4. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) Link to this
to the Minister of Justice
Does he stand by his statement with regard to the Electoral Finance Bill, “Some members have already suggested that the third-party reforms unjustifiably restrict freedom of expression. They do not”; if so, why?
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) Link to this
Yes; because the third-party provisions in the bill do not unjustifiably restrict freedom of expression—a point clearly made in the remainder of the sentence. The member selectively quotes from my first reading speech, in which I went on to refer to the Crown Law advice confirming that very point.
Does the Minister believe that for groups like Grey Power, the Post Primary Teachers Association, and Forest and Bird—who could advertise their political views freely in every election up until now—the fact that they will be restricted to a couple of full-page ads for the whole of the 2008 election year might look to them like a restriction on their freedom of expression?
Ann HartleyYes, indeed. In this letter—and it very helpfully relates to Mr English’s last question, too—apparently sent to hundreds of organisations such as the one he referred to, Mr English seeks to mislead and cause concern by implying that clause 47 of the bill requires disclosure of all donations to third parties, whereas clause 22 makes it clear that it applies only to donations contributing towards the funding of their election expenses, not their normal community activities. Mr English is making it up again.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
How do the provisions of this bill line up with legislation passed through this House in 1993 by the National Party and designed to stop another political party from using its own money to advertise on radio or TV, at a fine of $100,000 on each and every occasion that that party attempted that, which was the legislation Bill English supported in 1993 to stop New Zealand First getting any public promotion whatsoever—how does Mr English line that one up?
I think it would be fair to say that this legislation has a broader base, but I think it is an altogether fairer and more balanced piece of legislation.
Was the Prime Minister present at the Cabinet discussion of the Electoral Finance Bill, and did she, along with the rest of Cabinet, agree to the current contents of the bill as introduced to the House?
The Prime Minister chairs Cabinet—obviously the Prime Minister is present at Cabinet meetings. But, equally, I absolutely agree with the comments the Prime Minister made in response to an earlier question. It has always been the case that this bill was intended to go to a select committee where other parties and the wider community could have their say, and where I have always indicated it will go. We expect the bill to be refined and, in some cases, improved.
Rodney HideDoes the Minister agree with the Prime Minister’s statement that in attempting to stop third-party advertising, Labour “may have cast the net too wide”, catching legitimate lobby groups; if so, does he consider Church groups in general and the Exclusive Brethren in particular to be legitimate lobby groups, and if they are not, why are they not?
I think it is fair to say that in casting a net that sits somewhere between the provisions in jurisdictions such as Canada and the United Kingdom, the Government felt that this was a good starting point for select committee consideration. Clearly, the intent of this legislation—whether a group is a Church group, so called, such as the Open Brethren, or any other group—is to prevent the sort of National Party - supported rort of a $1 million - plus attempt to buy an election in 2005. Certainly, that goes well beyond any provision this Government can tolerate.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Has he received any reports that go to the issue of integrity and credibility where a party is raising in this House concerns of fairness and freedom of information, and freedom itself, yet its track record is to seek to ban another party from advertising itself in a campaign completely, as recently as 10 years ago, supported by Bill English?
Yes, I have. I also can say that that same party is the party whose leader—then leader and present leader—received this correspondence telling them about the intent to spend over $1 million. [ Interruption] I say to Mr Key that I am sorry but it is just not credible that he does not read his own mail. It is a $1 million - plus campaign in support of the National Party to get around New Zealand’s electoral law. That is what this bill is about, I say to Mr Key—to protect New Zealanders from that sort of National Party - supported rort.
Did the Minister or any other Ministers discuss in detail the definitions of political advertisement and third-party registration requirements with the Green Party, and had the Green Party indicated to him whether it continued to support the bill as introduced?
A wide range of matters have been discussed with many individuals and groups, including some with the Green Party. The issue is that the introduction of the bill was secured in order that wide-ranging discussion and consideration of its contents can be made. It has always been clear that this bill, like every electoral bill before it, will be subject to scrutiny and, no doubt, improvement and refinement. That is a good thing, I say to Mr English.
Has he heard comments by the Prime Minister that the bill “casts the net too wide”, and does he believe that has happened because Cabinet looked at the provisions and did not understand them, and therefore signed off a drift-net to catch all criticism of Labour, or does he believe that Cabinet knew it was casting a drift-net to catch all criticism and hoped to get away with it? Which is correct?
As is so often the case with the member asking the question, neither proposition is remotely correct. Do I agree that, in the context of the select committee, the consideration of whether the precise levels that have been set within the bill, somewhere between the Canadian and the United Kingdom provisions, may be subject to some change? Of course I do.
Can the Minister tell the House just what he and the Prime Minister mean when they say that this legislation levels the playing field, and can he confirm that what that actually means to him is to level the playing field between the incumbent Labour Government with the vast resources of the State, on the one hand, and anyone who might dare to criticise them, on the other hand?
I think I can perhaps suggest to the member that the Prime Minister and I would, perhaps, agree more with the Supreme Court of Canada’s recent ruling when it said that, clearly, limits on third parties allow all citizens to have meaningful participation in the electoral process and are therefore beneficial. This legislation is about ensuring that the huge amounts of money that were attempted to be used to buy an election in 2005 cannot again be used for such a rort on the electoral system of the people of New Zealand.
Madam SPEAKERRt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Can I ask the Minister whether this case would be caught: a business called Fay Richwhite paid a million dollars to the National Party to get itself an exemption from the BNZ inquiry, promised then by the National Party. Would such a donation be caught in 2008?
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is out of order to allege that any member of Parliament is influenced in that way from outside the House.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
That is not what is being alleged here. What is being alleged here is that an outside party paid a political party $1 million—[ Interruption]— which is the fact.
I grasp what the issue is. There is another issue here besides that, and that is I do not detect there is any ministerial responsibility for that particular matter.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am asking whether the Minister can tell the House whether the provisions of this bill would catch such a case, and I have laid that case out. He does have ministerial responsibility for that.
If the member is asking a question of a hypothetical situation that is within the ministerial responsibility, that is correct.
It is clearly the case that if an external or third-party organisation sought to influence the outcome of an election by the use of $1 million, indeed, it would be caught.
Gerry BrownleeI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have noticed, over a number days now, that when Government members ask questions of themselves, they ask Ministers whether they have seen reports, received reports, or could comment on reports. This appears to us, if one reads Hansard, to be a sort of a subterfuge to allow the Ministers to stray into all sorts of areas that are quite extraneous to the nature of the question asked in the first place. This afternoon we have seen two or three of those examples in the case of the Government asking itself questions through Winston Peters. In the case of Mark Burton, he twice answered: “Yes, I have.” If he has those reports perhaps he should be invited to table them.
On the latter point, it is only if the Minister is quoting from official documents that he is required, of course, to table them. But on the more general point, as the member is aware, there have been rulings that as long as reports are within the ministerial responsibility, then they are perfectly permitted. However, it is when comments stray to other parties and their policies that they are out of order. I would repeat, however, that it would assist no end if the Standing Orders Committee would clarify this, because also, as members know, hypothetical questions can be asked and hypothetical answers can be given.
Can he confirm that in the jurisdictions he cited—Britain and Canada—the Government does not limit spending on the basis of whether a lobby group is considered by the Government to be legitimate or illegitimate, and does he not think it is dangerous to have a Government determining what people can do with their own money in expressing their political views on the basis of whether the Government decides whether they are legitimate; and just who does he think is an illegitimate lobby group to be spending its own money putting across its own political views?
In a sense the member asks a hypothetical question, because the bill does not do what he represents the bill to do.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Prime Minister is stated in today’s paper as saying that the net is cast too far.
Would the member who called for a point of order please make a point of order and not a debating point. If the point was that the Minister did not address the question, I say that he did. It may not have been to the satisfaction of the member. If the member has a point of order would he please make a point of order in the context of the Standing Orders.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister did not address the question. All that he did was declare that it was hypothetical, and there is nothing hypothetical about it.
I know. I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it possible for a Minister, in answer to any question whatsoever and no matter the content of the question, simply to say: “That is a hypothetical question.”, and sit down?
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
Is the Minister aware that the last time the Post Primary Teachers Association, Grey Power, and the Royal Forest and Bird Protecton Society in any way supported the National Party was in 1990—and Grey Power was rewarded with a broken promise and, effectively, three cuts to New Zealand superannuation—if so, can he confirm that the Government has no concerns about any activity those organisations might engage in?
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. If my question clearly was not in order, how could that question possibly be in order?
I certainly can confirm that. Of course the Government has no such concern. To be particularly helpful to Mr Hide, I say that the bill sets up a system where third parties that want to engage in election campaigning will have to register with the Chief Electoral Officer, not with the Government—and it will not be a matter of someone determining whether they are fit or proper. They will simply have to go through a proper registration process and declare their intent to participate in New Zealand’s electoral process.