5. Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) Link to this
to the Minister of Justice
Did the Chief Electoral Officer write to New Zealand Labour Party General Secretary Mike Smith on 2 September 2005 warning him that in his view the costs of the Labour Party pledge card were election expenses under the Electoral Act 1993?
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) Link to this
As I said to the member’s colleague in response to question for oral answer No. 5 on Wednesday, 23 August, I am aware of the letter, but I was not a recipient of it and cannot comment on its contents.
Can the Minister confirm that having received that letter from the Chief Electoral Officer, with its warning about election expenses, the Labour Party then proceeded to spend over $500,000 on advertising in the last 2 weeks of the election campaign, despite the fact that the expenditure took it over the legal limit for election spending?
Perhaps I could clarify for the member. I am aware of the letter, but I was not a recipient of it and therefore cannot comment on its contents.
What confidence can the New Zealand public have in the laws the Minister is administering to regulate election spending, when the Government of the day ignores the advice of the statutory officer designated by Parliament to enforce the law, then after the election proposes to pass retrospective legislation to validate its illegal actions?
Considerable confidence—given that under the Electoral Act of 1993 the Chief Electoral Officer is responsible for the preparation and conduct of parliamentary elections, and the supervision of candidates’ election expenses and donations. It would be inappropriate for me, under that Act, to comment on what are legal interpretations by the said officer.
Has the Minister sought advice from the Ministry of Justice about who is right over the issue of the pledge card—advice as to whether it is Helen Clark and Dr Cullen, who believed that it was not an election expense; or advice on the views of the Chief Electoral Officer, the Auditor-General, and the Solicitor-General, that it was an election expense?
Given that I am not a recipient of the correspondence, nor of any correspondence that the Chief Electoral Officer may have had with other political parties such as the National Party about election expenditure, I would not expect to be copied into such correspondence. It is therefore not appropriate for me to comment on a legal interpretation given by the Chief Electoral Officer.
In the Minister’s capacity as Minister of Justice, can he tell the House what credibility there now is in our electoral law when the Government of the day was able to ignore the advice of the Chief Electoral Officer, was then able to slip that past a police investigation, and then come to this House promising to pass legislation to retrospectively validate its actions, and why should any political party now take any notice of the Chief Electoral Officer and the sections of the Act he administers?
Firstly, the member is incorrect to assert that I have ministerial responsibility for political party expenditure. I explicitly do not. As to the law, as I have informed the House on previous occasions, I am indeed undertaking a review of the electoral finance regime, focusing on electoral expenses, advertising, and broadcasting, which of course is within the purview of my ministerial responsibility, unlike the expenditure of political parties at the last election.
Can the Minister tell us whether he will be the Minister promoting retrospective legislation if it is brought to the House, given that he is the Minister who is responsible for the electoral law that governs election spending?
Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I seek leave to table the following documents, all of which were issued in June 2002, within 3 months of the 2002 election: a letter signed by Bill English, then leader of the National Party, outlining key National Party policies, which is on parliamentary letterhead paper; a pamphlet featuring Mr English, on parliamentary letterhead, on penal policy; a pamphlet from the Leader of the Opposition, on parliamentary letterhead, which deals with penal policy; a pamphlet from Mr English, on parliamentary letterhead, which deals with Treaty of Waitangi claims; a newspaper advertisement featuring Mr English, and with parliamentary letterhead, featuring Treaty of Waitangi claims; and a letter from Mr English—obviously a form letter—on superannuation and related matters, clearly calling for people to vote for the National Party in the 2002 election, also on parliamentary letterhead.