Appointments — Electoral Commission

I move, That pursuant to section 4D of the Electoral Act 1993 and section 32 of the Crown Entities Act 2004, this House recommends His Excellency the Governor-General reappoint Hon Sir John Hugh Williams as Chairperson of the Electoral Commission for a term of three years. The Electoral Act 1993 established the Electoral Commission as an independent Crown entity. The commission is responsible for the administration of parliamentary elections and referenda; the allocation of time and money for the broadcast of election programmes; the conduct of the Māori electoral option; servicing the work of the Representation Commission; the provision of advice, reports, and public education on electoral matters; and electoral enrolment services for both parliamentary and local body elections.

The commission has a board of three members, comprising a part-time chairperson, a part-time deputy chairperson, and a full-time chief electoral officer, who is also the chief executive. Appointments to the commission are made by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the House of Representatives. Sir Hugh was appointed as a judge of the High Court in 1995, and retired from the bench in 2009. He previously served as a Master of the High Court for 6 years, and was for many years the chancellor of Massey University. He has a longstanding involvement in the administration of justice, and significant governance experience as a highly engaged university chancellor.

Sir Hugh was appointed as president of the former Electoral Commission in 2009 and then as chair of the present commission in 2011. He continues to provide the commission with strong legal leadership. I am proposing that Sir Hugh is reappointed for a term of 3 years. This will ensure that the chairperson position is reviewed within the 12-month lead-in time to the 2017 general election.

It is a pleasure to rise and to indicate Labour’s support for the appointment of Justice Williams to a further term of 3 years as chair of the Electoral Commission. Justice Williams has had an exemplary period on the bench and has fulfilled a number of other public roles as well. He was also chancellor of Massey University for a period, he was a Palmerston North city councillor for a period, and he has taken other public roles, including now chairing the Electoral Commission.

It is apposite, in view of the role of this House in endorsing Justice Williams’ continued appointment to the Electoral Commission, to reflect on that commission and its importance in our electoral system, and therefore to our system of democracy. There is no question that having a system that is trusted and relied upon and that has the confidence of the people is a sine qua non of our democratic system. There must be proper and full oversight of our electoral processes, and a commission that is truly independent of the Government and of all politicians whose election conduct comes within its purview and its oversight. So it is important that we have people of good standing and of high standing occupying these important roles. Justice Williams fulfils those criteria.

There is another aspect, though, and I wonder whether at this time, when we consider this appointment and when we reflect on it, we can think about the role of the Electoral Commission. We do so in light of recent events, not because I am particularly concerned with any particular individual, but I am concerned about a system where, when the commission was called upon to investigate and decide whether criminal sanctions were appropriate in an alleged breach of electoral law, it was a matter that was referred to the police, who exercised their prosecutorial discretion against prosecution. That was then picked up by a private citizen, which led to the successful establishment of a prima facie case. That has now led to a trial being set up and the Solicitor-General stepping in and taking over the case.

It raises, I think, the very important question, in relation to our electoral law and the boundaries within which we must operate, of whether it is appropriate to continue to rely upon the police to act as the prosecutorial agent in those sorts of cases. I think not just recent history but also more distant history tells us that the police resent it and find it very difficult when they are put in the position of having to prosecute in political matters. They often feel used and manipulated. I wonder whether now is a time for us to consider whether the Electoral Commission itself—given the seniority of the people whom we are now appointing to it, the standing they have, and the independence with which it conducts itself—is more appropriate to conduct investigations into alleged breaches and to exercise that prosecutorial discretion, because the police clearly do not find this a task that is very easy to do or one that they are comfortable acquitting themselves with.

On this occasion, I raise that issue because I think that as we head towards—if it is not already, then very soon—world’s best practice when it comes to oversight of our electoral system and the upholding of our democratic traditions and principles, we need to make sure that we have the apparatus for ensuring that there is full compliance with our electoral laws, but also that any alleged breaches are quickly brought to book through a competent agent, a Government State agency that knows what it is doing. The Electoral Commission is that agency, and it is the one that should be tasked with the full range of follow-up oversight investigation and, if necessary, prosecution of alleged breaches in a way that we do not have at the moment. But, on that note, we support the continued appointment of Justice Williams, and wish him and the commission all the best in their endeavours during the remaining term of his appointment.

I rise to speak to the motion to reappoint Sir John Hugh Williams as Chair of the Electoral Commission. As chair of the commission, Justice Sir John Hugh Williams will again offer the commission strong leadership. He has had longstanding involvement in the administration of justice and has significant governance experience as a highly engaged university chancellor.

Sir Hugh was appointed as a judge of the High Court in 1997. He retired from the bench in 2009 but still holds an acting warrant. He previously served as Master of the High Court for 6 years, and for many years, as I said earlier, he was the chancellor of Massey University. As the president of the existing Electoral Commission since 2009, Justice Williams is well informed on the issues and complexities associated with preparations for the next general election, and his appointment will provide valuable continuity. Justice Williams brings a depth of experience to the role.

I would like to acknowledge the MMP review also undertaken this term by the Electoral Commission. The Electoral Commission conducted a robust public consultation—the process that a clear set of recommendations emerged from. The review was carried out in a timely manner, with a robust public submission process, a high degree of engagement, and a clear steer from the public on what they would like to see changed. Unfortunately, the National Government undermined the process by ignoring the wishes of the New Zealand public, in particular to abolish the one electorate seat threshold.

Justice Williams does bring a depth of experience to the role. He has longstanding involvement in the administration of justice and significant governance experience as a highly engaged university chancellor. The Green Party will be supporting the motion to reappoint Sir John Hugh Williams as Chair of the Electoral Commission. Thank you.

New Zealand First recognises that the Electoral Commission plays a critical role in our democracy. The commission must, of course, be seen as totally impartial and objective in relation to its functions that support our democracy. We have no objection at all to the appointment of the Hon Sir John Hugh Williams as Chair of the Electoral Commission for a term of 3 years. We consider that he is a suited person to be nominated under this Government motion No. 1, and so New Zealand First will vote for the motion.

However, as we have said in the past, we do have concerns with the process by which the commission is selected. In our view, the process still does not fully take into account the nature of New Zealand’s MMP democracy. We are not fully satisfied that the current arrangements are valid as an expression of that democracy. This is no reflection on Sir Hugh, but the public must have confidence that the procedures by which the commission is put together are fully representative, and we do not believe they are. For that reason, we repeat our previous calls that there needs to be a thorough and critical review of the way the composition of the commission is determined.

We are also concerned about the way the commission currently makes some of its decisions. Our problem in this respect is with election funding for broadcasting, which is on a party-by-party basis, and appears to use as its factual basis opinion polls, rather than the past voting record of a party. As New Zealand First has proved many, many times, opinion polls are utterly worthless as an expression of genuine public opinion and should not be used in processes of this kind. In 2011, for example, two much more minor parties than New Zealand First were given considerably more funding than New Zealand First was. That was, as I have said, on the basis of the use of opinion polls to somehow gauge the public support for minor parties. That is an entirely unsatisfactory way of going about that sort of decision making. We think at least past voting records should be used in its place. All we are asking for, after all, is genuine fairness, if not equality, as far as these issues are concerned.

So we think the commission needs to have a good look at itself and the way it goes about making decisions. We think the process by which it is appointed needs to be reviewed. So all is not well with the Electoral Commission and change needs to happen. New Zealand First again calls for that change to happen. In the meantime, however, we will support and vote for the current appointment as proposed by this Government motion No. 1.

I hesitate to break the consensus but I do not support Government motion No. 1, and I want to just briefly set out the reasons why. A number of speakers have made reference to the fact that the Electoral Commission, which was established in 1993, is there to oversee fairly, impartially, and properly the administration of our electoral system. That is the point of my objection. It is based on United Future’s experiences with the commission earlier this year over the matter of party registration, and Sir Hugh, I am afraid, played a leading role in those discussions.

What, to my way of thinking, breached the whole issue of fairness was that first of all the commission told us that what we were seeking was not possible because it was contrary to the legislation. It was, in fact, a matter of the Electoral Commission’s own internal rules, not the legislation, and the Electoral Commission refused to alter its rules to allow for the electronic registration of party members. So we complied, eventually, through the old system, only to have the Electoral Commission, which had told us that it was not possible to have electronic registration, change its rules to allow electronic registration less than a month after our process had been completed. That action breaches fairness. That action breaches the swift and proper administration of the electoral system that we ought to expect.

I have to say, with some sadness and due respect, that Sir Hugh did not acquit himself well during that process. When I explained to him that the situation had arisen because parties supplying the statutory declaration needed to provide no other information and that had we signed a statutory declaration, the situation would not have arisen, he kept saying to me “But, Mr Dunne, that would have been wrong.”, and I kept saying to him “That is precisely the point. That is the absurdity of this exercise.” He said: “But, Mr Dunne, you could not have signed a false declaration.” Of course—and we did not. There was a complete incapacity, with due respect, on his part, to actually understand the problem.

I think that as we face electoral situations in the future, which will become complex because of the variety of parties that contest them, because of the new technologies that are available, and because of the pressures we have seen, even as recently as the local authority elections, in terms of what people expect by way of participation, it is important that the Electoral Commission be as nifty, smart, and up to date with reality as is possible. I have no confidence that the combination of the current president of the commission—sadly, because he has had a distinguished career—and a chief executive who seems to rely on the Nuremberg defence whenever challenged, saying “I am merely carrying out orders.”, does not give the public the confidence it deserves.

So, unfortunately, I cannot support the motion. I think it is important in general that appointments of this nature enjoy unanimous parliamentary support, and I am not going to be part of that today. I hope that the commission does reflect upon its responsibilities and does act in future in a way that is commensurate with the high obligation that Parliament has placed upon it to fairly, properly, and smartly administer our electoral law.

It gives me pleasure to rise to support the reappointment of Sir John Hugh Williams as president of the New Zealand Electoral Commission. We are very fortunate in that we are a very small democracy here in New Zealand, but we are able to draw on a range of people with extraordinary experience and ability, whose integrity in the carrying out of their duties is beyond reproach. I see Sir John Hugh Williams as one of those people. His past career has been traversed by the Minister who moved the Government motion. He has not only been appointed as a QC in 1988 and a High Court Justice in 1997, but he also engaged with communities in New Zealand through being a chancellor of Massey University and, even more significantly, I think, as a city councillor for Palmerston North between 1983 and 1989. That indicates that here is a person who has cared enough about his communities to put himself forward for elected office but also for appointment. It is critical that people who hold such positions as president of the New Zealand Electoral Commission have the confidence of this Parliament.

In respect of the speaker who has just resumed his seat and whose vote against this motion will break the unanimous support of this reappointment, I have only to say that it is important that every party be recorded for its view in this House and that the Hansard reflects the speeches around this reappointment for posterity, and that speech, the speech just given by the Hon Peter Dunne, will go down as the whining death throes of a minor party in its terminal state. It is not appropriate, I think, for a parliamentarian whose party has slipped below the threshold for registration to take the president of the Electoral Commission to task in such a way.

It was a unique experience in New Zealand history, and it represented a new challenge for the Electoral Commission. Perhaps, on reflecting on that experience, it may seek to do things differently in the future, but I am not persuaded that it did anything wrong in the way that it carried out its decision making around the deregistration and the reregistration of one of the smallest parties in this country.

But what will be important is that the other parties have registered their support. It is absolutely critical with this kind of appointment that it is a parliamentary appointment. It is a nomination by the Government for a reappointment in this case, and the Government would not have moved to reappoint Sir John Hugh Williams without good reason. Labour shares those reasons—the confidence in the man; the confidence in his ability and his reputation—and it is essential that these comments are recorded so that at a later date, when parties do perhaps disagree with judgments of the Electoral Commission, it is known that it was a parliamentary and a cross-party appointment. That is part of the protection of the apparatus of our democracy.

Although the Hon Peter Dunne may say what he likes in this House, and that is his right and privilege as a member of Parliament, it needs to be seen that the vast majority of parties in this House, with perhaps the United Future party being the sole exception, approve and support the reappointment of Sir John Hugh Williams. I am pleased to lend my support to my colleague Andrew Little’s comments in this respect. Labour will support this reappointment and will recognise that, as a parliamentary appointment, we have committed ourselves to that reappointment, and that will stand for the duration of his appointment period. Thank you.

Motion agreed to.