4. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) Link to this
to the Minister of Justice
Does she stand by her statement to the House yesterday that only one copy of the pamphlet We’re Making a Difference for Everyone had been distributed this year; if so, why?
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Economic Development) Link to this
Yes; because that was what the Minister was advised at the time. Since then, however, other allegations or assertions have arisen. Some of these may, or may not, be true.
Can the Minister of Justice explain to the House why the only copy of this pamphlet to be distributed this year just happened to be handed to a National Party supporter at the Waikato University club day; if so, does she think that it might be an outrageous coincidence?
I suspect that the reason is that the National Party supporter was becoming anxious about the poor quality of his or her own party.
Given the highly unlikely statement made by the Minister of Justice to the House yesterday that only one copy of this pamphlet had been distributed all year, can she explain to the House what investigations she has made since yesterday to establish whether that statement is correct, and did those investigations include an instruction to all Labour electorate offices to clear out any pamphlets that might require authorisation?
Since yesterday, as far as I am aware, no action has been taken to ensure that there is no further distribution of the pamphlet. However, I think an email was sent some days ago, not just to Labour organisations but to National Party ones as well, because it is a really good pamphlet and we do not think anyone should be giving it out.
We promise not to! Can the Minister of Justice explain the basis on which she decided yesterday that this pamphlet would be counted as an election expense of the Labour Party?
It has been discovered by judgment from the Electoral Commission that it is an electoral advertisement. If it is attributable, it will be attributed. We in this party do seek to obey the law.
Can the Minister of Justice tell the House whether it is likely that the reassurance she has just given is worth as much as the one that Labour gave just before the 2005 election, when the secretary of the Labour Party gave an undertaking in writing to the Electoral Commission that the $800,000 pledge card would be counted as an election expense for Labour, then, 2 days after the election, withdrew that undertaking and did not include it as an election expense; why should we believe any undertaking that the Labour Party makes about this issue?
The situation that occurred in the 2005 election was that the pledge card was of an exactly similar nature to the 2002 pledge card and, in fact, the 1999 pledge card. Those pledge cards were regarded by the Auditor-General of the land as being within the rules. However, by 2005 the same Auditor-General of the land had decided that they were not within the rules.
Has the Minister of Justice seen the advertisement from New Zealand First in this morning’s newspapers that has no authorisation and is clearly an election advertisement, and would it also meet her test of what should be counted against a party’s election cap?
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Has the Minister received any reports about those who hold themselves out to be experts on electoral expenditure where the law is concerned not understanding that if the issue concerns existing politics to be resolved in the term of this Parliament, before an election, it cannot be caught by the provision that Mr English keeps on misinforming the media it is caught by?
I can say that the wires this week, last week, and the week before have been full of commentators saying that Bill English has not yet got it right on this.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Does the Minister think the sort of expenditure that would be caught would include the key ring I have here with an MP’s name on it and the slogan—mind you, the paint is coming off—“Showing the way” or “Shwing the way”? It may have been made in Taiwan. It was being distributed last weekend in Tauranga by one “Blue Chip” Bob Clarkson.
I am reluctant to give a legal opinion to the House and am under no obligation to do so. But I would say in passing that it is not the only part of that nexus that is fading.
Gerry BrownleeI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You may like to reflect on your own past rulings in relation to the way in which members in this House should be addressed. I think Mr Peters fell well short of the test that you yourself have required the House to apply, and the standard that the House uses when making an address to another honourable member in this House. That member should withdraw and apologise.
Madam SPEAKERRt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I never for a moment thought that the member would object, but if he does I apologise.
Again, one just withdraws and apologises, please. That is all that is required; otherwise, disorder is created.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I withdraw and apologise. I seek leave to table this key ring, but I advise members not to touch it—
Leave is sought to table the implement. [ Interruption] All those in favour—order! It is very, very difficult up here to hear what is happening. Is there any objection to the tabling of the key ring? No objection.
Rodney HideIs the Government considering any amendments to the Electoral Finance Act, in light of the confusion that MPs now have about how they can and cannot communicate with constituents—an amendment to provide some clarity, which certainly is not there now?
I am sorry but I am unable to give the member a comprehensive answer to that question on behalf of the Minister of Justice. I will say that I am aware that the Hon Bill English has leave of some sort to introduce legislation in respect of a personal address versus a postbox for the financial agent. Whether that comes before the House is in the hands of the member.
Can the Minister tell us whether it was the intention of Government policy that when the Electoral Commission found that this pamphlet from the Labour Party breached the electoral law it should not refer it to the police for investigation, but if New Zealand First is found to have breached the law with its newspaper advertisements, it should be referred to the police for investigation?
The member has some leaps of logic that, frankly, are gymnastic. He could perhaps be accused of having kangaroos in the top paddock. The long and short of it is that the Electoral Commission is its own body and will make its own judgments. It is entitled to do that, under the law of the land.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Has the Minister received any reports that set out the requirements in terms of the law if one seeks to have an advertisement dealing with current political issues, as opposed to an electoral advertisement for electoral purposes; that there is a distinction, and that someone who spends so much time proselytising amongst the media about what he does not know should understand that—at least, by now?