4. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) Link to this
to the Minister of Justice
Does she stand by her statements last night, in relation to the interpretation of clause 80(d) of the Electoral Finance Bill, that “We are not going to put it in law; the commission has asked for an interpretation.” and “I am prepared to say that my interpretation could be wrong.”; if so, why?
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) Link to this
Yes; and I am prepared to listen to the debate on clause 80(d) so that Parliament’s interpretation on the clause will be made clear to the electoral agencies, and that is all they ask.
Can the Minister clarify that this is the situation: MPs need guidance on how they can comply with clause 80(d), the Electoral Commission asks for some clarity so it can give guidance to MPs, the Minister says “Well, I’m not going to change the law, but here is my interpretation on it.”, then, next time she comes to Parliament, says “Well, I might be the Minister of Justice, but my interpretation is now probably wrong.”, and then says “Well, Parliament can sit around and try to decide this for itself.”; and how does she think that helps the public or the MPs to have confidence in this law?
I refer the member to the commentary that came back from the select committee, which says that the committee considered recommending an amendment to clause 80(d) to provide guidance to the phrase “in his or her capacity as a member of Parliament” to clarify the kinds of activities intended. But as this phrase appears in a number of other statutes—it is widely used in a variety of contexts, including parliamentary procedures—the committee did not do that, but then went on to ask for the electoral agencies to provide that guidance. That guidance needs to be provided to the agencies from this House, and that is what this debate is about—and we are in the debate right now. The member does not wish to participate, but I did note that New Zealand First, when it had a contribution to make, decided it would participate. But then, National has not wanted to engage in this bill right from the beginning.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Can the Minister tell the House whether she has reports that suggest that the complaint about which Mr English is so voluble is in fact an environment that MPs have lived under for decades now in one form or another, and this is merely a 21st-century refinement?
Yes, that is correct. In fact, clarification around the role of an MP acting in that role is something that the Electoral Commission has sought. I believe that this House could provide further clarification, because we are the ones who actually go out to be members of Parliament day in, day out, 3 years around—we do not just do it for 2 years and sit at home in election year. I believe that this Parliament could provide that advice to the electoral agencies.
Can the Minister confirm that it was her policy that MPs would be exempt from the provisions of the Electoral Finance Bill, and if it has been her policy that MPs should not be covered by it when they have been covered by it for decades, then what kind of ridiculous situation is it when she cannot explain her own policy to the MPs of this House, who are directly affected by the law; and how did she manage to rip her own credibility to shreds so quickly?
I think what the public do appreciate is a Minister who is prepared to look at issues, who is prepared to consult, and who is not so arrogant as to stand up in Parliament and pretend to know everything. In the second reading debate I said it was my view. I never said it was the view of the Government. I said it was my view, and that view is open to interpretation. I have asked for members to give their views, and I would have thought that was what this Parliament was all about.
What credibility would the Minister’s final decision on the meaning of this law—which applies to MPs—have, when she has tried only once to give an interpretation of the many vague clauses in this bill; and the one time she has tried, she has turned out to make a stupid interpretation, which cannot work in practice, and she has had to admit she is wrong and is now effectively handing it to the Opposition to decide?
I certainly would not hand it to the Opposition to decide, because it made a decision not to engage on this bill. I would say I have a lot more credibility than a member who said that he would participate in talks with other MPs around election spending, and then, when he thought he would get some headlines out of it, he said he would not. The Electoral Commission chief executive, Helena Catt, has confirmed that National said that it would participate, and now it will not. National members will not participate, because they think the New Zealand Herald will give them another headline.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Has the Minister received reports that suggest that if Mr English had his way—treating candidates the same as sitting MPs—that would in effect paralyse the work of those MPs; yes or no?
I have received a very confused report on what Mr English thinks, and if one looked at his questions to my colleague yesterday in question time in Parliament, one would not know where he stood, because one moment he rails against what MPs do and the next minute he wants them to be able to do anything they like. I could not tell the member where Mr English stands on the issue. He has no idea.
Will the Government agree with National’s longstanding position that MPs should not be exempt from the coverage of the Electoral Finance Bill and that for the last 3 months before an election the law should apply to MPs in exactly the same way as it applies to citizens and other community organisations—that is, they cannot broadcast electoral advertisements?
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. With respect, the questioner has just outlined a position that has never ever been the National Party’s position. He is just articulating it now, making it up as he goes along. [ Interruption] Come on; give us the date that National announced that policy.
Madam SPEAKERI could certainly not confirm National’s latest position. It is not my job to do that, but what I do know is that National members will not engage on this bill as long as they think they might get a few votes. But what they are getting is the public saying: “What this is all about? Why shouldn’t they not want to disclose what money they have to spend. They must want to have money and spend it, and not tell the public about it.”
So can the Minister confirm the circumstances as I understand them? She came to the House as Minister of Justice to give an interpretation of the legislation, she then was forced to admit that that interpretation was wrong because it could not work in practice, and she then said to the House: “Well, I am here to listen to what the House thinks.” I have just told her what the House thinks, which is to apply the law that exists and not to change it, and she has just said that she will not take any notice of that.
I certainly did not say that. But I did notice last night that making up stories about what I have said was the agenda for the whole evening. Can I say to members opposite—
John KeyI have my own Hansard, I thank Mr Key, and he can have that one for nothing. I would suggest to Mr Key that he should look at Tony Ryall’s and see the sort of rubbish that was being said about what I had said in the debate. I would say that all we heard last night was a lot of political rhetoric and very little substance.
What chance does the New Zealand public have of complying with the law, when this House has seen such a chaotic shambles over how the Government believes just one provision that applies to MPs should actually work in practice?
There is no more confusion than when the last Electoral Reform Bill went through this House, in 1993, when over eight pages of amendments were tabled by the then National Government and over 46 pages of amendments from the Opposition were put forward to try to fix up the problems with that bill. So I say to that member that he is crying crocodile tears, because he certainly did not object to those amendments back then.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Could the Minister tell the House precisely when she or—[ Interruption] I beg your pardon?
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Well, the temporary member from Te Atatū has something to say, skulking as he does in the third row there, as some sort of token representative.
Would the member please be seated. Members who interject will obviously get responses, so I ask people to keep their interjections to a minimum and to keep them relevant.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Could I ask the Minister as to precisely when she or her predecessor in her position precisely was told of the National Party’s new position, as articulated by Mr English in this House today and as flaunted all over the media, unsuspecting as they are as to the truth of the matter?
I have to say to the member that I cannot give any date when that new policy was announced, but I do know that that member was a member of a National caucus and probably has more knowledge about what National’s policy is in this regard than most others would have.
Given that the Minister failed in her one attempt to provide interpretation for one provision of this bill and that she turned out to be wrong, that the chief executive of the Electoral Commission has said that she does not understand it, and that the one issue that the Minister tried to clarify has turned into a shambles, where do members of the public and members of Parliament go to find out the meaning of the vague clauses in this legislation, given that if they fail to comply, they can be liable for $40,000 fines and 2-year jail terms?
Well, the member raised it and I am answering this question. The Electoral Commission asked for clarification from this Parliament, and that is what it will get if people engage in this debate in a meaningful way. But I suspect that all we will have is what we have had so far from the National Party, which is hot air and a cover-up on what it wants to do at the next election.