulation that I have seen in 14 years of Parliament. The Minister is casting himself as the Huey Long of New Zealand politics, who wants to give to himself the power to regulate the colour, style, shape, and design of every other party’s electoral signage in this country, and—what about this—it may only be used for the purposes of ensuring it does not endanger the safety of road users. Well, what we have learnt from the Government’s quota ticketing policy is that it is the behest of the Government that counts the most, rather than road safety.

What is wrong with Supplementary Order Paper 310 is that it not only cuts across the Government’s much-vaunted partnership with local government by removing all discretion of local authorities relating to the erection of election hoardings, it now gives the power to a Government Minister to make recommendations to the Governor-General, which she will rubber stamp, that will allow the Government to decide the design, layout, shape, and colour of electoral hoardings. In no other part of the Electoral Act does the Government have the power to regulate the activities of its political opponents, but that is what will happen with new clauses 7A and 7B. It is a self-serving electoral manipulation that opens up our electoral law to the sort of Louisiana style of politics that brings democracy into disrepute.

I tell the Minister that it is anti-democratic for a partisan Minister to set the rules for people’s election hoardings. Regardless of this false caveat of not affecting the traffic, this Government is trying to give itself a power that could be used against its political opponents. Blue is the sign of preference for Transit advisories in many parts of the country. When the Minister travels into his electorate he will see significant numbers of—

💬 Simon Power: That would be a first.

It would be a first for that Minister, and I have to tell members that Craig Foss has probably knocked on another couple of hundred doors in Hastings today. This Minister wants to give himself a power that no other party has ever sought in this Parliament, and that is to regulate the activities of its opponents. Can members point to one section of the Electoral Act where Ministers can regulate the activities of their opponents in a way that can benefit the Labour Party? There is not one section.

The National Party will also be using this debate to point out that Harry Duynhoven would have been out of this Parliament had this new section prevailed when he applied for a Dutch passport. Remember that? The Prime Minister said it was only a technicality. This bill would still see Harry Duynhoven out on his ear if the Speaker were bold enough to make that decision, because it would be the Speaker’s choice to make. The bill states that a member of Parliament would be out on his or her ear, but there is an exception if he or she renewed a passport or travel document. Mr Duynhoven did not renew his passport; he had had it taken away from him. He applied for a passport while he was a member of Parliament. Even though the Prime Minister tried to minimise it by saying: “Oh, it is only a technicality.”, the fact is that even the Government has admitted that what Harry Duynhoven did was an offence, and it was this Parliament and this Prime Minister who let him stay in this Parliament. This bill would not fix that.

I suggest that the member Tony Ryall read the report from the Justice and Electoral Committee on this bill.

💬 Rod Donald: It was unanimous.

It was unanimous—absolutely unanimous. It was unanimous because there was no dissenting opinion in it. The National Party was represented on the committee by none other than two members. Let me refer Tony Ryall to the fact that Clem Simich and Richard Worth were on that select committee—

💬 Darren Hughes: Dr Richard Worth!

Dr Richard Worth. What did the select committee say unanimously to this Parliament? Let me read the select committee report to the member Tony Ryall, so that he can hear it, probably for the first time, and perhaps begin to comprehend it: “We are concerned that variation in local authority rules can unnecessarily impinge on free political speech, and add to the costs of advertising.” That is what the National Party signed up to; that is what the report stated unanimously. [Interruption] The select committee then went on to state, and Wayne Mapp should listen to this as he will learn something, maybe for the first time: “We encourage the Minister to address guidelines for hoardings at the Committee of the Whole House stage (if his discussions with the Society of Local Government Managers have not had satisfactory resolution by that time).” The select committee carried on to state unanimously: “We propose that minimum levels could be set, where appropriate, for size, content, and display period.”, and colour. I just want to say to that that is the recommendation from the select committee.

I have taken the select committee at its word—unanimously encouraged by the National Party—and done exactly that. That is what Mr Ryall has conveniently overlooked—as will Dr Nick Smith, because he is unbelievable. Not even the High Court in New Zealand could believe Dr Nick Smith. It found him to be unbelievable, so no one else will find him to be believable. Having done that, we went through the law, and we saw—[Interruption] I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I know what the member is going to say—

That member accused me of being gutless. I resent that bitterly.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I will rule on that, because I heard the comment myself. The member knows he cannot imply that a member lacks courage. I ask the member to withdraw. He is a longstanding member.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Having endured the Minister’s outrage over a comment made by a colleague on the Opposition side of the Chamber, I waited for you to bring the Minister to order, firstly, over his comments regarding Dr Nick Smith, and, secondly, over the fact that those comments were well outside the scope of Part 1. I noted that you started to reign in the Minister, but then refrained from doing so. If we on the Opposition side have to endure points of order from Minister Barker, then I ask that you apply the same standards to the issues raised by him and leap in, as appropriate, to bring him to heel when he makes inappropriate remarks during a very tightly worded part of the bill—in particular, when he hurls innuendo at a colleague on the Opposition side of the Chamber.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Under Speakers’ ruling 43/3 a member is entitled to reply to comments made by the previous speaker. However, I take on board what the member has said. This is a rather robust debate, and relevance is something that the Chair takes into account.

Having been asked unanimously by the select committee, including the National Party members on it—there is no minority report in here; I have read the report thoroughly—I came back with Supplementary Order Paper 310 in my name to do exactly that.

There are several safeguards on that Supplementary Order Paper. Firstly, before a regulation goes as a recommendation to the Governor-General, there has to be agreement by at least half of the parties in Parliament. The second caveat on it is that at least 75 percent of all members of the House have to be represented. Why are we trying to do this? We are trying to set a standard time of 2 months and a standard hoarding size, which has never been applicable before, and to remove from some of the local authorities the ability to put restrictions on what can be on political hoardings. If we are to remove the restrictions that others may have, then we have to state what will be on them, so we are doing it in the positive way. That, in my estimation, is a temporary fix, because the election is coming up very shortly—[Interruption] Some time between now and then—and I do not have another electoral matters bill that can go through the House before the next election. If one were to be introduced tomorrow and referred to a select committee, it would sit waiting in that committee for at least 6 months, and it simply would not be possible to give effect to it before the election.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Fix it.

We are going to fix it now.

Secondly, I would say that once we have gone through the election we will have a review of the Electoral Act, and the regulations will, I suggest, become law at the following election. So after the next election we can regularise this matter in a more structured way in primary legislation. I am not the happiest person at having to do it by regulation, but there is another safeguard—a safeguard that is currently lounging on the Opposition benches in the form of the chair of the Regulations Review Committee. If the Government is to put in vogue regulations, then I would expect that when the matter goes to the Regulations Review Committee Mr Worth’s eagle eye will spot anything that is offensive to the National Party and bring it back to the House immediately.

💬 Darren Hughes: Why doesn’t Nick Smith have confidence in Richard Worth?

The junior Government whip has a very good question. It seems to me that the National Party does not have confidence in Mr Worth being able to scrutinise this legislation.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Don’t be stupid!

If that member thinks I am dumb, then he is unbelievable. It is all right to be accused of being dumb, but I would hate to be accused of being unbelievable—or to be found to be unbelievable.

This measure is something that has been negotiated with all the other parties in this House and I am very sorry we could not negotiate it with National, because it was found to be untrustworthy. I handed a very preliminary draft to Mr Worth, in confidence. Within minutes the deputy leader of the National Party, Mr Gerry Brownlee, attempted to table it in the House. It was given and accepted on the basis of confidence—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Stop cheating.

There was no question about it. I say to that member that if something is accepted on the basis of confidence and it is found that that confidence cannot be respected, then it should be handed back. The confidence should not be betrayed. I make the point to the member that there are moral issues involved here. One is integrity—personal integrity. When one accepts something in confidence, one accepts that. [Interruption] The member Nick Smith keeps barking out that I would not know what integrity is. He is the member who went before the High Court against someone else, and the High Court did not believe him. The High Court found Dr Nick Smith to be unbelievable. The National Party has put itself out on a limb, because it was found to be untrustworthy. People who give things in confidence expect things to be dealt with in confidence. I say to each of the other parties here in the Chamber that we can negotiate and sort out these issues, but the National Party has wound up on a limb on this particular issue because it was found to be untrustworthy.

I want Parliament to know exactly what this Associate Minister of Justice is asking us to do. In the most sensitive area of law, electoral law, the Government is going to cheat on the rules and, late in the process, without any public process, introduce a sneaky, dirty Supplementary Order Paper to change one of the most important parts of election campaigning—that is, election hoardings. I tell Mr Barker that when he abuses parliamentary process and runs around sneakily with a Supplementary Order Paper that most New Zealanders would find offensive, I make no apology at all for letting the public know the way in which this Labour Party Government will pull off an electoral rort.

The Government is saying here that there is one set of rules for everybody else when it comes to the Resource Management Act and signage, but that when it comes to Parliament we will write the rules to suit ourselves. [Interruption] I say to Mr Franks that if a local council wants to put up a hoarding to advertise a school gala, then it has to comply with the Resource Management Act. That will not be the case if one is a political candidate. Why do we want to have special rules just for ourselves? More important, why is Mr Barker not prepared to subject his Supplementary Order Paper 310 to a public submission process? This Supplementary Order Paper says that when it comes to MPs—

💬 Hon Rick Barker: You asked for it.

Well, let us just deal with that. Let me read what the Justice and Electoral Committee report states: “We encourage the Minister to address guidelines …”. Are these guidelines? No, they are new law. This is special law—not guidelines for local authorities. The Supplementary Order Paper states that all citizens in New Zealand have to comply with the Resource Management Act, except if they are parliamentary candidates. If the Minister is genuine in representing this measure as being part of special provisions for elections, then why does it not apply to local elections? We have just had elections for district health boards and for councils. Why does it not apply to them?

💬 Darren Hughes: It’s for political parties in general elections. They cover the whole country.

Mr Darren Hughes, the “Albert Einstein” of the Labour Party, says it is because local council candidates stand for only one district, where there are rules. Well, that is not so in the case of the Wellington Regional Council or the Auckland Regional Council, where a candidate may be standing in seven or eight districts. Neither is it the case if one is standing for a district health board. That argument does not stand up.

The reason that Rick Barker is passing this special set of rules now, without any select committee process, is that he wants to rig the election for the Labour Party. Let us see how far it goes. Why is it necessary to regulate the colour of election hoardings? Is there anything in the committee’s recommendations on guidelines that says it is proper for Mr Rick Barker and his 19 Cabinet colleagues to regulate the colour of election hoardings? Mr Barker is saying that it would be quite permissible, under the Supplementary Order Paper, for Cabinet to decide that we could have red election hoardings only. That would be the sort of dirty trick that Rick Barker would try to pull off.

💬 Hon Rick Barker: Read the Supplementary Order Paper!

I have read the Supplementary Order Paper. I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. There is a longstanding convention, and I would have expected you to step in and make the point by now, that the Minister in the chair does not object because of his advantage with regard to the microphone. He has done it at least eight times. When will you bring the Committee to order?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I was aware of that, and if the member had observed what I was doing, he would have seen that I had my finger on the mike so that the Minister could not be heard.

So that is a new Standing Order?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No, I am just saying that I had my finger on the button.

💬 Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Regardless of whether you have the finger on the button that controls the microphone that is placed in front of the Minister, Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings remain. In fact, you have ruled from that Chair on a number of occasions in recent weeks that the Minister sitting to the right of you may not interject while a member is on his or her feet. Whether those interjections are amplified is not the point; the point is that the Minister sits in a position of advantage, and it is entirely improper for that Minister to take advantage of that positioning to interject on members who have the call.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member has made his point. I did call the Minister to order, and maybe I should have done so earlier. The member is correct. It is a convention that Ministers do not take advantage of a live microphone.

I continue with the absolute cheat going on in Parliament in respect of this Supplementary Order Paper and the regulation of election hoardings. The Minister says it is all hunky-dory because the Regulations Review Committee can review the regulations that allow him to tell us that we all have to have red election hoardings. Well, let us be real. What is the average time it takes the Regulations Review Committee to deal with such a complaint? The average period of time is 18 months, which would be well after the fact that he had cheated himself into winning another election. It is a very poor check. It would be outrageous for Parliament to pass law and say that even if it is bad law, it is OK because the Regulations Review Committee can review it.

I thank the Minister in the chair, Rick Barker, for making Supplementary Order Paper 310 available to New Zealand First about 6 weeks ago, or even more, and for the discussions that have taken place since that time on the issue. There was a change to that Supplementary Order Paper, and I appreciate the discussions that took place on that, as well.

There has already been public debate on the issue, of course, and that is referred to in the report back of the Justice and Electoral Committee. The last sentence of the commentary on the bill, with regard to the proposal we are now considering, 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 a public review. It was held by the Justice and Electoral Committee. It went on interminably and everyone had his or her say. That committee reported back unanimously to the House—and I am referring to a recommendation in the 2002 general election report—that it wanted national guidelines on hoardings. That is what the Minister has done. New Zealand First would have been the first to object to any cheating that might have taken place. I think that claim from the previous National Party speaker was totally uncalled for. This discussion took place absolutely openly.

I think all of us know that when we have general elections different councils have different rules. If one is in, say, the Helensville electorate, one has only the Rodney District Council, the Waitakere City Council, and the North Shore City Council to cope with—only three councils. But invariably one has three different rules. Signs may be up to 3 feet high, or must be below 3 metres, or must be below 2 metres. There are rules about the places to put signs. There are all sorts of rules from different councils. It is very confusing. All one is trying to do is hold a general election—the most important thing that the country could ever want—and one is stuck with all these administrative regulations that pour out from councils, which seem to have people whose job is to makes one’s life as difficult as possible.

All that the National Party spokesperson, Dr Smith, is doing is supporting these councils having all these regulations. New Zealand First wants to see a reduction in regulations. This Minister is really being hammered to reduce the number of regulations. Here is a bill that makes things simpler for general elections, and the National Party is opposing it and saying it wants things to remain as they are, or be even more difficult. I would have thought that the Nelson National Party executive would be absolutely delighted to have this legislation, because it would have to have only one sign.

This measure cannot be done secretly, because it has to go back to the political parties for them to discuss, as the Minister has indicated—half the parties in the House, or 75 percent of the members of the House. The National Party these days is not big enough to stop it on its own—of course, maybe that is what is upsetting the member, and from the way things are going it will not get any better! That means that no political party, other than the Labour Party, could object to it on its own. Other parties would have to get together and lodge an objection. New Zealand First is quite happy to work along those guidelines. Here in the Committee today, for example, only one party is objecting to this legislation, and that is the National Party. All the other parties want to see simplification of how one runs an election, and that is all that this particular Supplementary Order Paper does.

I was quite happy with the first suggestion, and just as happy with the second suggestion, which was not quite as good. But it has all been out in the open. There has been no hiding of anything. Some bureaucrat somewhere, perhaps in Nelson, has got in touch with the local member, Dr Smith, and he has said that he will support that local bureaucrat in Nelson. Well, I just say that Parliament should make the decisions as to how we run parliamentary elections. There have been two reports from the Justice and Electoral Committee supporting this view. Both were unanimous. I am sure that Mr Worth will ably look at this matter in the Regulations Review Committee, should it come up. I am also a member of the Regulations Review Committee, and we can—

💬 Richard Worth: A hard-working committee.

It is a hard-working committee that looks at every regulation that is passed in this country, and does more per minute, in terms of scrutinising the law, than any other committee in the country. It is a very hard-working, diligent, and highly qualified select committee—if we all say so ourselves—ably led by Mr Worth.

The ACT party will certainly support the proposal restricting the powers of local bodies. I think the National Party is probably on its own on this amendment. I have looked hard at it, and the ACT party has looked hard at it. We cannot understand National’s position, quite frankly. We do not want to see local body fiefdoms with all the irregular forms that would come out of that. I think the 75 percent test that is proposed here is appropriate, and the ACT party will be supporting it.

What is a curious thing, though, in this bill is the reinstatement of the pre-Duynhoven situation. What we really have in this bill is a restating of what the law said prior to the extraordinary accommodation that this Labour Government did when it used its majority to subvert all principles of electoral law to accommodate Mr Duynhoven. The proposal here states that if a person does swear allegiance to a foreign power, or head of State, while in office, then that does create a vacancy.

And it should. Indeed, Mr Duynhoven should have resigned. There should have been a by-election. I believe he would have won it, and we would have wished him well in that. But as a matter of principle that is what should have happened. It was a very bad day in this House, particularly from a procedural point of view, when we saw people sitting on their hands, delaying an action that should have been triggered automatically to declare a vacancy. That did not occur, and that was very bad. It was bad for Parliament and bad from a constitutional point of principle. The ACT party just flags that. It is very interesting that, the law having being changed to accommodate Mr Duynhoven, it is now being changed back to what existed prior to that accommodation. That will be seen by many people to be the duplicitous act that it was. It was a very bad day in our history when that occurred.

The ACT party is also quite concerned about the broadcasting aspect. We have long opposed the election-broadcasting provisions. We believe that they are unnecessarily restrictive and punitive. It is not really the business of the State to prescribe them to the extent that it has. Since 1996, when ACT was first in Parliament, we have continued to oppose those provisions, and we certainly oppose them as they stand in this bill.

We also note that Electoral Commission membership is still done under the old first-past-the-post formula. I see that “Captain Wayne Mapp” is acknowledging that point, and good on him. The two main parties are using the tyranny of their majority to impose a situation that is reflective of a first-past-the-post Parliament. All other parties, whether it be New Zealand First, ACT, the Greens, the Māori Party, or whatever, should have an independent voice—whether it is under a collective umbrella, or whatever—on the Electoral Commission membership. It is a very bad reflection on the bill that in this closing month of 2004 the Labour Party and the National Party are using the tyranny of their majority to continue what is clearly a first-past-the-post Parliament arrangement. It is a cosy little arrangement between the clubs.

No minor party in Parliament can really rely upon those two major parties to represent its interests—not in the cold fire of an election. We know that is unreal; it just does not happen. Even if a party might be a potential coalition partner—

💬 Richard Worth: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This debate is on Part 1, not Part 2, and for the last substantive period the member has been talking about Part 2.

Speaking to the point of order, I point out that this is included in Part 1. The member who raised the point of order is mistaken. To be precise it is included in new clause 4A.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable member for that and he can continue.

It seems that member is very confused about this point, but perhaps he will have a chance to address it later on. I was talking about the tyranny of the majority—of the two main parties in this Parliament, the Labour Party and the National Party. It is a disgrace that they have used that tyranny in an electoral sense to reserve their dominance, total say, and monopoly of the Electoral Commission membership.

I have found this a particularly interesting debate over the period since June last year when it first began, or at least it first began for me and my family in June last year. I have been aware that on the last few Sunday nights an excellent historical drama set in 1660s England about the reign of Charles II has been shown on television. At the conclusion of that drama was a little clip on what followed, which was that the Scottish King James II—

💬 Hon Judith Tizard: He wasn’t Scottish, he was French.

Sorry, I am corrected. He was a French king. My history is not great. I can tell members the history of motoring things with great clarity, but I am not too good on the history of kings and queens. However, the next bit I know very well, which was that Prince William of Orange became the next king of England. Prince William of Orange became King William III, the husband of Queen Mary. Why is that important to our Parliament? Every day that we all take part in this Parliament most of us walk past a large painting in the lobby entitled “The Peaceful End of the Glorious Revolution”, which was, of course, that which installed King William III and Queen Mary. It was the signing of the Bill of Rights by that Dutch Protestant King of England, King William III, on 16 December 1689.

Why is that important for us? That particular Act was pretty important for a whole bunch of reasons. However, an Act that followed, which was much more important to this debate, was the Act of Settlement 1701. That Act, again passed by King William III, was to ensure that the Catholic faith never, ever in the future got anywhere near being enthroned in England, as a king or queen of England, and to this day that is how it has been. Why is that important to us? It is important to me. My good fortune is that I am the only New Plymouth MP ever, in the 150-year history of that seat, to actually have been born in New Plymouth. That is an interesting fact. What is even more interesting, and I only discovered much later, is that by another dint of good fortune I also happen to be born Dutch. My father’s arrangements to become a New Zealand citizen had run into some sort of glitch, and they were not formalised until 3 weeks after I arrived. I do not think I arrived early. My mother always said that I arrived feet first, late, and noisy, so I guess I have continued in that vein ever since.

Tony Ryall alleged before that I had broken the law—presumably, a deliberate act—by applying for a passport from the Netherlands that led to this entire debate. He then went on to allege that I would have still have broken the law under the new Act, because I had my passport from the Netherlands previously removed. All of that is totally wrong. It is factually wrong. I did not do either of those things. If the National Party says something often enough, presumably it will believe it. We can understand that, but it should not expect the public of New Zealand to fall for that nonsense. It is simply untrue.

Ken Shirley just alleged that I swore allegiance to a foreign power. That is also wrong and also simply untrue. I did not do either of those things. As I said, by dint of good fortune I happened to be born Dutch. I was also born in New Zealand and I happen to be a New Zealander, of which I am very proud. When I am travelling overseas I regularly promote the virtues of New Zealand. Long before I was an MP I did that. In addition, because I happened to also be born Dutch, like many other New Zealanders of my generation whose parents immigrated to this country—incidentally, my mother was born in Taranaki and was a New Plymouth person—we had a right that the Dutch Government decided to take away in March 2005. That right was to confirm our Dutch citizenship. It was not to get anything new, but to confirm what already existed.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: An act of allegiance?

No, it was not an act of allegiance, but simply to confirm that we had been born Dutch citizens as well as New Zealand citizens. Around 30 members of Parliament in this House either hold, or are eligible to hold, dual citizenship, and many of them will have dual passports. It is important to get one’s facts right. I simply did what any other person in my position would do and that was to ensure that my children had a right to Dutch citizenship if it applied.

This bill is a shadow of what it should have been, and the Government knows that. This bill should be addressing substantive matters such as State funding of political parties and some of the matters raised by Mr Shirley such as a proper donations disclosure regime so that we could have “look through” laws that expose what the Free Enterprise Trust gets up to in relation to the National Party. Notwithstanding those concerns, however, the bill does make some progress. One point of progress, and a bit of a late running point, is the Supplementary Order Paper that I notice 92 members of this Chamber supported. Ironically, only the National Party appears to oppose it, and I guess that is because its biggest fear is that its support will stay below 25 percent in this Parliament.

It is obvious that if National members had any confidence in themselves they would expect to win more than 25 percent of the vote at the next election and therefore would be able to block any regulations that they did not like under the amendments in the Supplementary Order Paper relating to election hoardings. But National members have already given up the chase not only to win the election but also to even get above a quarter of the vote. Quite clearly, their concerns are totally unfounded in relation to the hoardings. The rules are very tight, and I am pleased that the Minister was willing to accommodate many of our suggestions that we made to make them so, particularly the one about the rules having to be in relation to the purposes of traffic safety and for no other reason. It is good to see that some other parties got some clear restrictions in place, too.

There were extensive negotiations with parties over this Supplementary Order Paper, and therefore I find it extraordinary that the National Party seems to be on its bike about this one, especially when there was a request to standardise hoardings after the inquiry into the 1996 election, and that was repeated after the 1999 election and again after the 2002 election. So it is good to see that Labour has finally fixed that problem, notwithstanding the fact that National members today do not seem to be singing from the same song sheet as the National members on the select committee.

It is even better to see that the Government is finally dealing with the bureaucratic problems of the Broadcasting Act, and I will come back to that when we get to Part 2. Suffice it to say that it has been a long and sorry saga.

The other long and sorry saga that this bill fixes is that it confirms that members of Parliament who were born outside New Zealand or who have entitlement by reason of their parents’ birthplace are allowed to become a citizens of their home countries without having to leave our Parliament, and that they are entitled to renew a passport of that country without having to leave our Parliament. I think that is very sensible, very reasonable, very fair, and very consistent, because, as we all know, during the debate over “Harry’s law” a previous Parliament amended the law to allow a member to become a dual citizen as a result of marriage without losing his or her seat. So it is entirely consistent that we have now enshrined permanently in this bill the new rules around dual citizenship.

The only people who should be losing their seats as a result of this legislation are the National and Labour representatives on the Electoral Commission—and they are National and Labour representatives. It is absolute bunkum to claim that they represent the Government parties and the Opposition parties. Those two people are there to represent two parties and two parties only, and it was good to see that that point was agreed to at the select committee when I put forward a minority report—or should I say it was good to see that ACT and United Future agreed with me. New Zealand First came back to say it wanted its own seat on the Electoral Commission, and never mind the rest of us.

But the point I want to make is that the potential for abuse from what Dr Smith was going on about is nothing compared with the undue influence that National and Labour representatives have over the allocation of broadcasting funding and broadcasting time during the election campaign, which is why I put forward an amendment today, and I look forward to the support of all parties in this House to get rid of the National and Labour people on the Electoral Commission. It is totally inconsistent in a modern democracy, with more than two parties in this Parliament, to have only two of those parties allowed to determine the allocation of election funding and broadcasting time. That should cease. It is ironic that we have an amendment today to stop those two parties being on the commission for the purposes of offences against the Broadcasting Act, but they get to dish out the lolly. It is time that that law was changed. It is time that all parties in this Parliament got up to speed and got rid of the offensive provisions in the Electoral Act that give the two-party club extra power.

I want to devote my time on this occasion to talking about Supplementary Order Paper 310, which contains the new provisions of clause 7A. Those provisions were not directly before the select committee and therefore submitters did not have an opportunity to comment on them at that stage. Notwithstanding the fact that those provisions were not in the original bill, they have been signalled in respect of the report of the Justice and Electoral Committee on the Inquiry into the 2002 General Election, and in particular the Government’s response to that. I note in that response that the Government said it would discuss this with local authority organisations, in particular the New Zealand Society of Local Government Managers, before recommending any amendments to the Electoral Act. I know that some correspondence took place and that the select committee was aware of that but that it was also aware that not much progress had been made. Then, as we got close to reporting back to the House, the local government organisations indicated that they were too preoccupied with the local body elections to have done much about it.

We therefore support the Government’s move to make some provision in the bill for the standardisation of election hoardings. I know that it is an intrusion into local government affairs and into the powers of Transit in terms of the use of highways, and jurisdiction over highways, and to some it could be seen to be a degree of self-interest. But we are dealing with elections that are on a national basis, and whilst it may have been appropriate for different electorates to have different rules during a first-past-the-post regime—because in that case the contests were from electorate to electorate—in the MMP environment, where the list vote is a national vote, I think it is important that there is some consistency in the use of signage during the election period. Otherwise we could get into a situation where one party was disadvantaged in electorates that it had a strong hold on, through different rules in terms of signage.

Therefore I think it is appropriate that there is some standardisation in this respect for the limited period of time that comes before elections. In particular, the select committee recommended in its report that the Government address the issues of signage in three respects: size, content, and display period. With regard to size, this Supplementary Order Paper provides for a limit of 3 square metres and that fits with the standard size, 2,400 x 1,200, or 2.88 square metres, that most billboards have adopted. I know from my experience as secretary of a political party that that is a normal size with corflute boards, and will therefore accommodate that as a maximum size, with the ability, obviously, to go smaller.

Secondly, the display period is limited to a period of 2 months prior to the election. That is not to override any other regulations that local authorities may have that may extend that period, but at least in terms of this Supplementary Order Paper and the consistency of signage, and allowance for signage, it is restricted to a 2-month period so that the intrusion into normal local authority affairs is not too severe as far as time is concerned.

The contentious issue, really, was the content. United Future did have some serious reservations about the idea of the Government, by Order in Council, determining the design, layout, shape, and colour of signs. One can imagine that a Government might decide that all billboards should be in red or in blue just in order to manipulate the system. However, there are very large protections in the Supplementary Order Paper that satisfy us that that abuse will not happen. The first is the fact that the provision for an Order in Council must be limited to matters that would look to the safety of road users. So, effectively, the Supplementary Order Paper can restrict limitations only to the extent that it might endanger the safety of road users. That is, of course, a fairly broad statement, and it could be interpreted restrictively in ways that did count against a political party, and therefore United Future was pleased to see, and encouraged, the other restriction, and that is that parliamentary leaders of at least 50 percent of the parties in Parliament, representing 75 percent of members, must agree.

We should not let the Government get away with its explanation of Supplementary Order Paper 310. Just for starters, I point out that this Supplementary Order Paper arrived at the National Party caucus this morning. There has been some suggestion that this is a negotiated position and that National has been fully involved in the development of this Supplementary Order Paper.

💬 Darren Hughes: The National Party knew about this weeks ago.

Not so. This Supplementary Order Paper arrived this morning. There has been no opportunity for consultation, and no opportunity to look at what the ramifications of some of these clauses might be. As the Minister—if he is frank enough to acknowledge this—might say, there have been significant changes between this Supplementary Order Paper and an earlier draft Supplementary Order Paper that was before Parliament.

But it is actually much worse than that. I believe that the Minister, perhaps unknowingly, misled Parliament when he read from the Justice and Electoral Committee’s report on the Electoral Matters Bill. What was said then, and what the Minister failed to properly identify, were these words about electoral hoardings, from all members of the committee: “We encourage the Minister to address guidelines for hoardings at the Committee of the whole House stage, if his discussions with the society of local government managers have not had satisfactory resolution by that time. We propose that minimum levels”—and I emphasise “minimum levels”—“could be set where appropriate for size, content, and display period.”

Now, three points immediately emerge from that particular passage. First of all, we are talking about guidelines. Second, we are talking about minimum levels, and, third, we are talking about three elements: size, content, and display period. But what do we find in this Supplementary Order Paper? First of all, we find that these provisions are not guidelines. They are proposed regulations. Second, we can try to see whether minimum levels are referred to in this Supplementary Order Paper—but they are not. There are no minimum levels being contemplated, at all. They may be maximum levels.

Then when we look at the three elements I identified—size, content, and display period—we find that a significant rewording has occurred. We are now, by this particular Supplementary Order Paper, to contemplate regulations covering design, layout, shape, and colour—a quite different set of parameters. So it is mischievous for the Minister to contend that in what emerges in this Supplementary Order Paper there is an accurate reflection of what the committee unanimously decided. It is quite wrong for him to assert that in some way there has been an inconsistency of position in what National is saying in respect of this Supplementary Order Paper.

But there is a further and very significant point—that is, it was within the contemplation of those who sat on the select committee that we would be talking about guidelines for hoardings in a more general way than is currently proposed by this bill. But what we are looking at is quite clearly partial treatment of politics and politicians, and that should never be the case.

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: Preferential treatment.

That is preferential treatment, says Dr Mapp behind me, and that is quite right. What has been exposed in connection with the signs and hoarding controls—whether they are bylaw controls or controls proposed through district plans—is an inconsistency in council districts. That inconsistency in some cases requires applications to be made by way of non-notified consent. In other cases, applications should be made by way of notified consent. It is wrong in principle that politics and politicians should be preferred, yet that preferment is what the Minister has set out to do, in this case. There has been no opportunity, of course, for the select committee to look at this Supplementary Order Paper, and the thrust of what is proposed, I would suggest, goes far beyond what should reasonably be contemplated in the short period of time we have in which to consider Part 1 in the Committee stage.

I want to talk about two points. The first arises directly from the speech given by the Hon Harry Duynhoven. I know that Mr Duynhoven earnestly and seriously believes the factual content of everything he says. I understand that that is his belief. The question is, however, whether it is a correct interpretation of the events, and I suggest to Mr Duynhoven that it is not. No one has suggested that Mr Duynhoven committed a crime. It is perfectly legitimate under New Zealand law to apply for the passport of another country if one is entitled to do so; we have a rule of dual citizenship. However, the action of doing so was a breach of section 55 of the Electoral Act. That is incontrovertible.

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: The action of doing what?

The action of applying for a passport.

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: I didn’t apply for one. I have never applied for one.

The reality is that that was demonstrated by the fact that this Parliament passed legislation to rectify that very event. Now, Mr Duynhoven has said that he did not apply for a passport—“he applied for nationality” may be a better way of putting it, perhaps. But he undertook actions that were in breach of the Electoral Act—in short, in breach of the very grounds by which one can be present in this place as a member of Parliament. If that had not been the case, there would have been no correcting legislation.

Our problem is not per se with the fact that Mr Duynhoven did that, but rather with how the matter was corrected. There were two ways of doing so. The first option—and one, I might add, that is often undertaken in Australia—is a by-election. One perfects the wrong by going back to the people and seeking a fresh mandate, so that the deficiency is not evident any further. Usually, it is the case in Australia that when that happens, the person is actually elected. The problem that Mr Duynhoven has now is that he is a member of Parliament by virtue of legislation, not by virtue of election. Surely, that is an awkward and a somewhat embarrassing situation to be in.

The extraordinary thing is that when the Justice and Electoral Committee examined that whole area of law, its members did not change it in such a way that would have enabled Mr Duynhoven’s situation to be legitimate thereafter. Of course, that was the proposal by the Government initially—that it would just pass a law to fix up Mr Duynhoven’s situation because, after all, all the law would be fixed up so that anyone else in that situation would be able to do exactly the same thing. It was just a minor technicality, essentially, when put like that.

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: That’s what she said; she said she would fix it.

What the Government did, effectively, was to fix Mr Duynhoven, because he is now in the invidious position of being the only person who has done an action that, firstly, required legislation to fix it and, secondly, still leaves him in an exceptional position in terms of the legislation proposed here. The legislation that is now proposed states that one is not in breach of the law if one renews a passport or travel document. As Mr Duynhoven has said, he was not renewing a passport or travel document. He was making an initial application for nationality—

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am sorry, but I take exception to that. The member knows full well that I said in my speech that that was not the case—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member, but if he is claiming misrepresentation, then I suggest he look up Speaker’s ruling 35/3.

Perhaps I ought to conclude my speech by saying that Mr Duynhoven had a clear choice. He could have gone down the path of legislation, with all the bankruptcy that that implies, or he could have gone to the people for a fresh mandate. I am sure that on reflection Mr Duynhoven would have preferred the latter course. That is the reality—that on reflection maybe that is what he would have preferred.

I will pick up on the point that Dr Wayne Mapp made, because I think it is pivotal to what this legislation is about. Members may recall that Mr Duynhoven was discovered to have pledged allegiance to another State, and to have—

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: That also is wrong and incorrect. The member will withdraw it.

Well, frankly, after Mr Duynhoven applied for a Dutch passport—

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: Wrong, too!

—and had it presented to him with his photo in the paper, that was when this Parliament became aware of the fact.

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: Wrong, too!

Mr Duynhoven says: “Wrong, too! Wrong, too!”. It sounds as though there was no problem whatsoever. If there was no problem whatsoever, why did we have special legislation? As I have said in this Chamber before, Mr Duynhoven somehow got himself into a position whereby Parliament had to pass special legislation. That was because he breached a provision of the Electoral Act that states that if one puts oneself under the care and protection of another sovereign, one breaches that Act. If members receive a travel document that means they have some sort of allegiance to a foreign power, then that is a breach of the Act. The matter was given to the Speaker to consider, and he considered and considered it. Then, lo and behold, while the Speaker was considering it, the Government said it would introduce rushed special legislation in order to clarify the breach of the law that was committed by Mr Duynhoven.

My assessment of what happened is that the Dutch Government removed citizenship from foreign nationals, and then decided to reinstitute it. Mr Duynhoven applied for a passport.

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: Wrong!

What did he apply for, then?

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: Nothing, except confirmation.

He applied for confirmation of his passport. What happened then was that that the Prime Minister said that that was a slight technicality.

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: You’re a disgrace to Parliament.

I am a disgrace to Parliament? I have never had to have special legislation passed in order to guarantee my place in this Parliament. If Mr Duynhoven enjoyed the support of the people of New Plymouth, why did he not go to the people? Why did he not put his mandate and his breach of the Act before the people of New Plymouth? I will tell the Committee why he did not. The Prime Minister was running scared of the people of New Plymouth on the seabed and foreshore issue, so she said that the matter was of no consequence. She said the fact that Mr Duynhoven had applied for a passport was of no consequence whatsoever, and the Government would pass a law to stop it from breaching the Act.

This bill has no impact whatsoever on Mr Duynhoven’s breach of the Act, because it makes it clear that if a member of Parliament applies for a passport or travel document, then that is a breach of the Act. Is that not what the special legislation for Mr Duynhoven validated? It was to validate not only his breach but everybody else's breach of the Act by virtue of renewing or applying for a foreign passport. It is clear that the Prime Minister has admitted with this legislation that the breach that Mr Duynhoven made was untenable. She simply has not changed the rules. If it was just a trivial legal technicality, then the Prime Minister would have changed the rules. She has not done so but has, in fact, confirmed the law in respect of Mr Duynhoven. That means that if Mr Duynhoven breached the law again today in the way that he breached it previously, the Speaker would have to declare his seat vacant. I am sure that the Speaker could consider and consider the issue, and then we would have more rushed legislation. But the fact is that the Duynhoven breach of the Electoral Act remains as a stain on this Parliament because special legislation had to be passed in order to let that member keep his seat. That is a serious matter.

I move, That the question be now put.