4. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) Link to this
to the Minister of Justice
Is it Government policy that Parliamentary Service - funded materials, similar to the 2005 pledge card produced by the Labour leader’s office, should not count towards a party’s election expenses; if so, why?
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) Link to this
The intention of Parliament is contained in the Electoral Finance Act. The Electoral Commission is responsible for determining what constitutes election advertising. The responsibility for Parliamentary Service’s funding does not lie with the Minister of Justice; it is the responsibility of another Minister.
Can the Minister tell us why material such as the Government’s pamphlet entitled We’re Making a Difference for Everyone, found to be an election advertisement for the Labour Party and paid for out of taxpayers’ money that was provided by Parliamentary Service, should not count towards Labour’s election spending cap?
The Electoral Commission has ruled that the pamphlet We’re Making a Difference for Everyone, which was printed, published, and distributed last year—one copy of which we believe was inadvertently handed out this year—will have to be apportioned against Labour Party expenses. That will happen. I suspect it could be around 10 or 20c. But then, of course, this “Join the Conversation” card was printed this year—
Oh yes, it was! It was handed out this year, and it was paid for by Parliament. Maybe it ought to be checked out as well.
Will the Minister answer the question I asked, which was why should something that the Electoral Commission determined is an election advertisement not count towards the election expenses of the Labour Party?
The National Party members surrounding the member were shouting so loud he did not hear my answer. He did not listen to the answer because he is too busy thinking of the next question. I said that the pamphlet has been ruled as an election advertisement by the Electoral Commission. Any of those pamphlets that have been distributed this year have to count against the Labour Party.
Does that answer mean that material referred to in an email from Kath Allen, senior communications adviser in the Prime Minister’s office, where she clearly instructs Labour MPs to use a new version of a pamphlet, authorised by Labour Party Secretary Mike Smith, should also be counted as a Labour election expense; and does the email not confirm that material funded by the taxpayer and acknowledged by Labour to be an election advertisement is being organised by the Prime Minister’s office and that Labour is trying to avoid its being counted as an election expense?
Will the Minister table the 1 April pack for MPs referred to by Kath Allen, senior communications adviser in the Prime Minister’s office—
Madam SPEAKERYou can ask. You can seek the leave of the House. Everybody knows that. Would you please continue the question. Start again.
Will the Minister table the 1 April pack held by Labour MPs referred to in the email from Kath Allen, senior communications adviser in the Prime Minister’s office, so we can find out for sure that Labour is using taxpayers’ money to fund material it knows is an election advertisement and is trying to avoid it being counted as an election expense?
No, I will not table it, for one simple reason: because it is not anything to do with the National Party, to begin with. Secondly, it has not been distributed to any member of the public, so it does not have to count against anything. The National Party received an email that was destined for Labour members and has decided to use it. That could have been done by other members of this House, including myself, who have received emails destined just for National members but have decided that it would be a mistake and have never used them.
Can the Minister confirm the mess and chaos her legislation created when Labour put into the Electoral Finance Act a clause that was an attempt to exclude any publicly funded material from counting as an election expense, and that now members of Parliament are finding out that material that is funded by parliamentary funds can be an election advertisement, when she thought she had excluded it, and could be an election expense, when she thought she had excluded it?
All I can say to that member is that if he is in any doubt about what he ought to do and what his party ought to do, he should get advice from the Electoral Commission. It is giving out very good advice. What the National Party wants to do is pick and choose from that advice. It accepts the Electoral Commission’s decision on the Labour Party booklet but it does not accept the Electoral Commission’s decision on a third party being able to register. Those members cannot pick and choose—either they believe the commission is doing the job or they do not.
Can the Minister confirm that the Electoral Finance Act was put together by Labour as a way of punishing its critics, that it was done so badly that all parties in this House, including her own, are struggling day by day to work out how to comply with it, and that the only exception is that Labour members believe they are above the law and should not be referred to the police when they break it?
First of all, the Labour Party does not believe it is above the law. I suspect that the National Party does, because it has had this material on its website since 12 January this year; the public can get it off the website, and it is not authorised as an election advertisement. Secondly, the Labour Party did not bring in the Act to regulate other parties in this House. The Act was brought in to address the old rorters across on the other side of the House, who were busy with their fingers in the pockets of big business, trying to buy an election, and who were caught out by very good detective work by the Green Party.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister might want to correct the impression she has given the House. National has not used that kind of insignia for a long time, and the Minister has now just confirmed that she printed it off a website. It was not actually published, yet she claimed earlier it had been published and distributed.
This material is available to members of the public today. A member of the public took this off the National Party website. It says: “Vote National Party. Party vote National.” It is not authorised in any way at all.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
Can the Minister confirm that the 1 April material referred to outlined things such as the cut in business tax, the introduction of employer contributions on KiwiSaver, the increase in the minimum wage, and the removal of the cap on charitable giving; if so, is she prepared to support amending legislation to allow the National Party to publicise to all households in the country the fact that it opposed all of those measures?