5. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) Link to this
to the Minister of Justice
What is the definition of an election advertisement under clause 5 of the Electoral Finance Bill?
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) Link to this
An election advertisement under clause 5 means “words or graphics, or both, that can reasonably be regarded as … (i) encouraging or persuading voters to vote, or not to vote, for 1 or more … parties or for 1 or more candidates or for any combination of such parties and candidates: (ii) encouraging or persuading voters to vote, or not to vote, for a type of party or for a type of candidate that … [holds] views, positions, or policies that are or are not held, taken, or pursued …” by a party or candidate, or “(iii) taking a position on a proposition with which 1 or more parties or 1 or more candidates is associated;”. The definition covers candidate and party advertisement, and it includes exceptions. It is available to the member in the bill if he would prefer to read it.
Can the Minister confirm that this definition means that almost anything that anyone says about any topic of public interest in an election year—almost anything that anyone could turn into words or graphics—will be an election advertisement, because, across the range of the political spectrum, parties hold positions on just about everything that can be publicly discussed?
No, I cannot confirm that, and I give the member one example—[ Interruption] I tell Dr Nick Smith to listen, just for once. For instance, I could suggest to the member that a club, an organisation, or a church could produce for distribution widely among its members words and graphics that would not be caught at all by this provision; they would come within the many exceptions. Again, this information is available to the member if he reads the rest of this part of the bill. This provision is based on two similar international precedents: the definition of “electoral advertising” in the Canada Elections Act and the election material in the UK Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act.
Can the Minister tell us whether the six key messages of the Littlies Lobby, including “children must come first”, “children must have the right start”, “children must be nurtured to thrive”, and three others, would count as election advertising if that document were published by anyone in an election year, because the security and welfare of children is an issue on which parties and candidates take positions, or, to use the term in the legislation, do not take positions?
As the member well knows, any specific document produced by any specific group would need to be submitted for appropriate consideration. It would be quite inappropriate for me—without even seeing the document, probably—to offer a view of that in the House.
Does that mean that the Minister, after 6 months of preparing this legislation, cannot tell the House whether a publication that includes the messages: “children must have quality care” and “children must be secure at home” would qualify as an election advertisement; and does he not think that that matters, when so many groups around New Zealand will want to campaign, next year, on the care of children?
As the member well understands, I think, the circulation of general information and views is not the same as overt campaigning. Of course, for the member to ask me to give him an opinion on a particular document that he waves about in the House, would be foolhardy in the extreme.
Can the Minister confirm that section 5(1)(iii): “taking a position on a proposition with which 1 or more parties or 1 or more candidates is associated;” counts as an election advertisement, meaning that anything said by any party or any candidate, becomes an election advertisement if anyone else says anything about it—and that will almost certainly include the welfare of children, because many candidates and many parties will be making statements about the welfare of children?
Can the Minister now advise the House in what respect the six key messages of the Littlies Lobby are not statements about something that a party or a candidate might have mentioned?
As I have indicated to the member—and perhaps most important—I have not seen the document and, therefore, to offer an opinion on it would be foolhardy.
How can the House trust a Minister who, in response to my previous question, said I was talking nonsense and then, when I asked him for an explanation, said he could not offer an opinion; and does not that mean that he and the Labour Party are embarrassed about the breadth of the definition of what is covered as an election advertisement, because it covers anything anyone says about any public issue, and that this definition is designed to shut down the critics of, for instance, the Government’s failure to deal with child abuse?
The answer to the first of those many, many questions is that the response I gave to the previous question related to the wild and woolly statement made by the member rather than to the particular document that my latter answer related to.
Rodney HideDoes the Minister believe that every New Zealander enjoys the right to freedom of speech; if so, how does he square that freedom with the Electoral Finance Bill; and, if he does not believe they enjoy that freedom, what are the principles that determine the limits that should be placed on New Zealand’s freedom of speech and freedom of political expression?
In answer to the first question, yes I do; and I square it with the fact that the bill sets out, consistent with the provisions Parliament has upheld in legislative force since 1895, the notion that unlimited expenditure should not be allowed to overcome the voice of ordinary New Zealanders in determining the outcome of their political franchise.