4. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) Link to this
to the Minister of Justice
Is it Government policy that election advertisements can be paid for with parliamentary funding; if so, why?
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) Link to this
It is Government policy to follow all appropriate legislation in relation to electoral financing and parliamentary spending.
Is the Minister concerned that the New Zealand Labour Party appears to be using large amounts of taxpayer-funded Parliamentary Service money to pay for election brochures like the one entitled “A fair economy for a strong future”, which on Friday last week was declared an election advertisement by the Electoral Commission; if she is not aware of that, why not?
The Labour Party is following the rules as they are set out, and they are open and transparent. I would put that up against the over $700,000 of parliamentary expenditure by the National Party—more than any other party in this Parliament—in 1 year, on activities that it did not declare and that were hidden. Nobody knows where the money has gone, except, as Nicky Hager said, Crosby/Textor has certainly got some of it.
Hon Jim AndertonIn respect of the advertisement referred to, is it possible that sometimes a party, in the words of the National Party’s spokesperson on finance released this morning, “does not choose its words well”; if so, is it more serious to say publicly what one’s party intends to do, or to say privately what one intends to do and then deny it publicly?
We have had months of that sort of cant from the National Party. Of course, there are times when members and parties do not choose their words well. Sometimes they are even forced to go outside the caucus room and apologise. The deputy leader of the National Party said today that he did not mean to suggest that he would sell Kiwibank if elected, and that he did not mean to undermine the credibility of his own leader when he hinted that his leader did not fully understand. What the National Party does constantly is to say things behind closed doors in secret and do things differently in public, and we know what the word for that is.
Can the Minister of Justice tell us whether she means that this election brochure, now declared to be electioneering by the Electoral Commission, will count as an election expense for the Labour Party, or will Labour do what it did last election, which was to promise to count the pledge card before the election, only to remove that undertaking straight afterwards?
I have no doubt that the Labour Party will do what is right. I stand by the Labour Party’s record of repaying money to the Parliamentary Service—unlike the National Party, which still has not paid back its GST. National is the outstanding party in this House that has not honoured what it ought to have done. It has been given an easy ride, in my view, by the media, which have not looked at National’s behaviour. The media have criticised every other party in this House except the National Party, which should have known about GST—it claims to have experts over there on all matters financial, but obviously it did not understand it.
Has the Minister seen the letter, dated 26 June 2008, from Mike Smith, the general secretary of the Labour Party, to the Electoral Commission about this pamphlet that says that it is an election advertisement for the Labour Party and that he is entitled to promote it; and why is it that her law allows the secretary of a political party to have unlimited access to public, taxpayers’ money, which is meant to be in the charge of the Prime Minister’s office?
I do not believe that situation would be any different from Mr Key having a say over the parliamentary money that he is doling out to secret consultants, pollsters, Crosby/Textor, and other agents of the 36 staff whom he employs—unaccountable, not known by New Zealanders. Labour is upfront about what it is doing and it declares what it is doing.
Can the Minister tell us whether, when the Prime Minister said on Radio New Zealand after the pledge card debacle: “There will be no more pledge cards.”, that what she actually meant was that instead of Labour producing a small card with promises on it using taxpayers’ money and trying not to declare it, it would in fact produce a large brochure without promises on it using taxpayers’ money and try not to declare it?
I would like to remind this House that Bill English was once the leader of the National Party. I wonder whether members know that he used taxpayers’ money—parliamentary money—to put full-sized hoardings up and down New Zealand promoting National’s policy. It was OK for Bill English to do that, yet he criticises every other party. I draw the member’s attention to this document, which was put out by the ACT party. It has the House of Representatives crest on it, it is authorised for election purposes, and it is about what the ACT party will do—it was allowed to do that. Let me look at this one—the Green Times, put out by the Green Party. It was authorised and bears the House of Representatives crest—it is allowed to do that. It is honest and open and shows people what the party is doing. I compare that to the National Party, which is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers’ money and not disclosing it to the public.
Madam SPEAKERDoes the Minister not understand that the difference between those documents from ACT and the Greens that she just produced and this one is that the Electoral Commission has said that this one is an election advertisement; is that kind of misunderstanding the reason why all four parties that supported the Electoral Finance Act have now been found to have breached it, and why three of them are being investigated by the police—including Jim Anderton and Winston Peters—and can she give an undertaking that the supporters of the Government will show up for the police interviews and answer the questions honestly?
The last part of that question is nothing but an insult to the integrity of members in this House. To imply that those members would not face up to the police and answer questions honestly is an insult, and it is not worthy of that member. Maybe he would like to tell the people of New Zealand who paid for this pamphlet. It says: “You stay, we pay—National.” It is an election advertisement; National just happened to put it out last year, so it did not count.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Is the Minister aware that failure to pay GST is a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment, and, second, that the reason Macalister Mazengarb was not giving the money over in 2002 was that it was told not to hand it over until the National Party replaced Bill English as leader?
In relation to the first part of the question, I believe that is correct. I am not sure about the second part, but another National Party leadership change is on the cards, especially when we look at the way the leadership team is performing at the moment—the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing.