As previous speakers on this side of the House have indicated, Labour will be supporting the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill. It is sensible legislation and, on balance, we think it will see more effective regulation of elections by the new Electoral Commission. It is appropriate to note that it has come about through a consultation process that has been thorough and fair.

The Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill will establish a new independent Crown entity called the Electoral Commission—which obviously is not to be confused with one of the bodies that it takes over from, the current Electoral Commission—to regulate elections. I suppose, in passing, it would be appropriate to record the House’s gratitude—and, hopefully, other members will agree with this sentiment—to the bodies that have supervised elections in the past, given that we are effectively bringing those bodies to an end and replacing them with a single entity. I do not think there can be any doubt, from any member, that the country has been extremely well served by the entities that regulate elections in New Zealand. I certainly think it is appropriate to put on record our gratitude to them for the work that they have done.

Under this bill—if the House passes it, which it gives every indication that it will—from 1 October the new entity will carry out the functions of the current Electoral Commission and the Chief Electoral Officer. This bill is the first part of a two-step reform of electoral administration. The second part—which, we are told, will be enacted by a second bill—will on 1 October 2012 transfer the responsibility for the electoral roll to the new Electoral Commission. It seems that this two-step approach is sensible, as it ensures that the general election next year will not be disrupted in any way by complications in the transfer of the roll.

Although Labour agrees that merging the institutions is the best way to streamline our election processes, as I said, I do not want anything in this speech to be taken as demeaning or discrediting the work that has been done to date by the current Electoral Commission or the Chief Electoral Officer in their administration of elections, which has always been done to a high standard. We should, as a House, celebrate their integrity. It is important that we never take for granted the free and fair elections that we have largely seen run in this country. It is a matter of celebration also that the new entity will adopt all of the functions of the predecessor entities: conducting elections; dealing with the donations to, and expenditure of, parties and candidates; informing the public about election matters; apportioning broadcasting time and funding; registering parties and logos; and maintaining the electoral roll. There can be every hope that the new body will do those tasks in a way that reflects the very high standard to which they have been performed to date.

I join with other speakers across the House in congratulating the Minister of Justice on the consultation process over the bill. It was introduced on 22 October last year, had its first reading a week later, and was reported back from the Justice and Electoral Committee on 26 April this year. My colleagues who sit on the committee tell me that the submissions heard were extensive, and that people had a fair chance to have their say, so it is appropriate at this juncture to also acknowledge the work of the chair of the select committee, who ensured that that process could be followed. It is a lesson, I think, that other select committee chairs and other Ministers could take some learning from.

Although Labour supports this bill and thinks it is a sensible one that has passed through this House so far with good process, we hold serious concerns about some of the other aspects of the Government’s electoral reform. I follow the example of our first speaker, Lianne Dalziel, in reminding the House what those concerns are. The first relates to the upcoming referendum on MMP. The rules surrounding parallel campaigning, as I have said in previous contributions, should be a cause for serious concern. If the Government were serious about fairness and transparency across the board, then there would not be just one decent process of consultation—such as I have acknowledged we have seen on the bill that we are discussing today—but instead that approach would be adopted wholesale in respect of electoral reform. We have not seen that approach around the parallel campaigning issues. It is not appropriate that there be no spending cap in respect of the upcoming referendum, which is to be held in conjunction with the next general election. That is inherently unfair and non-transparent, as it neither allows voters to see the real deal of what is going on nor allows everyone to have a fair and equal say. I repeat what I have said in respect of that matter in previous contributions: if we are to have a proper consensus about what is, going forward, fair and meaningful electoral reform, the issue of parallel campaigning must be dealt with.

Although this is a good bill, we need to look at the bigger picture. One successful piece of legislation—this is one, and I have paid tribute to the Minister and the select committee chair—does not justify the failure to consult widely in respect of many other issues. One good piece of legislation does not allow the Government to draw a line in the sand under the issues of fairness and transparency when other aspects of electoral reform, like the parallel campaigning issue undermine those values; and there is the issue of donations, as my colleagues remind me. I challenge the Minister to extend the good process that he has, undoubtedly, adopted on this issue to every piece of legislation that he introduces to the House, but I am not holding my breath.