3. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) Link to this
to the Minister of Justice
Is it Government policy that individuals involved in the administration of a political party cannot register as a third party under the Electoral Finance Act 2007, but bodies involved in the administration of a political party can; if so, why?
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) Link to this
The intention of Parliament is contained in the Act. Registration of third parties is the responsibility of the Electoral Commission, not the Minister of Justice. The purpose of the third-party provisions is to ensure that New Zealand’s electoral system is open and transparent, and that those who participate are identifiable.
Can she confirm that the Electoral Commission’s ruling on Friday, made under Labour’s legislation, means that no matter how closely any group is linked to a political party, that group can still register as a third party and spend another $120,000 on election advertisements, on top of the party’s election expenses cap?
The decision that was made by the Electoral Commission on Friday came after it had got a Crown Law opinion. It is up to the Electoral Commission to decide whom it will register as a third party.
R Doug WoolertonHas the Minister seen reports that criticise the Electoral Finance Act, and does she believe that Mr English sensationalised and overstated concerns with regard to the Act, and now finds that it is neither as restrictive nor as Draconian as he previously had portrayed it?
I think it is fair to say that Mr English and the National Party have over-egged the whole debate for political purposes, and that is because the biggest rorter of the old system was the National Party. That party’s plan to buy the 2005 election was found out, and it does not like the new systems in place, which make it more accountable.
Can the Minister confirm that the only egg around is the egg on Labour’s face, given that it spent 2 years lecturing everyone else on keeping the law after it had broken it in the 2005 election, then was the first to breach the Electoral Finance Act, which that party itself had passed; and why does Labour deserve not to be referred to the police like every other party will be?
I think I will wait to see whether there will be any egg on anyone’s face, because I have to tell the House that the National Party bumper stickers I am holding have no authorisation on them and no electoral agent on them. Any member of the public of New Zealand can pick them up right now, and they say “Party vote National”. They are on their way to the Electoral Commission for it to decide whether there will be some egg on the National Party’s face, because its members are the ones who have been berating every other party in this House for not keeping to the rules.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
In respect of the Electoral Act 2007 and the administration of political parties and democratic procedures, what reports has she received in respect of an injunction brought in the High Court in Christchurch regarding the Selwyn National Party selection—a second court hearing, I might add—in which the judge found that there was a case to answer that the National Party did not follow democratic procedures, but, rather, sought to prop up one of the most hopeless and useless members of Parliament, Mr David Carter, who is on the front bench of the National Party?
Madam SPEAKERThat is outside the scope of the original question, which was quite specific to administration and those matters under that Act.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I could quite easily have asked whether the Electoral Commissioner could have decided this issue, because I am talking about section 71 of the Electoral Act, and she has responsibility for that. That is why I could have put the question to the Minister in terms of the Electoral Commissioner’s responsibilities for democratic procedures. But in this case, ipso facto, a court judge has already made the decision. That is why it is relevant. I ask whether I can rephrase the question.
I have ruled on the matter, but of course the member is entitled to ask another supplementary question. But I have another supplementary question first, from the Hon Bill English.
Is the Minister aware that the Electoral Commission’s ruling last week to allow the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union to register as a third party means that groups such as Young Labour, Rainbow Labour, and every Labour Party electorate branch will be able to register as a third party, and every one of those groups could legally spend a further $120,000 on election advertisements, on top of Labour’s allocation?
I would say to those groups that they might like to have a go at registering, but I very much doubt that their attempts would be accepted.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Does the Minister intend to refer to the Electoral Commissioner an article—and its substance—from the Christchurch Press in respect of a High Court decision to do with party political, undemocratic procedures related to the Selwyn electorate, with two occasions, now, on which the nomination for the seat has been reopened; if so, why?
Gerry BrownleeI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you would give a ruling on whether this matter is sub judice, or, in fact, is the Minister being asked to decide that it is not?
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
That is pretty typical, is it not? The decision of the court has been published. How on earth could the case be sub judice now? [ Interruption]
It is a long time since the Rt Hon Winston Peters practised law. It is an interim injunction, and therefore it is part of an ongoing case. The case is still substantially before the courts. It is sub judice.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
One should not have to repeat this point. There would have been a case for it being sub judice pending the hearing of the injunction proceedings, but that hearing is complete. Justice Panckhurst has given his decision. He said the National Party acted undemocratically, and that is why the procedure has been suspended.
Hon Dr Nick SmithThe member is to be heard in silence. Dr Smith, that is your last warning. Would the member please complete his point of order.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
The judge has decided that there is a substantive case to be answered that the Selwyn candidate proceedings were undemocratic. The decision has been announced. There is no court case pending at the moment.
Yes, but if I understood what Mr Brownlee said, it is in fact an interim injunction, and I want to check that point. I rule the question out of order at this stage.
Has the Minister heard reports that over the weekend the Labour Party deleted a page from its website that explained the close links between Labour and its trade union affiliates, and does she think that Labour’s effort to remove that page from the website mean that the Government is being open and transparent—
Hon Trevor Mallard—so why did Labour take it off the website—about the links between it, the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union, and the Service and Food Workers Union, when it deletes information from Labour’s website detailing how closely tied they are?
No, I have not heard any such reports. I would think that hardly any New Zealander would not know that there has been a link between the union movement and Labour for almost 90 years.
If, as the Minister stated, the purpose of the legislation was to stop groups that are closely affiliated to political parties from registering as third parties and spending large amounts of money on attacking Labour’s opponents, why does she endorse the Electoral Commission’s view that unions that are represented on Labour’s ruling council are able to register as third parties in order to attack National?
I support the decision of the Electoral Commission, which was backed up by a Crown Law opinion.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I seek leave to table a Christchurch Press article that says that last year Mr David Carter MP was declared the National Party candidate for Selwyn, every other candidate having been pressured to stand down—
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
—that this matter has been the subject of an injunction, and now he is—
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We note that Mr Peters was able to read at length the content of the document, which everyone has agreed he can freely table—it is not unusual for people to get access to information already published in newspapers. We also notice that when National members seek leave to table documents, they do not get that same opportunity to point to the most salient matters in the documents, and that you rather quickly move to seek the leave of the House for the tabling. We would like some consistency if we could.
I thank the member; I understand his point. I do not think it is specific to only one party. I am endeavouring to enforce Speakers’ rulings 135/7 and 136/3. I attempt to ensure that when members seek leave to table documents they do so succinctly, and that it is not used as an opportunity to make another speech. Members need to know exactly what is in the document, and that is what I endeavour to do.