4. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) Link to this
to the Minister of Justice
Is it Government policy that political parties may electioneer with advertising material produced by Government departments; if so, why?
Hon ANNETTE KINGCan the Minister tell the House just what it was that Ministers said about the Electoral Finance Act and electioneering that led the Labour Party President, Mike Williams, to believe that the use of taxpayer-funded Government department material in the Labour Party’s election campaign is perfectly fine, and how is anyone supposed to avoid the conclusion that Ministers and the president of the Labour Party have been looking to misuse the public purse to get themselves re-elected?
Can the Minister give the House a reassurance that Mr Mike Williams, who is also a member of the boards of Genesis, ONTRACK, which is the company that owns the railway tracks, the Auckland Regional Transport Authority, GNS Science, and Transit New Zealand, is not using those positions in order to help the Labour Party get re-elected?
Mike Williams is a member of a number of boards. He acts in an honourable way, just as National Party members whom we have appointed to boards do.
If Mike Williams, the President of the Labour Party, believes that it is just fine to use Government department pamphlets in Labour electioneering material, why would we conclude that he does not think it is just fine to use his many very high-profile director positions to achieve exactly the same thing?
If Mike Williams had thought it was OK, I am pretty sure he knows now it is not OK. But I need to say to that member that sometimes members of branches of political parties, including, sometimes, members of Parliament, say things at Labour Party conferences and National Party conferences that they do not really mean. For example, we can always remember what Maurice Williamson said: “If some people can’t lose weight no matter what, how come there were no fat people in Nazi concentration camps?”. Of course, John Key had to apologise for that comment. I am sure Maurice Williamson did not mean to say it, but sometimes people say things they do not really mean.
Why should anyone take seriously Helen Clark’s promise that material produced by Government departments will not be used by the Labour Party, when she would have been discussing exactly these issues with Mike Williams, the President of the Labour Party, for the last 2 years; when she would have been directing staff in her own office, who have been sending out emails about this material; and when Labour before the last election promised to count the pledge card as an electoral expense, then, 2 days after the election, withdrew that promise?
How can Parliament rely on the Labour Party to comply with the electoral law, when earlier this year it said it had asked the Electoral Commission about pamphlets that it had put out, when actually it had not; when Mike Williams, the President of the Labour Party, has said that Labour would use Government department pamphlets for electioneering; and when Mike Williams, the President of the Labour Party, tried to hide an interest-free loan from the public? And why is it that every time something goes wrong, Mike Williams seems to be to blame?
Was the Minister or any other Labour Minister present at the workshop session where the Labour Party discussed using Government department pamphlets; if any Ministers were there, why did they not tell the Labour Party that it was not allowed to do it?
Because people were at the Labour Party conference as members of the Labour Party. Also, what was said is not what was reported in the newspapers.
Can the Minister confirm whether there were Ministers at the workshop session, and why does the Labour Party continue—
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister of Justice has no responsibility for the fact as to whether any other Ministers were present at any workshop—indeed, anywhere, at any time.
Madam SPEAKERYes. I let the previous question go because I thought it was marginal, but that one was right outside ministerial responsibility. Would the member rephrase the question, please.
Has the Minister seen reports that she was present at the workshop, but Labour continues to work to the standard where it will do anything that it can get away with, and this issue is being resolved only because it was raised by the media—Labour was caught, so it had to do something about it?
No. I think most people in this Parliament wonder whether the National Party really has any interest in anything happening in New Zealand other than the Electoral Finance Act, which it bangs on about day after day because the Act has hurt it. It is unable to do the cheating it did in the last election; it is unable to get in the pockets of big financers and spend as much as it likes. Here we have a whole lot of sour grapes from a member who would be king if he could.
Hon Harry Duynhoven Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you could ask the Minister to repeat the answer, so that, without all the barrage, we can hear what the content was.
No. I ask members to please respect the right of free speech in this House—which is frequently mentioned. The right of free speech means the right to be heard.
Gerry BrownleeI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you would reflect on your ruling with regard to the supplementary question from Bill English. Although you did not rule, you suggested that you were concerned about the nature of it. Mr English was simply trying to establish whether Ministers of the current Government were participating in a forum, or a gathering, of people who were attempting to rort the law in this country. That should not be an unreasonable question in this House.
It may not be; it is a matter of debate. Question time relates to ministerial responsibility, and questions that stray into party activities of whatever party is mentioned are not.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I appreciate that, but I did not ask for an immediate response, because I think the matter is worth considering. The reality is that this Minister, who was being questioned about not only herself but her ministerial colleagues, is responsible for the Act. It is not unreasonable for the Opposition to expect the Minister—
I agree with the member, but the question was not related to the Act. I am happy to reflect on the matter, but I cannot change the Standing Orders. Question time relates to ministerial responsibility, but I am happy to reflect on the matter and give a ruling.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The question could not have arisen if it were not for the Act, and given that the Act exists—