8. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) Link to this
to the Minister of Justice
Does she stand by her statement: “The Parliament decided what would be in the Electoral Finance Act, and every party in this House needs to abide by it.”; if not, why not?
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) Link to this
Yes, the record of Parliament shows that the bill was passed by the majority of parliamentarians.
Is she concerned, as Minister in charge of the legislation, that despite the fact that I drew attention to Green Party billboards put up around Wellington 2 weeks ago, those billboards contain an illegal authorisation statement that is written sideways and in such tiny type that it cannot be read from the road; if so, what action does she expect the Green Party to take to remedy this situation and comply with the law, and what actions does she expect to be taken by the electoral authorities, given this obvious breach of the law?
It is not my place to tell the Green Party what action to take. It must decide that and take the consequences. I expect that the Electoral Commission will look at any breach—or alleged breach—as we expect it to do.
Has the Minister seen these large billboards put up by New Zealand First in Tauranga, which contain no authorisation statement at all, and is she concerned that along with the Greens and Labour, New Zealand First is another parliamentary party that voted for this law but seems to think that voting for it means that it does not have to follow it?
I direct members to a certain National leader’s DVD, which was distributed this year, that breaches every part of the Act. How come the member does not bring that up?
Is the Minister aware that the New Zealand Public Service Association’s recent application to become a third party does not contain the home address of its financial agent, which will therefore lead to breaking the law; that the recent application by the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions to become a third party also does not contain the home address of the financial agent, which is breaking the law; and does she think that the reason so many organisations that supported this law are breaking it is that they either consider it absurd or think that her claim of the law of common sense means that Labour and its mates can break this law while everyone else has to keep it?
Can the Minister confirm that under the Electoral Finance Act, hanging a sign in front of an audience of Chinese New Zealanders in Parliament saying “Labour supports the Chinese community” constitutes an election advertisement, which would have to be authorised correctly by the Labour Party’s financial agent; is she aware that it was not authorised and that when Labour does authorise anything it is doing so illegally; and what will she do about stopping her own colleagues from breaking a law for which she is responsible?
Can the Minister tell us whether it is part of the law that she was responsible for that these breaches of the law ought to be referred to the police and that the police are the agency responsible for investigating and prosecuting breaches of the law, and will she see to it that these breaches are referred to the police?
It is not my role, and I do not have to refer things to the police. Why does the member not do that if he is so concerned about it? It is not my role to go around as the snoop looking to see whether something breaks the law. I suggest that if the member does not like New Zealand First’s banner, does not like the Greens’ hoarding, and does not like anything that other parties have done, he should refer it to the police.
Can the Minister explain why her party, and the parties that she persuaded to support this Draconian, anti-democratic electoral finance legislation, have all set about systematically breaking the law and expect to do so with impunity?
No, I will not give any description or examples from other parties. But I say to the member that he speaks out of both sides of his mouth, because while he wants to berate other parties in here, it is quite all right for the National Party to do what it has always done, and that is a sneaky approach to electoral financing, a sneaky approach to anonymous donations. Of course, we all know what National Party members were doing just before Christmas—they were asking everybody to give their anonymous donations as soon as possible so they did not have to account for them.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Is the intent behind this law to avoid the kind of activity that happened before the 2005 election, where massive amounts of money were taken into private trusts and secreted away from the electoral law of this country, paid across in hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations, all designed—[ Interruption]—well, if the member wants to join the queue to be sued he should go out there and say that. [ Interruption] Your colleague did not, he went to court and told everybody that he did not mean to make any insinuation against me whatsoever, both he and Ken Shirley—big in the House, not big outside, though, dead scared. If the member wants to join them he should sign up to it.
Madam SPEAKERInterjections do provoke responses, as we have seen, and they do create disorder. Would the member please ask his question again.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Can the Minister confirm that the thinking and reasoning behind this legislation was to avoid the 2005 circumstance where one party went out and got millions of dollars from its financial mates, namely the capital markets, many of whom had been guilty in the past of serious corrupt practice against New Zealand, kept it all secret, and intended to use it without any ascription whatsoever via the funding of a church; was that the reason we changed the law, and is that the reason why the law is being enforced now?
That is correct, and the National Party was caught out. It was caught out and it does not like it. It does not like the fact that we now want its members to be a lot more honest than they were in the past.
Can the Minister confirm that when she said that the law of common sense would apply, not the Electoral Finance Act, what she meant by that was that the Government’s critics would have to shut up and comply with the law, while Labour and its mates felt free to breach it in any respect that suited them and get away with it?