Appointments — Electoral Commission—Membership

I move, That, pursuant to section 8(4)(b) of the Electoral Act 1993, this House nominate David Francis Caygill of Christchurch, to represent the Government, and John Kenneth Warcup Isles of Wellington, to represent the Opposition parties, each to be appointed by Her Excellency the Governor-General as a member of the Electoral Commission for the purposes of its jurisdiction under Part VI of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

Just to recap the announcement today, the Government has agreed with the Justice and Electoral Committee’s recommendation to increase the amount of money to be allocated to the Broadcasting Commission, as recommended unanimously by the parties in this House on the select committee, and that is a good decision. The committee is therefore, under the existing legislation, to determine how that money is to be allocated.

We, of the National Party in Opposition, will be supporting the Government motion, which will see the appointment of two representatives—

💬 Rod Donald: The two-party club.

It is the good old days.

💬 Rodney Hide: At least he’s honest!

There are very good reasons, which I will talk about, as to why it should happen that I support the nomination of the Hon David Caygill and Mr John Kenneth Warcup Isles. They are for no lesser reason than the very grand-sounding name that Mr Isles brings to the Electoral Commission, but also because I think that Mr Isles, together with Mr Caygill, brings a perspective to the commission that is fundamental to the responsibilities for which they have been appointed. In allocating the proportion of funding for the various political parties, it is vital that the practical, political experience of those two appointees is brought to the table for the deliberations that the commission makes. If we look at the make-up of the commission, we see that it is made up of people with minimal practical, political experience. They are people who have no necessary appreciation of what it is to explain a message to the public, and who have no practical appreciation of the logistics required for a party of any size within this House to get its message out to the voting public in New Zealand. So that is the reason why these two representatives, one for the Government parties and one for the Opposition parties, are to be appointed.

Mr Isles has done this job previously, and he did come and talk to the Opposition parties—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, he didn’t.

He didn’t come?

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: No.

He should have. I would expect him to make sure that he talks to the various parties. I think it is important to make sure that this expertise is brought to the table, which is why Mr Caygill and Mr Isles have been appointed. I do not think that anyone could accuse them of favouring one political party over another. Frankly, after looking at the allocation of moneys that was made last time, I do not think there is anybody who could accuse either of them of doing a favour to any party, because everyone was very disappointed in the outcome of the commission’s considerations last time.

In summary, the National Party in Opposition supports this motion. We think it is important that people with practical, political experience are involved in the commission. These two men bring their personal credibility and reputations to the responsibilities that they will perform on behalf of this House, and I think they will play an important role in supplementing the generally academic experience of those involved in the commission, which is involved in a process that is most practical. That is why their expertise is needed.

What we heard there was the best defence on behalf of the two old parties—the old boys’ club that is dominating the management of New Zealand’s electoral system. I want to point out exactly what that means. I am told that we should have Mr Caygill because of his immense experience—whatever that is, I do not know. How many jobs does David Caygill have, and when will the Government wean its mates off?

💬 Lianne Dalziel: Oh, come on!

No, no, the member cannot say “Oh, come on.” Job after job is given out by Labour to its crony mates.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: From the president of the Labour Party downwards.

From the president downwards. That is how it supplements its lack of income in running a party—it puts all its party hacks on to some governmental or quasi-governmental board and has the taxpayers fund its lifestyle while they go about exclusively, 24/7, working for the Government. It stinks and it is not right. So how many jobs does Mr Caygill have—Accident Compensation Corporation? Yes?

💬 Lianne Dalziel: No!

Oh yes, he was.

💬 Lianne Dalziel: No, no longer.

Oh, no longer! It is just a merry-go-round of jobs. How many jobs has Labour given its mates? Well, they would fill a telephone book. My, how they are going to be disappointed come September; they will be dug in, like ticks on a hound, until September, but not after that date I assure members.

The second man, John Isles, is the one who was appointed by the National Party because apparently, according to Mr Ryall, he has an “illustrious name”. Is that the same John Isles who stood for the National Party in 1975 in Napier? Is that the sum of his experience? What is the practical dimension—

💬 Darren Hughes: Made Don Brash the leader.

He knows more about politics than Don Brash, that is fair enough. But what does that mean? He has more experience than Don Brash, and he will learn how to lose, earlier than Don Brash, but that is all it means. But what practical dimension on earth is Tony Ryall talking about?

💬 Lianne Dalziel: He’s probably the next leader of the National Party, on that theory.

The member does have a point. We are told they will bring practical experience to the table of the Electoral Commission. But here is the rub. How many votes did National get at the last election, in proportion to the other Opposition parties? Did it get half the votes of the other Opposition parties, or less than half? It got less than half. National got 20.8 percent of the vote, and notwithstanding that—their old chubby mates; when it comes to the system that is—the Labour Party is happy to have National decide who the Opposition nominee will be. There is no consultation at all.

Have members ever seen anything so imperious and arrogant as a National Party with less than half of the Opposition votes, saying nevertheless that it will make the appointment? Can there be any reasonable New Zealander out there who thinks that is fair?

I will tell members of something worse that the National Party was involved in. When there was a call for a Māori person to be associated with the commission, guess what National did? Without so much as a by-your-leave, it appointed somebody, even though National does not have a Māori vote in the whole country. Well, if it has, it is a lone one. National never had a Māori seat—New Zealand First had them all—and National still had the audacity to think it was appropriate that it should appoint someone who I notice is no longer as enthusiastic about the National Party as he used to be, and his name is John McInteer.

This is just one more repetition of that. Over and over it goes, on and on it goes—the old club, Labour and National, appointing their favourites to jobs like this. But it is particularly repugnant to New Zealand First because we know full well that when it came to that appointment we were better qualified. We have proven it. We have actually won a few Māori seats. But National has never won one. It was not a problem with Jenny Shipley. She went straight ahead, in 1999, and did just that. But then again, where is she now? Who remembers her? Likewise, this man Don Brash making the appointment—with but 6 months to go, and with not so much as a by-your-leave, he has appointed a former National Party man from way back. And then, as Tony Ryall says, who can say they have not been impartial!

💬 Darren Hughes: Don Brash didn’t even tell Gerry Brownlee who the nominee was going to be.

That is possibly true, but then again, that is the B team. The B team does not talk to the C team, and the C team does not talk to the A team, and we know why. Let me tell members this. No longer is Murray McCully doing the job he used to do. Is that not a fact? Murray McCully would not have been a bad appointment, because he does know something about elections and has been involved in a few, from a long way back—all the way back to when Richard Prebble beat him in 1975 in Auckland Central. I know that Murray McCully won that seat, excepting that the votes had been fixed by the Labour organisation.

💬 Darren Hughes: Ha, ha!

Oh yes, make no bones about it. I remember it. That experience took us to Hunua, to win a devastating petition on what we had seen in Auckland Central. Although Richard Prebble should not have got here in 1975, he did because the National Party, as usual, was not ready, was not prepared, and was not forearmed to do the job. However, here is my point. What qualifies the National Party to make these nominations?

💬 Peter Brown: Nothing.

Nothing, at all. Precisely! National has said that it is bigger than New Zealand First. Do members reckon? Let me tell members what they will see, month after month, in 2005. They will see the rise of a third party again, and they will see another party that is above us, despairing and clawing around for having no other party even to connect with. Members know what that means. It means goodbye nurse for the National Party, and particularly when its members carry on in this way.

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: Oh, come on!

Let me ask Mr Ryall: when did John Isles ever consult us? When did he ever walk across and say to New Zealand First: “What do you want as a view of representation in this area?”. Do members think we will get a fair go in 2005? I do not think we will get a fair go, at all. We never got a fair go in 2002. We never got a fair go in 1999. We had all sorts of other considerations entering into it, all designed around protecting other people. But of course we in New Zealand First have learnt how to make $1 go where other parties make $10 go. It is the secret of our success, actually. We have been very frugal and very Scots about it, which is probably due to the background inheritance, legacy, and pedigree of the party itself.

But I want to make this point in closing. What is fair about the National Party getting an appointment, when its members do not comprise half of the Opposition? Can it be said by ACT that they can trust Mr Isles? We will find out shortly. Can it be said by any other party in Opposition that it can trust Mr Isles? He probably is a great man for the National Party. He has a long lineage in the National Party. He has had numerous appointments for the National Party. But that is not what this is about. In a democracy, the procedures should be open, accountable, and transparent. It is no use telling Iraq and Afghanistan to run an election properly, when we have such patent absurdities going on, back in one’s own country. That is a lesson the National Party should remember; so should its bedmates on this issue, the Government and the Labour Party.

I rise in support of my colleague the Rt Hon Winston Peters, and I say to the National Party and the Labour Party that it is now MMP. What we have here is a carry-over from and an artefact of a first-past-the-post stitch-up, whereby the two old parties would get together and decide what the rules of the election would be. Here they are deciding the funding that the parties will get for TV. The amount of money that will be allocated, as we see in the Dominion Post today, is to go up to $3 million. We heard from Mr Ryall that the advantage of Mr Isles—and I am not criticising Mr Isles personally—

💬 Rod Donald: Charging his purse strings!

—I am not going to say that—is that he is a guy with a great name and he is a great National Party guy. We heard from the Labour Party that David Caygill would represent its interests well. Not only is that the case, but Mr Isles is supposed to represent—let us wait for it—the Opposition parties. Mr Isles is representing the National Party, and Mr Caygill is representing the Labour Party. I turn to my colleagues from the United Future party and ask them this: when did David Caygill become a member of the United Future party?

💬 Rod Donald: He does not represent them; Mr Isles does.

Is United Future an Opposition party?

💬 Rod Donald: That is what the law states.

So Mr Isles is to represent the United Future party. Well, I am sure that Don Brash, Gerry Brownlee, and Mr Isles consulted with the United Future party, and that Mr Isles has been off to see the United Future party and has told its members that United Future is an Opposition party, so they have him as a representative. Did they do that? There is absolute silence from the United Future members.

Here we have an absurdity—and I am sure that Rod Donald from the Greens will stand up and agree with me on this. One could not get two parties that are more different in the political spectrum in New Zealand than the ACT party and the Green Party. But the ACT party and the Green Party can agree on a stitch-up, against the interests of the voters of New Zealand and against the interests of taxpayers. I see members of the Government hanging their heads in shame, and so they should, because they are only one party in this election. I look across at the National Party, and tell its members that it may suit their purposes from a National Party perspective to have “your man” in this position, but I ask whether that serves the interests of New Zealanders. Does it serve the interests of taxpayers and does it serve the interests of democracy, when two parties can decide on who will carve up $3 million? The United Future party does not get a say. The Progressive Party does not get a say.

💬 Simon Power: Some good has come out of that!

The New Zealand First Party does not get a say, nor do the Green Party, the ACT party, and the Māori Party. Mr Power may like to call out and say some good comes out of it, because some parties have been excluded. But I ask Mr Power how that serves democracy.

The idea is that the money that the poor taxpayer has been socked to pay for broadcasting will be spent without reference to parties that have been voted into this Parliament. How can that serve their interests? How can we seriously say that this is in the interests of democracy in New Zealand? It is not just a stitch-up against the parties in Parliament; it is a stitch-up against would-be parties in our democracy. What we have in New Zealand is a rule that states one cannot broadcast. That is an offence against freedom of speech. We passed a law that one cannot put an advertisement on TV. That is an offence against free speech. Why should we not advertise? Then we turn round, and the Labour Party and the National Party, having banned all would-be parties and all other parties the opportunity to advertise, then say they will allow the other parties to advertise if they comply with Labour and National’s rules. They say they will pay the money to TV3—to CanWest—and to the State-owned TVNZ, and they will give the other parties the money. But hang on; it is taxpayer money that is being given. Well, that is an offence against free speech. It is an offence against the democratic ideal of an open contest of ideas.

On top of that the National Party and the Labour Party, having denied the other parties and would-be parties the opportunity to talk through the most powerful medium that there is in politics, have then conspired to put on the Electoral Commission David Francis Caygill—he was a Labour Party candidate, a Labour MP, a Labour Minister, and a Labour Party appointee to various positions—to represent the Labour Party, and Mr John Isles, who I heard from Mr Winston Peters was a National Party candidate, to represent the National Party. I ask members who represents ACT. I know that Mr John Isles does not, and I know that Mr David Caygill does not. Who is here to represent the Greens? Who is here to represent New Zealand First? Who is here to represent the United Future party? No one. It may be all very well for the two old parties to club together again in their own seedy interests of winning the election and gaining power, but they are doing so in a cheap and tawdry way, and the ACT party opposes this motion for those reasons.

I look across to the Labour Party and to the National Party, and I say we have MMP—mixed-member proportional representation. That means that there will be multiple parties in our Parliament—multiple parties contesting an election—so I ask why those members are supporting this artefact of first past the post. Well, there is only one reason for that. It is that it serves National’s interests to cook up a deal with Labour against us—the other parties. The Labour and National members may think they are clever because they have the numbers to do that. But do they feel good about it?

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: The Tamaki by-election all over, isn’t it?

It is the Tamaki by-election all over—the Tamaki by-election when Labour and National conspired together to do over the Alliance. Labour went in with National, and Helen Clark was a negotiator for the Labour Party to give Gardiner across to the National Party so Clem Simich could win against the Alliance! The two parties had an interest in keeping out a third party, and we see that situation time and time again.

I have a message for Labour and National: the voters are going to know that it is MMP. The voters know that they will have a choice, and I have to say that they are very, very tired and sick of the old two-party club. That is why they voted for MMP, why they will continue to vote for MMP, and why they will continue to vote for other parties. Why? Because they want something better than National and Labour are offering.

Before the dinner break I would like to say something positive about what has happened with regard to the Electoral Commission, and I will save my other comments for after dinner. The positive aspect of today’s debate is that we are pleased that the Minister has announced a funding increase for the broadcasting allocation. It is a good move that the funding has been increased from its 1990 level, because the cost of running election broadcasting on television and radio has increased significantly since then. Advertising rates have gone up by something like 30 percent since the last election, but the funding would have been locked for five elections at $2 million. At least now there will be $3.2 million to share amongst the parties. So I agree with the Minister—

Debate interrupted.

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