1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) Link to this
to the Minister of Justice
Does she stand by her statement to the House on Tuesday, regarding the Labour pamphlet We’re Making a Difference for Everyone,“Any of those pamphlets that have been distributed this year have to count against the Labour Party”; if not, why not?
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) Link to this
Yes; because the general secretary of the Labour Party has already said in the election advertisement that it is attributable to the party expenses, or will be attributed.
Does she therefore agree with this statement yesterday from the Deputy Prime Minister: “the law is quite clear that where an MP is acting in accordance with their normal duties as a member of Parliament that, in fact, that [material] is not attributable.”; if so, how does she reconcile this with her statement in her third reading speech on the bill that there was “clearly not a strict definition” of parliamentary activity and that a strict definition “would be undesirable”?
The secretary of the Labour Party has decided that this particular booklet—which Mr English brings out on a regular basis every day; a book that was published and distributed last year, as many of National’s own pamphlets were—will be apportioned against Labour Party expenses.
Does that mean that it is now the Government’s position that the secretary of the Labour Party will decide what matters are within the normal practice of a member of Parliament?
The secretary of the Labour Party—and, I presume, the financial agent of any party—will decide that matter.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Has the Minister seen an advertisement in a February edition of the Hindi newspaper, under the slogan “Working for you”, a photograph of the National Party leader, John Key, and Pansy Wong; and why would it be that one party thinks that it can do any old thing it likes, yet it questions what another party is doing legitimately?
Yes, I have seen that, and it is a case of “seen yours and up yours”, because I have found a second advertisement. We have here not only the one that was in the Indian paper but also one that is in another publication called Migrant News. One of them contains the parliamentary crest; one does not—so I would ask whether Parliament paid for that one. The other one has the National Party logo on it, and we do not know whether it counts. Maybe National members would like to check it out, because they are certainly very quick to criticise every other party in this House. They have become the tell-tale tits of Parliament.
Can the Minister confirm that, in fact, the confusion around what “capacity as an MP” means was caused by her because she came to the House during the debate on the legislation with two completely different definitions, with the first stating that “capacity as an MP” “excludes statements of policy made outside the House that are intended to be enacted by a future Parliament.”—whatever that means—and then she came back to the House later and stated that actually she got it wrong, and a definition “would be undesirable”?
Hon Dr Nick SmithOh, would members listen to Dr Nick Smith! He is away already, and we are only on question No. 1. I have to say to Mr Power to hold him in his seat. I listened to that member yesterday and he has a habit of mis-speaking, because yesterday—
—as I drove from Waiuku, in the electorate of Dr Hutchison, I heard Mr English say that I came into this House and said what the definition was and that I rushed down the very next day and changed it. That is incorrect; in fact, it is mis-speaking and it was made up. During my second reading speech I said what I believed it could be. Then we had a debate of this Parliament—of the Committee of the whole House—and during that, one of the members who said that I was not right was Bill English. So when we came to the Committee stage and put in amendments, we put in amendments to take account of the views of the members of this House. Those members do not like democracy, they have never liked democracy, and now Bill English comes in here with his daily dose of conspiracy theories.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
Has the Minister received any reports indicating that all parties understand what is meant by—and I quote the member opposite—“statements of policy made outside the House that are expected to be carried out under a future Parliament.”, except for National, which, when it makes such statements, never intends for them to be carried out under a future Parliament?
Madam SPEAKERThat has proven to be the case. But also, it is very difficult for them to say it, because they have not got any policies to tell the people of New Zealand.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Can the Minister advise the House, and the country, whether she has any reports on the fact that, despite National’s allegations yesterday, fondly supported by the New Zealand media, National was challenged to a debate on Morning Report between me and Bill English. He failed to turn up and would not send anybody else from the National Party either, and what do members think of that?
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. In fact, Morning Report told me that Winston Peters would not turn up so they shoved me back to 6.30.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
My office received a call at 10 o’clock last night to say that Bill English was backing out, and the National Party could not decide who else it would send and it probably would not send anyone, so the debate was scrapped. That is the truth, not what Mr English just told the House.
This is a very good example of points of order that are not points of order but points of debate. But we will come back now to question time.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister cannot possibly be responsible for the wrongful statements that Winston Peters has made about a media interview. There is no ministerial responsibility.
No, that was not the question, as I recall it. Would the member please repeat the question for the benefit of all members.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
My question went like this: would the Minister tell the House, and, indeed, the whole country, whether she has received any reports that yesterday, whilst the National Party was laying allegations of impropriety of our advertisements, when challenged to go on a debate on Morning Report this morning it refused to send Bill English or anybody else to have a go in public, and what do members think of that?
The Minister has no responsibility for whether members turn up for a debate. So that part of the question is definitely out of order. The first part was about reports, generally, but not about the specifics of whether someone turns up.
I have not had any reports, but I did hear an interview from the member opposite. I suppose he was mis-speaking again, but he did say—and Winston needs to be very assured by this—that they will be doing a lot of cosying up to him if they should ever get into Government. Because if one listens to that interview he has done absolutely nothing wrong and it is everybody else’s fault.
Can the Minister confirm that it is actually all her fault and the Labour Government’s fault with its Draconian Electoral Finance Act, because having broken the rules about parliamentary spending in the last election, made undertakings that they did not keep, got away with not being prosecuted, they then spent 2 years rewriting the rules, and as the Minister in charge of that she said today in the House that she did not know what they meant. So how could Winston Peters know?
Can I just say, Madam Speaker, that you have just heard an example of that member mis-speaking. Because I never said any such thing. No, I do not agree with the first part of the member’s question—
I wish the member opposite, along with his close mate, Nick Smith, did have a bit of common sense and maybe we would not have wasted thousands of dollars in this House with that member there trying to play his political cards rather than the issues that New Zealand is interested in—the issues of importance in this country. They have no policy and they have nothing to say, so we get this claptrap every day.
If the Minister, having just said that she did not know what the definition of parliamentary activity is, now believes she does, can she tell the House whether she believes that the New Zealand First advertisement run in the newspapers yesterday is for a parliamentary purpose?
There were two questions—and the member does not even know when he asks two. Firstly, no I do not agree with the first part. Secondly, it is not for me to decide whether the advertisement is an election advertisement. I do not give legal opinions, and the Standing Orders will tell the members that.
Can the Minister confirm that having spent 2 years drafting law to apply to MPs using taxpayers’ money for political purposes she gave the House one definition, then she came down to the House and said that no, that was the wrong definition, then she said that there was not clearly a strict definition, and then she said that no one should even ask what the definition is? In the meantime, Labour has been caught breaching the policy, even though it did get away with not being prosecuted, and what kind of confidence can that give taxpayers in preventing the Labour Party from using hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers’ money again, as with the pledge card?
The public of New Zealand can be assured that the Labour Party, as with most other parties in this House, will abide by the Electoral Finance Act and the Electoral Act. What I cannot give New Zealanders an assurance about is that National Party members will not pull the old rorts they have pulled in the past, and I suspect they are already on the job and getting their money salted away to be used in some way that is not accountable. I cannot give New Zealanders an assurance that that is not what they will do. They have done it for generations. They have done it in election after election, and they do not like this Act, because it caught them out.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The member is not permitted to make allegations of illegal behaviour going back “generations”. I take offence at that and I ask her to withdraw.
Speaking to the point of order, I say that members on this side of the House, New Zealand First, and the Green Party have had to put up with a series of allegations from that member, month after month. Those members cannot take it when we throw it back at them. That member takes a point of order whenever there is any challenging of him, and we take it on the chin because we know that what we are doing is right. That member is a bit worried about what they have done.
The Minister seems to overlook the fact that the Electoral Commission has found that Labour broke the law. It is not an allegation; it is a fact. We are quite free to recite that fact in this House, and if it causes Labour offence, that says more about its sense of moral superiority than anything else.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
It hardly behoves one who belongs to a party that failed to pay GST, which is a crime—not under the Electoral Act but under our other laws—to get up in this House and feel discomforted when somebody alleges that that party broke the law.