9. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) Link to this
to the Minister of Justice
Is it Government policy that groups involved in the administration of political parties should be ineligible to register as third parties under the Electoral Finance Act 2007; if not, why not?
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) Link to this
The intention of Parliament is reflected in the Electoral Finance Act. The registration of third parties is the responsibility of the Electoral Commission.
Is the Minister aware that information removed from the Labour Party’s website 2 days ago told us that members of any affiliated union are automatically members of the Labour Party if they wish to be, which means that they have exactly the same rights and responsibilities as ordinary Labour Party members, and was it the Government’s intention that unions such as the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union—whose members are automatically members of the Labour Party—should be able to register as a third party?
That is very much a matter for the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union.
Was it the Government’s intention that a group whose membership overlaps completely with membership of the Labour Party would be able to register to campaign as if it is independent of the Labour Party?
Any decision on who is registered as a third party is a matter for the Electoral Commission.
What did the Government intend when it drafted section 13 of the Electoral Finance Act, which explicitly rules out actual persons who are involved in the administration of a political party from being allowed to register as third parties?
This Parliament decided what would be in the Electoral Finance Act, and any interpretation of what a third party is will be decided by the Electoral Commission.
Does the Minister agree with the secretary of the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union that it keeps close liaison with the Labour Party through the transport and industrial relations caucus committee, that members of the union serve on Labour Party bodies, and that the Labour Party itself has said that members of affiliated unions such as the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union and the Service and Food Workers Union are automatically members of the Labour Party; and was it the intention of the Government that a group so closely entwined with the Labour Party could be used to help Labour to escape from the election expense cap?
The decision on whether the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union, or any other union, or Federated Farmers, or David Farrar—the front for the National Party—is registered as a third party is very much the decision of the Electoral Commission.
Is the Minister now telling us that the Government had no intention of ensuring that groups that are very close to a political party should be banned from registering as a third party, and therefore Labour intends to spend about another $500,000 by getting the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union, the Service and Food Workers Union, and the Dairy Workers Union, plus Young Labour, Labour’s rainbow branch, and any other Labour group to register as third parties?
The member talks a lot of nonsense. We will leave it in the hands of the independent Electoral Commission to decide who will be a third party. I am wondering when that member is going to stop accusing everybody of breaking the law, and when he is going to apologise to the Public Service Association (PSA) for saying it broke the law. When I asked him in this House whether he would apologise, he refused to apologise. I notice that the PSA—
No way; it is not the wrong union. The PSA has asked that member to apologise, in the statement “PSA national secretary expects an apology from Bill English”. Why? Because he accused the PSA of breaking the law. The PSA did not break the law. It knew it had not broken the law, but he said it had. When will he apologise? I think that a lot of organisations around New Zealand have had a gutsful of that member accusing them of breaking the law, when they have not done so.
The PSA agreed with me when I spoke to it about that. I met it yesterday, and it did not ask for an apology.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I will table the statement from the PSA, which totally denies what that member just said. The PSA said that Mr English was wrong when he claimed in Parliament that it had told him it had not lodged a correct third-party application. It is in the statement.
Madam SPEAKERPlease be seated or you will both be leaving the House. We cannot have this situation going on. If the member wishes to table the document she will do so consistent with the Standing Orders, whereby she will describe it succinctly and not give us a dissertation on its substance.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think I need some help here. The member has made a claim that he did not say something. The PSA has put out a statement for everybody to see, saying that he was wrong. The PSA has said he was wrong. In this House, where the PSA has no protection, the member continues to make the claim. I find that to be reprehensible. I believe that that member should front up and apologise to the people whom he is insulting publicly.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am just surprised that you are allowing this matter to go on. We raised a point of order yesterday about the way you treated people who were seeking leave to table documents. You made your ruling clear: that you would treat both sides of the House in the same way. The member then stood up and went into a tirade in the process of seeking leave, and you tolerated that until we drew your attention to it.
I am sorry; I will not have this. It was not clear whether the Minister was using a point of order to make a speech or was foreshadowing an intention to do so. That is why I stopped it and asked her to be explicit about whether she was seeking leave to table that document—so we could move on.
I seek leave to table the PSA national secretary’s statement in which she states that she expects an apology from Bill English.
Hon Harry Duynhoven Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. During the course of the point of order that preceded the one you have just dealt with, there was a considerable amount of barracking from the Opposition front bench. You yourself were trying to hear what the Minister was saying. It was an extensive point of order. The Minister was trying to get across her point of view. There was a considerable amount of rude disruption. I think we have all had a gutsful of it, to be very blunt, and I think people should be tossed out of the Chamber for it.
The member has a point. The accusation that the Speaker is not acting fairly to all members of the House is coming close to an offence for which there needs to be an apology. I tell members that there is a reason why points of order are heard in silence; it is so that we can in fact hear what is happening. Members should come back to the purpose of these particular proceedings, which is for supplementary questions to be asked.
Is it not a measure of the incompetence of this Government that it put section 13 into the Electoral Finance Act with the intention of preventing parties from setting up proxy organisations in order to escape the electoral expense cap, and the first third party that has been registered is the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union—of which, by the Labour Party’s own definition, every member is a member of the Labour Party, and the leadership of which serves on the Labour Party’s governing councils—when that has exactly the opposite effect of what the Government aimed for?
No, and I cannot be assured that the first party that registered as a third party was the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union. According to the Electoral Commission, the first person who registered was Anthony John Gavigan.
Can we now take it from the Minister’s answer that it was the Government’s intention in passing the Electoral Finance Act that an entity can register as a third party when all its members are members of a political party and when the leadership of that entity serves on the governing councils of the political party, and that that is regarded as being independent?