4. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) Link to this
to the Minister of Justice
Does he consider that the 3-month election period prescribed in the Electoral Act 1993 is a fair, reasonable, and realistic period; if not, why not?
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) Link to this
On balance, no; because we now know that early in the 2005 election year certain groups put in place plans to circumvent the spending limits and the 3-month regulated period set out in the Electoral Act 1993. Therefore, a longer regulated period, such as the period beginning 1 January in the year in which the Parliament is due to expire, is a fairer, more reasonable, and more realistic period to help safeguard the integrity of the New Zealand electoral system.
Will the Minister now answer a question I gave him notice of this morning, which is: what actual examples of political advertising occurring outside the current 3-month election period did Cabinet consider were unacceptable when it decided to lengthen this period for up to 11 months?
One example is the $350,000 Wake Up New Zealand campaign, run by the Exclusive Brethren before they ran their $1 million campaign in collusion with the National Party, and they made very clear, in running this campaign before the 3-month regulated period, that its sole purpose was “getting party votes for National”. Another example that I think Mr English is personally well familiar with is the case of the Maxim Institute. The Maxim Institute, while purporting to be non-partisan, expended a large part of its $1 million budget coordinating a series of education releases specifically designed to support the National Party education policy programme. Again, that series of releases commenced before the beginning of the 3-month regulated period.
So is the Minister now saying that he is extending the period to 11 months to stop any groups from planning to take part during the 3-month period, and that he has extended the period to 11 months because he has found an example of someone whose political views agreed with those whom he opposes?
That is clearly not what I said. The member should pay attention. First, I gave the member two examples of campaigns that started before the regulated period—they were not just discussed; they actually commenced—and that involved hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of expenditure specifically designed to secure a particular electoral result whilst trying to avoid the electoral law of New Zealand. That is the primary target of the legislation. In the end, it goes back to the principle of whether our electoral system should be based on a contest of alms or bank balances, or on a contest of ideas.
Hon Peter DunneDoes the Minister consider, in the light of this particular controversy, that in retrospect it would have been prudent to consult the National Party as well as the parties that were consulted in the preparation of this legislation, and, if he does consider that to be the case, is he now prepared to consult the National Party over ways in which the legislation might be amended to make it more workable; if not, why not?
The interchange with political parties began, in terms of this legislation, in front of a parliamentary select committee that included the National Party. There was a free exchange of ideas, and, in fact, the basis of this legislation came out of that discussion and the issues raised. Secondly, the matter is before a parliamentary select committee in which the National Party participates. That is a good environment—one where many New Zealanders are now contributing—in which to consider the merits of the bill.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Can I ask the Minister, seeing that Mr English has put into question the Electoral Act 1993 on the criteria of its fairness and reasonableness, whether this is the same member who designed an Act to ensure that a new political party could not advertise in the 1993 election, on pain of having to pay $100,000 on each and every occasion it advertised on radio or TV; and how fair and reasonable is that?
It is certainly my recollection that that is the case, and I think the member asking the question has good grounds to be concerned about that history.
So can the Minister confirm that the whole case for extending the regulated period to 1 January, thereby restricting political opinion in New Zealand for almost a third of every parliamentary term, hinges on one pamphlet produced by one group outside the 3-month period?
Can the Minister confirm that what he has produced in the House today is one pamphlet from one group that was published outside the 3-month period, and another pamphlet from another group, which he condemns because it agreed with aspects of National’s education policy, that that is all the evidence he has produced, that only the first one actually constitutes political advertising outside the 3-month period, and that that is his justification for shutting down all public opinion and any private body from having an opinion in election year?
I cannot confirm the first assertions; they are wrong. The member’s assertions are fundamentally nonsensical.
Given that the Minister’s standard reason is that he picked a point between the Canadian time period and the UK one, why did he not just stick with the 3-month period, which falls between the 6-week period that applies in Canada and the 12 month period in the UK?
Again the member, in his usual fashion, is being selective—either in his knowledge or in his understanding. I should perhaps explain that in Canada, for political parties, although there is a spending cap, there is a non-specified regulated period. In other words, the entire electoral cycle is regulated; every dollar has to be accounted for. So, in essence, the Canadian situation for political parties is much more stringent and controlled than even the UK one. The New Zealand example sits very much between those two, if not in a more liberal way, in terms of those two very similar jurisdictions.
How does the Minister feel about being put up by the leadership of the Labour Government to defend this indefensible legislation day after day, when he knows that it is going to sack him within a matter of weeks and hope that someone else will clean it up?
I always feel much better about being “put up” by this side of House to defend legislation that is there to protect the participatory rights of New Zealanders in a fair electoral system than I would standing up on that side of the House day after day repeating the same silly questions and trying to justify wealth over ideas.
Can the Minister recall that one of the objectives of this exercise, set out in the Cabinet paper, was to encourage participation in democracy, and can he explain how a regime that regulates any opinion held by a private citizen or a community group for the whole of an election year and subjects it to very tight spending caps and difficult bureaucratic processes increases participation in democracy?
That is not what this legislation does. It sets out to close the loopholes—or at least reduce them in size—that the National Party and its friends in the Exclusive Brethren Church, and others, exploited in 2005 in order to try to use large amounts of money to buy an election result.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I ask the Minister whether one of the objects of the bill is to prevent outside parties from using money, which is often raised outside New Zealand, to buy or govern political policy and political parties; is that one of the motives in the legislation that it is designed to stop?
Indeed it is. I would note again, regarding some of the examples that Mr English gave selectively yesterday of other jurisdictions that had no regulated period, that he failed to mention they also had no electoral spending cap. Of course we see in some of those countries that the amount of money one can spend equates directly with the number of votes one acquires. That is something New Zealanders have rejected since the late 1800s; since then we have had statutes that have protected the notion that our electoral system is about a contest of ideas, not bank balances. This Government is determined to protect that tradition.
Rodney HideDoes the Minister stand by his answer given in the House on 6 September that a regulatory impact assessment had been done on the Electoral Finance Act; or is this just another example that proves that this Minister does not really care whether what he says squares with the facts?
As the member knows, I indicated that it was my recollection that that was the case. I subsequently checked, and, as the member also knows, such a statement had been prepared consistent with the law as it applied at the time the bill was prepared.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. What we have had here is a Minister saying that it is OK to give an answer that is not true as long as one says that that is his or her recollection. The history of this is that if a Minister says it is his or her recollection that the answer is yes, and then he or she discovers that the “yes” was false, he or she is required by the Standing Orders to come down to the Chamber as soon as is practicable and correct the answer in the House. What we had here with this Minister is that he gave an answer: “Yes, to my recollection.”, which was a false answer, and then he subsequently finds out that the answer was not true. We have got it corrected only because I used up another supplementary question. The Minister now says that what he said on 6 September was not true.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
When the Minister says “I recollect a”, even if he or she discovers that that is not the case, the fact is that that was his or her recollection at the time at which it was said. Therefore, in my view, a correction is not required. It is not the same as when a Minister is asked a question about, say, how much such and such is, and he or she gives the answer that it is 73 percent, only to discover later that in fact it was 37 percent and he or she may have got the number reversed.
Madam SPEAKERRuling on the point of order, it is not for the Speaker to judge the truth or otherwise of the statement. It is not uncommon for Ministers to subsequently qualify their answers if they do not have all of the details in front of them.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Maybe it would help the House if you would give a considered opinion of when it is appropriate for a Minister to correct an answer, no matter what qualification he or she puts on the answer. I think the expectation that I have—and that the public has—is that if a member says that his or her memory is “X” and then subsequently checks and find it is “Y”, he or she should actually correct it and say: “My memory was faulty, and my answer is ‘Y’.”