8. R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) Link to this
to the Minister of Justice
What aspects of the Electoral Finance Bill will enhance multiparty democracy in an MMP environment?
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) Link to this
The longer regulated period—which enjoyed some discussion earlier in the afternoon—during which third parties will have to declare their position, coupled with the cap on what third parties can spend in an election campaign, will mean that third-party participation in election campaigns is open and fair. It will also mean that the right of citizens to participate without having their voices overwhelmed by those who have substantial wealth to pour into the electoral process is well protected.
Would the Minister not agree that this bill provides an opportunity for all parties in Parliament, whatever their relative size, to work towards a fair and an equitable system, and that it provides the opportunity to shed some of the residual inherent bias in favour of larger parties that existed under first past the post?
I think that the member is essentially correct in that regard, and I have to say it is something of a mystery to me why one of the old parties, the National Party, has no confidence in its ability to fight an election on the quality and merit of its ideas.
Is it not a fact that at the 2005 election we saw billboards appearing as early as February and March, huge spending by third-party interests—not just by the Brethren—and massive expenditure by both Labour and National, and that none of that is in the interests of new parties that are trying to seek representation?
The essential point the member is making is fair—that is, during an election year the opportunity exists for all citizens, all groups, with a legitimate interest in our electoral system to have their say and to have their point of view reasonably expressed, but that none of them should be overwhelmed by the ability of a few to spend vast amounts of money.
Hon Bill EnglishCan the Minister confirm that during the 2005 election the Labour Party issued a pledge card on which it spent $800,000 of taxpayers’ money, and that that was found to break the rules, but that under his Electoral Finance Bill that will now be legal?
No, I cannot confirm that. But I can confirm that the Exclusive Brethren spent $350,000 on a pamphlet campaign, plus a further million dollars on another pamphlet campaign with the sole written intention of supporting the election of the National Party to Government and with the specific intention of getting around New Zealand’s electoral law. That I can confirm.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
Can the Minister confirm that during the 2002 election campaign the National Party ran paid advertisements in newspapers, which were pledge advertisements, and that those were paid for out of the parliamentary vote?
Madam SPEAKERIs it not a fact that having unregulated and unrestrained third parties spending huge amounts of money in support of particular political parties stifles free speech, because those who seek representation in Parliament are potentially drowned out by the avalanche of well-financed spin from outside interests?
Again, I think the member is correct. I refer members to the December 2006 report of the House of Commons Constitutional Affairs Committee. It concluded—and this is particularly relevant to the New Zealand situation—among other things: “It is essential that both in perception and in reality, money cannot buy undue influence or, indeed, buy an election result from within or outside the party.” I think members would do well to consider that advice.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Could I ask the Minister—and this is a matter of reasonableness—why Fay Richwhite, as a third party, should not be able to pay the National Party a million dollars, as it did in a prior campaign, and then get all of the other assets around this country that had not already been sold flogged off to the company on the way through, so that its pay-off was to a factor of about 300:1?
Gerry BrownleeI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This Minister has no responsibility for answering a question from Mr Peters that is entirely hypothetical, misleading, and names a political party quite untruthfully.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I have asked on a question of principle as to what is wrong with a third party doing such-and-such a thing. Then I have given that example, which has never ever been denied by Fay Richwhite. If that member knew anything about the National Party’s workings, which I am sure he does—
Hon Dr Nick SmithRt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Of course I will tell him about the scampi; that is why I am suing two of his colleagues. That is why I won on 12 October. That is why—
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Well, exactly, but the member wanted to know about the progress of the scampi case, and I have said that I just won on 12 October. That is why the case is going on.
That is not a point of order. As the member who raised the point of order knows, of course hypothetical questions are asked. The general question was within the Minister’s responsibility. In replying to it he cannot, of course, answer in a way that addresses matters that are in the purview of the National Party alone.
Ron MarkWell, that is my point of order. The interjection that came from Nick Smith was made during a point of order, which, as we know, is meant to be heard in silence. That created the disorder. You have just given me the call to make this point of order, which was immediately interjected on by Mr Gerry Brownlee. In the past, people have been thrown out of the House for doing that. I leave it to your decision.
That member may well be thrown out of the House for his implications, again. I have ruled; there were several interjections. The point of order was not a point of order, and it made points that did create disorder. I rule that if there are any further interjections, people will leave the House.
I say to the member that what is wrong with his proposition is that New Zealand enjoys an electoral system in which the voices of ordinary people can be heard, considered, and weighed up by electors. Our electoral system has never been for sale—until perhaps 2005, when it ran the risk of that—nor should it ever be allowed to be for sale.