6. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) Link to this
to the Minister of Justice
Does she agree with the statement made to the House on her behalf last week “Matters that are properly authorised as being for parliamentary purposes do not count as election advertising for the returns of expenses.”; if not, why not?
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Economic Development) Link to this
I refer the member to section 94(2)(g) of the Electoral Finance Act.
Why did the Minister of Justice tell us last week that material with the Parliamentary Service crest on it cannot count as an expense under the Electoral Finance Act, then yesterday—just a week later—tell the House that the booklet paid for by the Parliamentary Service will count against the Labour Party’s election expenses; what are other parties to make of that contradictory policy?
Given that I attempted to refer the member to section 94(2)(g) in my answer to his primary question, apparently without success, let me now refer to section 94(2)(g) myself. Section 94(2) is an exclusion section relating to what an election expense is. Section 94(2)(g) states that “any publications that relate to a member of Parliament in his or her capacity as a member of Parliament.” are so excluded.
Is the Minister not aware that she could have raised the possibility that this pamphlet, We’re Making a Difference for Everyone, would count against Labour’s election expenses only if she believed that it was not for parliamentary purposes?
The “parliamentary purposes” part of this situation is not what is relevant. What is relevant is whether an election expense exclusion subsection does allow for any publication that relates to a member of Parliament to be excluded. That is still under exploration by the Electoral Commission.
Hon Dr Nick SmithI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am surprised that the member is not aware that the Electoral Commission went to every party last week—
Gerry BrownleeFair comment; it is a point of information. I will use it later. The member can get on with his questioning, and I will use it later.
Madam SPEAKER
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Has the Minister received reports in respect of the Electoral Finance Act and an advertisement in today’s paper that includes three issues—namely, the dairy company, Auckland airport, and the free-trade agreement with China—all of which it was decided would be resolved before the next election and therefore cannot be an electoral expense, unlike the kind of rumour with malice being spread by Mr English amongst the media of this country when he knows full well, or should know, that what he is saying is simply not true?
I have received no reports on either Mr English’s comments or any rebuttal thereof. But if Mr English were wrong, that would be a consistent thing.
What sort of confidence can any political party, any third party, or any member of the public have in Labour’s Electoral Finance Act, when within 5 days two senior Cabinet Ministers who spent 2 years constructing this legislation have been contradicting each other about the very basic issue of whether this $100,000 pamphlet counts towards election expenses? Which one is wrong?
Let me gently invite the member to restudy the law, and in particular to learn about the difference that might exist between—[ Interruption]
Ron MarkI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sure it would not have passed you by unnoticed that the House has voluntarily remained silent every time Mr English has chosen to ask a question, and he was able to deliver that last question in absolute silence. People gave him the privilege of asking his question and being heard while asking his question. As soon as we had an answer, there was a barrage from the National ranks, and we could not hear the answer. We ask the same courtesies we extend to Mr English be extended by his entire party to the rest of the House.
I thank the member. It is not a privilege; it is the right of all members to be heard in this House—a right that I am afraid is not always respected. Would the Hon Pete Hodgson please continue with his answer.
I invite the member to look afresh at the law of the land, and in particular to look at definitions as they relate to an election advertisement and a party election expense, including the exclusion provisions for those two things. Then the member may understand that the difference he wishes to trump up may not exist at all.
Why should the House listen to Labour on electoral finance law, when two senior Ministers have contradicted themselves over whether this pamphlet is covered, when Labour has had one warning from the Electoral Commission about breaching the law, when it has had one decision from the Electoral Commission that it has breached the law, when it has had a “get of jail free” card when that breach was not referred to the police, and when it is now finding out that its law is paralysing all political parties and third parties now that we are 4 months into an election year?
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Not only was that question far, far too long but it is in serious danger of putting Mogadon out of business. We are going to sleep back here listening to that rant from Mr English, which makes no sense to us and I am certain will not make sense to the Minister.
That is not a point of order. Unfortunately questions are too long and on occasions one may wonder about their vitality.
I will try to address that collection of questions as succinctly as I am able. I refer the member afresh to section 94(2)(g), and I let him know that an interpretation of the words “in his or her capacity as a member of Parliament” is currently being worked on by the commission, that the commission wrote to all political parties last Thursday, that the commission said specifically “I am happy for you to forward this message to the parliamentary chief of staff of your party” last Thursday, and that almost a week later the deputy leader of the National Party appears not to know about it.
Hon Jim AndertonAs the representative of the only party that was deemed by the Auditor-General not to have contravened the Electoral Act at the last election, I ask the Minister whether he has had any advice as to whether a group of individuals or any organisation can, under the Electoral Finance Act, conduct a $1.2 million campaign against any individual member or party members of this House without any authorisation whatever, and, furthermore, by giving false addresses and false contact points in the electorate?
The sad fact of the matter is that a year ago they could do that. The good thing to be said is that right now they cannot, and we have a better and freer democracy as a result of that.
If we have a better and freer democracy, then can the Minister tell us whether it is Government policy that the advertisement placed by New Zealand First this morning, which could be interpreted as encouraging people to vote for it by reference to policy positions—which is the term used in the legislation—could be an election advertisement, even though it is paid for by the taxpayer, and that the advertisement—
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Mr English has made the allegation outside this House that we have somehow breached the law of this country, and we take that seriously in New Zealand First. We do know what the Electoral Commissioner’s view is of this matter: that if an issue is resolved before the election and it was intended to be resolved—and we know that those three issues will be resolved—then it cannot possibly be an election advertisement. People will already have had not a promise but the reality. Now—
The member will be asked to leave the House if he does not sit down. That is not a point of order, as the member well knows. It is a point of debate and discussion.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. With respect, the allegation that someone has broken the law is not a matter of debate; it is a serious allegation and it is unparliamentary. Previous Speakers have found in that way, and so do the Standing Orders. So please tell me why you have made the decision to rule out my contention that the member is raising an issue in this House that he is not allowed to raise unless he has some evidence, a case, or some facts—none of which he has given so far.
Mr English did not say that New Zealand First had broken the law. He asked the Minister whether in his opinion the advertisement in this morning’s paper, which clearly takes policy positions and clearly sets out to persuade people towards New Zealand First’s point of view, is in fact an electoral expense in the electoral period, which we are now in. That is what was asked and that is not unreasonable. It will be very interesting to see whether this Minister has a different view on that from the Minister who gave all the opinions yesterday.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
The videotape and the Hansard record will disclose that what the member is saying is precisely wrong. The allegation that has been made very clearly in this House is that a breach of the law has happened. That is the fact. Unfortunately the members have not read the law, which is as clear as daylight. If all of these issues are resolved before the election, which it is intended they will be, how can the advertisement be advertised as an election issue if they have already been fixed up? The China free-trade agreement was signed 3 days ago.
Rodney HideIt is very simple. The Minister of Foreign Affairs could just say he is prepared to resign if he is wrong.
That was an equally unhelpful contribution. May I say from my hearing of the question that it asked the Minister for an opinion; it did not make an assertion. I am happy to look at the record later, but in the meantime would the Minister please—
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask Mr Hide whether he will resign if I am right.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is a completely different issue. What I have noted from that exchange of points of order, particularly from the point of order taken by Gerry Brownlee, gives me cause for concern. We all know that when our Hansard comes around to us, we have the opportunity to check it for accuracy and veracity. We have a new element added to Parliament whereby we have video cameras and everything is recorded. It would concern New Zealand First greatly if in the actual recorded written Hansard Mr English’s comments were different from what the video showed him saying. I ask you as the Speaker which record stands supreme in recording evidence, because Mr Brownlee’s comments would lead some of us to fear that National will doctor the Hansard to ensure it reflects what Mr Brownlee said, not what Mr English said. We would want—sit down, Gerry.
Be seated. That is a very disrespectful comment, Mr Mark. If you would please just make your point of order very succinctly, then we can hear a response to it from Mr Brownlee.
The point is that that there is the possibility that we will end up with the situation where the video and the DVD show Mr English saying precisely what my leader, Winston Peters, said he said and the written copy reflects what Gerry Brownlee claims he said, which is not accurate.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
I do not think that point of order is well raised, at all, because I do not think you can be asked to speculate on a hypothetical situation that by itself, if it occurred, would clearly lead to the possibility of a breach of privilege charge being brought. A breach of privilege charge has to be raised in writing with you, Madam Speaker. So to ask you to rule hypothetically about something you could not be asked about by way of a point of order, if it did occur, seems to be a slightly pointless exercise.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You might rightly have asked my colleague Mr Ron Mark to sit down, because of his comments. Notwithstanding that, he reacted to the fact that whilst he was making out a point of order and you were listening to it, Gerry Brownlee decided to jump to his feet. Now, which is the most rude of those two actions: the one that got the reaction from Ron Mark or the primary action from Mr Brownlee?
No, I did note that the point of order went on at some length, then there was a pause. It was quite apparent that Mr Brownlee—if I can assume to presume what he was thinking—thought it had finished, as had I.
Can the Minister tell us, is it Government policy that an ad published by New Zealand First this morning in the newspaper, which might encourage people to vote for New Zealand First by reference to policy positions—which is the terminology used in the legislation—could be an election advertisement if the ad has been paid for by the taxpayer through Parliamentary Service; and could the cost of this advertisement count against New Zealand First’s election expenses cap?
Government policy—and, indeed, the will of this House—is to be found in the black-letter law of the land.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Has the Minister received any reports on getting for certain members of Parliament, mainly for Mr English, a legal interpretation—which is apparently not available to them now—that says very clearly that if an advertisement is to do with present, modern politics and matters and those matters are to be resolved within the term of the Parliament before the election, that advertisement cannot possibly be caught by the claim that it is an election advertisement, simply because the various policies presented in the advertisement are, in fact, issues already dealt with? That is the legal distinction, so could he get a report to Mr English that explains that to him?
No, I have not been requested to provide such a report, but I do agree that more light than heat would be useful.
Can the Minister of Justice confirm to the House that one of the problems all parties have with this particular issue is that when the Electoral Finance Bill was being debated in this House, she came down and gave an explanation of what a parliamentary purpose amounted to—which corresponds with what the Rt Hon Winston Peters claims to be the case—then came down the next day to say she was completely wrong and did not know what that purpose now meant?
I regret that my memory does not go back quite as far as that, but I would make this point: the law has received its third reading; it has been passed into statute. There are agencies that are there to interpret it; they are interpreting it. As understanding grows, I am sure the member’s blood pressure may drop. One hopes it will, anyway.
Is the House now to believe that the Labour Cabinet spent 2 years going through this legislation in detail in order to design it to silence Labour’s critics; that the legislation came into force on 1 January; that despite Labour not knowing what it meant, it went ahead and used taxpayers’ money to print a whole range of material that is now withdrawn; that it was then caught breaching the law; and that it is now telling us that no one quite knows what the law means—is that an indication of the competence and record of this Government?
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. In the exchange that took place before around points of order, Mr Peters was allowed to make a case that the issues raised in his ad are matters of political moment that will be resolved prior to the next election. I wonder whether he might be good enough to give the information to the House that leads him to the view that the Auckland airport issue will be resolved before the election.