10. Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) Link to this
to the Minister of Justice
Does he agree with the statements of the Chief Electoral Officer that the Labour pledge card, and the A2-size pamphlet headed “Working together”, “clearly encourages … voters to vote for the Labour Party” and that “the expenses of these publications should be included in your [Labour’s] return of election expenses”; if not, why not?
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) Link to this
The member’s question appears to paraphrase a statement setting out a legal interpretation of the Chief Electoral Officer—a statement that I have not received. As I have previously advised the House on a number of occasions, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on what are legal interpretations of the Chief Electoral Officer, made in the course of his duties under the Electoral Act 1993. Furthermore, I would not expect to receive copies of statements from the Chief Electoral Officer to any political party, including the Labour Party, because I do not have ministerial responsibility for political party expenditure.
In his capacity as the Minister overseeing the Electoral Act, is he aware that, following that opinion from the Chief Electoral Officer, the general secretary of the Labour Party wrote back to him agreeing, on 13 September 2005, to include the pledge card as an electoral expense that would be counted for the campaign spending limit, but after the election, on 3 October, wrote again to the Chief Electoral Officer saying that he had changed his mind and would not include the pledge card as an election expense?
As I have pointed out to the member, it would be absolutely inappropriate for me to receive those communications between that statutory officer and political parties. Otherwise, I might equally have received copies of correspondence between the Chief Electoral Officer and the Exclusive Brethren on how it sought to avoid $1.2 million of an election advertising smear campaign on behalf of the National Party being counted in the National Party’s election campaign expenditure. I did not receive that, either.
Is the Minister aware that the Auditor-General’s finding today—that the Labour Party pledge card and brochure were electioneering—confirms the opinion of the Chief Electoral Officer, the Solicitor-General, and Pete Hodgson, Labour’s strategist, that Labour therefore breached the campaign spending limit, which is set down under section 214B of the Electoral Act, and that that is an act of corrupt practice?
Of course, I have not read the reports tabled in this House today. Opportunity has not yet presented itself. If I had chosen to comment, having not read them, I might make the sort of silly mistake the member’s colleague Mr Brownlee made, attacking a very senior legal practitioner who was part of one of those reports. The member, who is so busily commenting on them, clearly had not read them. I have not read them, so, of course, I will not comment on them.
Is the member aware that the test of whether Labour’s publications amount to electioneering, and therefore count for the campaign spending limit, is not reliant on the Auditor-General’s report, but on well-known legal cases, such as the case against Reg Boorman in the Wairarapa in 1988, and Peters v Clarkson in Tauranga in 2005; and that that is how we know Labour breached the spending limit, because its publications breached the guidelines laid down by the court of New Zealand?
The member does not seem to be able to grasp that I, as Minister of Justice, do not have responsibility for individual party expenditure. Otherwise, I might equally be called on to explain, and account for, the National Party’s overspend on its broadcasting activity.
Is the Minister aware that in respect of breaching section 214B of the Electoral Act, publications were authorised by Heather Simpson, and that she told the police she did not regard the pledge card as electioneering, because it was part of the 3-year publication plan, and does he believe that “planning” to break the law, means that one did not do it?
What is the Minister’s view of an Electoral Act, which sets a limit on campaign spending, under section 214B—[ Interruption] I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think there were six interjections in the first sentence of my question. I am prepared to accept a reasonable level of interjection, but I think Parliament has a right to hear the question.
Madam SPEAKERI would agree, but the same rule is also to apply to those who give the answer. All members in this Chamber are entitled to be heard.
Does the Minister believe that the Electoral Act, for which he is responsible, is effective when the Labour Party was able to break the campaign spending limit by over half a million dollars and get away with it, when Bob Clarkson went to court in 2005, and if he had gone over the limit, he would have been chucked out of Parliament?
As I previously said, I do not have, and it is inappropriate for me to comment on, the legal interpretations of statutory officers, in my capacity. But I have informed the House previously, as I have informed select committees, that I do believe there is cause to have a good look at electoral law around the whole area of electoral expenses, donations, advertising, and broadcasting. And that work is well advanced.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
As Mr English has brought the question of Bob Clarkson to issue here, is the Minister aware that at the court Mr Clarkson denied knowledge of working with the Exclusive Brethren, yet just 3 weeks ago admitted he did?
I think that question is asking an opinion of the Minister on a matter that was raised, but I do not think the Minister has ministerial responsibility for that.
Hon Chris CarterI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I heard a very unparliamentary comment from the member for Hamilton East, which I think he should withdraw and apologise for.
David BennettI am sorry but that is unparliamentary. [ Interruption] It was Mr Clarkson who said “liar”, was it? Members, please, whoever made that unparliamentary comment, which was obviously heard by members, would he or she please withdraw and apologise.
Bob ClarksonI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I stand by my statement that the member for Hamilton East also called out “liar”.
The member did say it. Would he then please withdraw and apologise. Before, the member said he did not say it.
But you know that “liar” is an unparliamentary word. [ Interruption] Please be seated. I understand that the member is a new member. Would he please now withdraw and apologise for using an unparliamentary term.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would like to remind you of your earlier warning to that member, that he was on his last warning.
That member is a repeat offender, but he has withdrawn and apologised so perhaps for the benefit of the rest of the Chamber he could just hold his counsel.
Is the Minister surprised that Winston Peters thought that if Bob Clarkson breached the electoral spending cap under section 214B, it was so serious that he had to take him to the High Court, but now he is busy—
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That is a ridiculous prefix to a question, about which the member knows nothing. Surely it is not within the purview of the Minister, anyway.
Speaking to the point of order, I point out that the Minister is responsible for section 214B. There are, in fact, only three or four court cases regarding section 214B, and it is quite legitimate to ask him about the effectiveness of that section, given the behaviour of Mr Peters.
Does the Minister believe that the Electoral Act is effective, when Mr Peters took Bob Clarkson to court over the issue of whether Mr Clarkson had breached section 214B, but right now is supporting a Government that certainly did breach the section?
I think the matters surrounding the case of Mr Clarkson are among many of the reasons why the review of electoral law, particularly as it relates to electoral expenses, donations, advertising, and broadcasting, is required—similarly as it applies to GST problems suffered by the National Party, and in particular the $1.2 million smear campaign funded in aid of the National Party during the last election campaign.