6. CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) Link to this
to the Minister of Justice
What types of material does the Electoral Finance Bill exclude from the meaning of the term “election advertisement” in clause 5(2)(c)?
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) Link to this
The bill makes it clear that editorials, news and current affairs programmes, and news media publications on the Internet are exempt from the definition of “election advertisement”. I agree with the Justice and Electoral Committee that the news media play an important role in any democracy, and we consider that unnecessary restriction on news publications is undesirable.
Christopher Finlayson Link to this
Why is it that the exception for editorial material covers only material that is published solely for the purpose of informing, enlightening, or entertaining; and does that not mean that this Government’s Electoral Finance Bill has made editorials that take a political position on a party or policy, and thus do not solely inform, enlighten, or entertain, subject to regulation as election advertisements?
No, I do not believe that is the case. I think the law of common sense applies in this case, as it always has.
Christopher Finlayson Link to this
When the New Zealand Herald took a political stance on the Electoral Finance Bill last week and rightly said it was an attack on democracy, was it publishing material that was solely for the purpose of informing, enlightening, or entertaining readers; if so, why?
I believe that the New Zealand Herald thought that is exactly what it was doing. However, the public must be mystified that it chose to do what it did last week—just before the select committee reported back changes made at the committee—as if the bill had not been changed at all, and would not be changed. It went through scenarios on the bill as it was introduced and did not take account of the fact that the public had had a say on it—that 575 submissions had been received and that there were over 100 oral submissions—and that the select committee had gone about its work and had made changes. The chose to present it as if no changes would be made and that there had not been any changes at all.
Christopher Finlayson Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That was a very long and diffuse response, but I ask whether it addressed a very precise question. I was not talking about the process of the select committee leading up to its deliberation. I was asking a very precise question on the wording of the bill.
Madam SPEAKERChristopher Finlayson Link to this
If the New Zealand Herald decided to undertake more campaign journalism, in which it took a strong view on a policy associated with a type of political party, then would that be publishing material that was solely for the purpose of informing, enlightening, or entertaining readers; if so, why?
I think that any newspaper is there to enlighten, to entertain, and to inform the public in whatever way it wants. However, if the newspaper decided that it wanted to register as a third party and say “Vote National”, then it would be caught by the provisions of the bill.
Christopher Finlayson Link to this
When Brian Rudman wrote in the New Zealand Herald that Judith Tizard made a twit of herself, did the publish it solely—I ask the Minister to note the word “solely”—for the purpose of informing, enlightening, or entertaining readers, or was this a statement that encouraged or persuaded voters not to vote for a candidate by reference to one of her positions”?