5. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) Link to this
to the Minister of Justice
What reasons, if any, does he have for proposing a regulated period of up to 11 months in the Electoral Finance Bill, apart from his statement in reply to my question last week that this period “is longer than the Canadian but briefer than the United Kingdom’s”?
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) Link to this
As I have already explained to the member, this strikes a balance between the shorter Canadian regulated period but lower relative-spending limit, and the United Kingdom’s longer period and higher relative-spending limit. This would position New Zealand’s electoral system credibly between the two comparable jurisdictions. Commencing the regulated period on 1 January when an election takes place in the third year of the parliamentary cycle will provide clarity and certainty, for all those intending to participate in the electoral process, about when the qualifying period for election expenditure begins.
Does the Minister realise that the 3-month period, which New Zealand currently has, is longer than almost all other developed countries—for instance, Ireland has a 2-month period; Canada has a 6-week regulated period; and Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and Australia have no regulated election period at all—so in that context, why did he pick the UK, which has by far the longest regulated election period in the world, except for Zimbabwe?
As always, the member chooses to look at one aspect of a framework. As I indicated in my primary answer, by way of example, another factor to take into account—as we did in concluding that this was an appropriate regulated period—is the limitations on expenditure combined with the regulated period. Taking those matters into account, I say that this is a fair, reasonable, and realistic period.
R Doug WoolertonCan the Minister envisage a way that a party could circumvent the proposed legislation and succeed in spending a $4 million budget in spite of having a $2.5 million cap for the 11-month regulatory period?
I am sure that, even as we discuss this matter in the House today, there are members opposite busily, with their calculators, attempting to think of such loopholes. But I have to say to members that the experience of the 2005 general election is that it is simply not tolerable to leave the loopholes as big as they are, through which the National Party and its financial backers sought to rort the system.
Is the Minister aware that the incidents he refers to in the 2005 election, such as that of the pledge card, occurred within the 3-month election period, as did the Exclusive Brethren campaign; and, given that information, what evidence does he have of any activity outside of the 3-month period that he believes warrants New Zealand picking an 11-month regulated period—the longest in the developed world apart from that of the United Kingdom?
The period from 1 January—which, of course, in the experience of New Zealand has not been an 11-month period; since the advent of MMP, it has varied, obviously, from close to 11 months to as little as 6 months, so the member again misleads Parliament in that regard—is part of a total package. On balance, the purpose of the package before the House is quite clearly and openly intended to ensure that New Zealand’s electoral system is based on a contest of ideas, not of bank balances.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister is trying to use up supplementary questions by simply not answering the direct question. My direct question asked what evidence of activity that had occurred outside the 3-month period warrants New Zealand having a regulated period of 11 months. I asked the Minister a direct question, which began “what evidence …”. It has nothing to do with the Government’s intention or the Minister’s own meanderings around the UK. The Minister, by not addressing the question at all, is forcing us to use up supplementary questions in order to get the answer to the question of what evidence there is.
Madam SPEAKERAs the member knows, one cannot require a specific or particular answer to a question. The Minister is just required to address the question.
What evidence is there to demonstrate that New Zealand needs a regulated election period of up to 11 months?
I have sought leave previously to table one really good example, and that is a letter of 24 May 2005 that quite openly sets out an intention for a very extensive election campaign costing $1 million, with the sole goal of getting a particular party elected, and with the stated intention of getting around New Zealand’s electoral law. That example certainly took place before a 3-month regulated period, but, more important, there are other examples. I have to say to the member that this same process could run over a longer period of time. The intent of this legislation is to provide certainty and protection to the integrity of the New Zealand electoral system—
Hon Dr Nick Smith—which is clearly needed after the rort, I say to Dr Smith, that was perpetrated by the National Party and its supporters in 2005.
Can I take it from the Minister’s answer that a letter or a document setting out an intention to campaign by any group of New Zealanders or individuals will now be caught by the legislation that he has proposed and will be counted as a political advertisement, and will therefore require the person writing the letter to meet all the statutory restrictions that he is imposing; and does he realise that it would be new policy if such a document were to constitute an election advertisement—and what other documents does the Government intend to catch if it catches that one?
Of course not, and that is not what I said. The member asked for evidence of intent, and I gave him that. This letter is not a theoretical document; it is a letter that outlined an intent that was followed through with $1 million worth of material that had the sole intention of getting around the law of New Zealand to try to get the National Party into Government by undermining New Zealand’s electoral law.
Ron MarkIs not the example that the Hon Bill English is seeking from the Minister the most obvious example—that is, the red and blue billboard campaign run by the National Party using either parliamentary funds or private funds—and the public has a right to know whether they were parliamentary funds or private funds, and how they impacted on the election and why they were not included in the total overall costings?
I think the member raises a good example of what most reasonable New Zealanders would regard as being electioneering in an election year. This Government is not embarrassed to suggest that it is reasonable that 1 January of an election year marks the beginning of an election year.
Is the Government embarrassed to realise that, under the law changes it is proposing, the National Party’s 2005 billboards would not be able to be privately funded, because they would be illegal, but would be able, under its law, to be publicly funded without any limit on the expenditure?
Gerry BrownleeI seek leave to table in the House a letter from Heather Simpson to all chiefs of staff outlining exactly that proposition, so that Mr Burton can know what is going on behind the scenes.
If the Government believes it is vital for a vibrant and small democracy such as New Zealand to have a regulated period for political opinion that amounts to one-third of the term of a Government, is Labour planning to change the Cabinet Manual to apply the same restraint to Government advertising from 1 January as now applies for the regulated period of 3 months?
Although I do not have personal jurisdiction over the rewriting of the Cabinet Manual, I can say to the member that there are strict guidelines, for every day of the 3-year cycle, governing what Government and Government-agency funding can be used for in terms of the promotion or the advertising of Government activities.
Is the Minister not aware that a combination of the Cabinet Manual and convention means that in the 3-month’ run-up to an election, all but the most necessary and basic Government advertising traditionally stops, and that the Government does not make any important appointments during that time; and why has he not considered that if everyone else will be subject to tight anti-democratic restrictions from 1 January, then the Government should be subject to exactly the same restrictions for exactly the same length of time?
Again the member used an assertion that I absolutely disagree with; I do not think there is anything anti-democratic at all in the proposition. However, I repeat for the member that there is a 3-year requirement that only impartial, accurate, and factual information can be provided for informing the public. Government funding cannot be used at all to promote party political information.