3. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) Link to this
to the Minister of Justice
Does he still fundamentally disagree with the Human Rights Commission’s view that the Electoral Finance Bill “represents a dramatic assault on two fundamental human rights that New Zealanders cherish, freedom of expression and the right of informed citizens to participate in the election process.”; if so, why?
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) Link to this
Yes; for the same reasons given on Thursday, 18 October, when the author of this question, Mr Hide, first asked it. It is the opportunity to hear and weigh the merits of various points of view, without the views of those who would use wealth to drown out all the voices of others, that enables informed citizen participation in the electoral process.
What does he believe the public are to make of a situation whereby the Human Rights Commission, which has a statutory responsibility to advocate for human rights in New Zealand, has used the strongest possible words to describe the effects of the bill in calling it “a dramatic assault on two fundamental human rights that New Zealanders cherish,” and in calling for the bill to be withdrawn and completely rewritten, but the Labour Government just shrugs its shoulders and says it is happy with the bill and that is all that matters?
Although I have great respect for the Human Rights Commission—and that is a matter of longstanding record, which is somewhat different from the National Party, I have to say—the fact is that the principal purpose of this bill is to protect the rights of citizens to participate without having their voices overwhelmed by those who would use substantial wealth to drown them out.
Has he seen the comment made by the Human Rights Commission: “It is difficult to conceive of a greater limitation on freedom of speech”—a comment the Government is paying no attention to—so why bother having a Human Rights Commission if the Government will ignore it just because the Human Rights Commission thinks something different from the Labour Party, which is unusual in itself?
I think the last quip is more in keeping with the usual tone of disdain that the National Party usually shows for the Human Rights Commission. But I have to say—
Or for human rights, for that matter. As I indicated, the Human Rights Commission was a submitter to the parliamentary select committee process—a process for which I have the greatest regard. Out of that process I anticipate a refined bill that I am sure will add value to the process, and many views have been expressed. I am sure that at the end of that process we will see a bill that we can progress through the House.
Can the Minister see that it strengthens the Human Rights Commission‘s criticism of the bill when his own defence of it consists mainly of accusing the National Party and other people of trying to rort the electoral system; and why does he not take their comments seriously, precisely because people from right across the political spectrum have the same views as the Human Rights Commission—in fact, everyone except Labour?
As usual, the member concludes his question with a completely erroneous statement. The fact is that it is appropriate that we can have disagreement with any submitter, including, on this occasion, the Human Rights Commission in respect of some of its conclusions. That the National Party sought to rort the electoral system—and that the voters and the electors of New Zealand require protection from that behaviour—is beyond question. That is the purpose of this legislation.
Rodney HideDoes he think it appropriate that this Parliament pass electoral law that the Human Rights Commission is implacably opposed to; and would the Government consider the suggestions made by the Human Rights Commission for the amendment of the Electoral Finance Bill?
The Human Rights Commission, as I recall its submission, made a number of suggestions for change, which included some comment around the definition of advertising, around spending limits, and so on, and which, in fact, were made by a number of submitters. I have indicated from day one that the Government is open to considering the recommendations made to the select committee, and I await with interest the deliberation of the committee on the bill.
Tariana TuriaDoes he agree that the electoral finance laws must not be designed and determined by politicians and parties in isolation of the people; and what process will the House initiate to ensure New Zealanders have an opportunity to decide on any changes, rather than just politicians?
With respect to the member, I think that process is in progress as we speak. It is called the parliamentary select committee process. Its entire purpose is to enable any and all with an interest in a matter being considered by Parliament, on its referral to a select committee, to have their say—and on this matter many hundreds of people have.
Is he aware that one of the reasons the Human Rights Commission has described the bill as “a dramatic assault on … fundamental human rights” is the regulated period starting on 1 January in an election year; and can he confirm that the Electoral Commission in the United Kingdom studied its country’s 12-month election period—the longest in the world—and recommended that the regulated period for candidate election expenses and national spending by parties should be fixed at 4 months, because it found that the 12-month period was far too long?
I think the first of the several questions the member asked is correct—that was one of a number of issues raised in this particular submission, as with a number of others. As to the latter, my recollection is that the case the member refers to was for the first time that that legislation applied in the UK jurisdiction.
Just how strong would the language of the Human Rights Commission need to be for the Government to take any notice of what it says, given that it has already described the bill as a “dramatic assault on two fundamental human rights that New Zealanders cherish,” and given that it has already said “It is difficult to conceive of a greater limitation on freedom of speech”—what else would the Human Rights Commission have to say before the Government took any notice?
As I have already indicated to the member, I have considerable respect for the Human Rights Commission but on this matter we are at odds. However, a number of the specific recommendations the commission makes, like a number of other submitters, have some merit. I await the decision and consideration of the select committee—a select committee that has representation from every party in this House—in order to see what changes, if any, the committee is recommending.