8. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) Link to this
to the Minister of Justice
Which parties did he consult with before introducing the Electoral Finance Bill?
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) Link to this
The Government consulted members of the Justice and Electoral Committee at the early stages of the forming of this bill. Represented on that committee were Labour, National, the Greens, the Māori Party, and ACT. Since then, consultations and briefings have been held with New Zealand First, the Greens, United Future, and the Māori Party. The bill is now, of course, available to all parties to consider, and for referral to the select committee in order to enable full public debate of the bill. I invite members opposite to facilitate that.
Can the Minister confirm that the bill was written by Labour for Labour, and that it hands a huge advantage to Labour in 2008 by restricting any advertising by Opposition parties or by interest groups and third parties throughout the entire year, which is a set of rules that is unprecedented in New Zealand?
—I can assure members that I am very familiar with the bill—that the bill extends precisely the same requirements and restrictions to the Labour Party as it does to every other party. It brings us more into line with best practice established in similar jurisdictions to ours, such as the United Kingdom, where a 12-month cap period applies.
Charles ChauvelWhat specific new measures does the bill contain to address the type of undermining of the electoral process by secretive, wealthy interest groups that was evident in the 2005 election?
Madam SPEAKERPlease be seated. When questions are asked, all members in the House are entitled to hear the answer.
One of the new measures is that third parties will have to notify the Chief Electoral Officer of their involvement in election activities if they intend to spend over $5,000 nationally or $500 in a constituency. There will be a $60,000 limit nationally and a $2,000 limit in any one constituency for third parties.
Gerry BrownleeNo, including the unions. Clearly defined rules on third-party election activities will mean that third parties can continue to have their say on issues of concern, but at a reasonable level. In 2005, New Zealanders—
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. In the interests of fairness, I think I should point out to you that there is a person asleep in the press gallery. You know what a sin that is for the rest of us here.
The member has been here long enough to know that that was not an appropriate intervention. We do not refer to members in the gallery.
That would, after all, be an unfair thing to do! I can say that in 2005 New Zealanders were shown that our electoral system was not as safe from abuse as most had believed it was. The public will be able to see who is behind third-party political campaigns, because this bill establishes fair and transparent rules around campaigns from third-party friends of the National Party.
Is the Minister aware that the limit of $60,000 that he is applying to all interest groups for the whole of an election year is not much more than the cost of a full-page ad in a handful of our newspapers, and can he confirm that the only possible reason for that in 2008 is to suppress criticism of the incumbent Government?
I most certainly cannot confirm that. What I can confirm is that the limit is to ensure that the sorts of groups that sought to rort the last election and buy a result will not be allowed to get away with that in future. Ordinary New Zealanders deserve a contest of ideas, not a contest of rich people’s bank accounts.
Dr Pita SharplesTēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā tatou katoa e huihui mai nei i te Whare i te rā nei. Kei te mārama te Minita i hui māua ko tā mātou Kaiārahi Tari me te Kaiārahi Tari o Te Rōpū Reipa i te hāpāhi o te 9 o te ata i te 5 o Paenga-whāwhā 2007 ki te kōrero i Te Pire Pūtea Pōti engari, kua pānui kē ki te niupepa Dominion Post i taua ata o te 5 o Paenga-whāwhā 2007, ā, ka taea e ia te kī i muri mai i ērā momo whāki kōrero, koi rā te āhua o te whakawhiti whakaaro?
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]
[Is the Minister aware that a meeting was held at 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 5 April 2007 between the chief of staff of the Labour Party, myself, and the Māori Party chief of staff, to discuss the Electoral Finance Bill, which had already been leaked to the press that morning in a Dominion Post]
I am not sure what ministerial responsibility I have for that particular meeting, but, yes, I am aware of it. Certainly, I would regard that as an engagement with the Māori Party of a type referred to in one of my answers.
Darren HughesCan the Minister tell the House which political parties in Parliament have asked him for a briefing on the Electoral Finance Bill?
I think a number of parties—I referred to them in the principal answer—have already received a briefing, either because they have asked for it or because they have been offered it. To the best of my knowledge, neither the National Party nor the ACT party has asked for a briefing, at all.
Can the Minister confirm that the effect of his legislation is that in an election year, from 1 January for up to 11 months of that year, anyone who wants to publish anything that is critical of the Government will be subject to tight rules and tight spending caps the likes of which we have never seen before, but that the Government will be free to run multimillion-dollar, large-scale, taxpayer-funded advertising campaigns on any or all of its policy, and that that is the intention of the legislation?
No; again, the member is clearly wrong. What I can confirm is that any third party that wishes to engage in the election campaign process will be constrained by spending limits. Given the spending rorts that we all saw in 2005 by those who sought to get around the law as it stood, that is desirable in order to ensure that the right of New Zealanders to have an open and a fair democratic process is preserved.
Mai i te 5 o ngā rā o Paenga-whāwhā 2007, he aha ake ngā hui kua whakatūngia i waenganui i te Minita me ngā rōpū MMP hei wānanga i Te Pire Pūtea Pōti, ā, he aha ai i makere mai te Pāti Māori i te rārangi tono?
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]
[What other meetings has the Minister had with MMP parties since 5 April 2007 to discuss the Electoral Finance Bill, and for what reason was the Māori Party dropped off the invitation list?]
I cannot give the member the dates of the meetings I have had, or that my officials have had, off the cuff. I can say to the member that it was not a matter of dropping anyone off or in; it was about putting together a bill for this House to consider. The question is whether members of the House will support the bill in order to give New Zealanders the opportunity to consider it, submit on it, and even—possibly—improve it.
Te Ururoa Flavell Link to this
Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Ko te mate kē kaore au i tino rongo i te whakautu o te Minita, e taea ana e koe te pātai ki a ia kia kōrero anō i tana whakautu?
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]
[I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The problem is that I did not hear the Minister’s response. With respect, would it be in order for you to ask him to repeat his answer?]
I think, in essence, I cannot give the member, off the cuff, the dates of the meetings I have had or others have had on my behalf. But I can say to the member that it was not about dropping people in or out of consultation. It was about bringing together a bill that would enjoy the support of sufficient numbers of members of the House to be referred to a select committee, where it can then have the full consideration of members of Parliament and the wider community. I invite members to give that opportunity to New Zealanders and to support its referral to a select committee, where I am sure the bill will be further improved.
Given that the Minister said I was wrong in my description of the effect of the bill, can he tell me which bit is wrong: that every interest group in New Zealand will be subject to a spending limit of $60,000, the cost of a full-page ad in a handful of our provincial newspapers; that that $60,000 limit will apply from 1 January in an election year until the election is held; and that the bill has no restrictions on the amount of money that the Government is able to spend on multimillion-dollar advertising campaigns on any or all of its policies; and, finally, was I wrong when I said that that is the intent of the bill—to allow Labour to spend taxpayers’ money as much as it likes and stop everyone else criticising it?
In reverse order, my answers are: firstly, no, the member is wrong, as I said he was. That is not the intent of the bill. Secondly, this bill does not deal with parliamentary expenditure either on the part of the Government or on the part of individual members of Parliament. That matter is certainly being dealt with elsewhere. I would say to the member that members of Parliament must be able to continue to go about their legitimate business. Thirdly, the spending cap limit of course applies to groups and individuals who seek to be third parties in the election campaign process—to no one else.
Now that Labour is having trouble raising money and will be more than ever dependent on taxpayer-funded advertising campaigns in election year, is it the case that the reason why Madeleine Setchell was sacked was that she could be too professional and competent to go along with Labour’s plan to use the bureaucracy to advertise its election campaign promises?