8. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) Link to this
to the Minister of Justice
What is the definition of “publication”, in relation to an advertisement, under clause 4 of the Electoral Finance Bill?
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) Link to this
If the member reads the Electoral Finance Bill, he will see that the definition is as provided for in clause 4(1) of the bill, in (a) to (h) under “publication”.
Why is the Minister reluctant to tell the House that that definition will mean that issuing a press release, sending an email, or posting a letter will constitute publishing an election advertisement, if those documents disagree or agree with anything any political party is associated with?
I am not reluctant to inform members about the contents of the bill, at all. I just assumed that other members, unlike that member, have read it.
Hon Brian Donnelly Link to this
Will the Electoral Finance Bill prevent criminal gangs such as the Mongrel Mob or Black Power from buying political influence through the funding of various political parties’ campaigns; if not, what justification can he give for allowing organisations that openly engage in crime to gain political patronage?
Such groups would be caught not only by this legislation but also by other legislation the Government has before the House at this very time.
Can the Minister confirm that, further to the material from the Littlies Lobby that was discussed yesterday, a press release issued yesterday asking people to take a stand against child abuse, and announcing that “New Zealand worriers” were going to do so, will constitute the publication of an election advertisement, and that anyone who forwards it to someone else will be regarded as publishing it?
No, I cannot confirm that that would be caught within the meaning of the definition in this legislation. But I can confirm for the member that the sort of publication referred to in this letter to Messrs Brash and Key, indicating an intention to run a million-dollar campaign to oppose a Government whilst trying to avoid the limitations of the law, will be caught and will be prevented.
Heather RoyIn relation to political publications and advertising, how does he square his answer yesterday on the importance of freedom of speech with the provisions of this bill, whereby New Zealanders cannot spend their own money to express their views but this Labour Government can take money from every Kiwi to promote its propaganda?
The premise of the member’s question is fundamentally incorrect. This legislation precisely protects the right of every New Zealander to participate fully in the electoral process. What it prevents is the sort of abuse of the electoral system perpetrated by the Brethren with the full knowledge of the National Party—and the full knowledge of Mr Key, who still has not owned up to it—which was seeking to enable others to get round New Zealand’s law in order to overcome the voices of ordinary New Zealanders when they want to participate in their electoral process.
Can the Minister confirm that this press release issued by the Council of Trade Unions criticising National’s policy of a 90-day trial period would constitute election advertising because it was issued, because it was disseminated by electronic means, and because it was stored electronically in a way that was accessible to the public, and that if someone printed it off and stuck it on the noticeboard in the smoko room, that would make that person a “promoter” under the bill, and guilty of publishing election advertising material; and is he aware that the Council of Trade Unions put out about 140 of these press releases in the last election campaign, and that in the next one they will all have to be costed and counted?
I can confirm that members of the public are fully entitled to continue to participate in normal communication among themselves. I can also confirm that it is the right of New Zealanders not to have their electoral process corrupted by the sort of behaviour we saw from the National Party and its mates, which Mr Key was fully aware of. An attempt at a million-dollar campaign to subvert the electoral process will not be permitted under this bill.
Can the Minister confirm that he has had about 6 months to think about what all these definitions might be, and that it is not good enough for him to come to the House and keep saying he does not know; and does he know that if someone runs an ad campaign saying “Eat More Vegetables”, that will count as political advertising in election year, because any number of parties are against obesity?
Firstly, the assertion at the front end of that question is clearly not the case, and, secondly, the member is clearly wrong. I suggest that before coming back to the House for a seminar he reads the bill.
Can the Minister confirm that even for those who have read the bill, and who want more information about the meaning of the bill, he cannot answer simple questions as to whether press releases, emails, letters, fliers, posters, or billboards are covered by his definition of election advertising; why cannot he answer those questions?
Because if the member had read the bill, he would know that it depends entirely on the context of any document and what it seeks to do. In other words, if a document seeks to support the election or to oppose the election of a given candidate or party, it is within the context of the bill; if it does not, it is not. The example the member most recently gave is a patent nonsense.