10. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) Link to this
to the Minister of Justice
Does she believe that the Electoral Finance Act 2007 is achieving one of its stated purposes to “promote participation by the public in parliamentary democracy”?
Hon ANNETTE KINGHow can the Minister state that the Electoral Finance Act promotes public participation in democracy, when a well-known public interest group, Family First, was deterred from producing material, after legal advice to it from the law firm Bell Gully pointed out that the Electoral Finance Act was “unhelpfully vague in a number of important respects including the definition of an election advertisement”, and therefore did not publish its material?
It is very much up to Family First to decide what it does. If it wants to campaign in the election, then I think it should enrol as a third party and get stuck in.
Is the Minister aware that the definitions in the Act are so vague that one group has decided it cannot legally circulate a pamphlet that points out the voting record of MPs on issues that are relevant to that particular group?
That is a decision that the group will make. It will distribute what it wants, but it will have to be within the law.
How ridiculous is it that the Ministry of Health believes that it cannot run a campaign informing people about the human papilloma virus vaccination programme, for fear of it breaching the Electoral Finance Act; and can she explain how the best interests of New Zealand women are served by this kind of ridiculous decision?
What a piece of cant we have just had from that member! He has railed for months in this House against Government departments being able even to put out a pamphlet, in case it breached the rules. Now that member is concerned about women. Well, I say it is hogwash from him.
Can the Minister explain why this three-page letter from the President of the Labour Party, Mike Williams, begging for money while telling lies about the National Party—[ Interruption] I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think that, on a number of my questions, I have been subject to puerile barraging from the member for Hutt South, and I would like to be able to ask my question without it.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
If the member wants to make comments like “telling lies about the National Party”, when nobody in the rest of the country knows what the truth is about the National Party, he will get interjections.
Madam SPEAKERHon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. When a person asks to have his questions heard in silence, he should not start off immediately with a provocative statement unrelated to the question; otherwise, that person will get interjections.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You just instructed the member not to do that. He completely ignored your instructions.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
Yet again we see somebody on the right wing of the National Party showing no respect for authority.
Would both members please be seated. I did, as a concession to the member—because I think he was right—say that his supplementary question was to be heard in silence. I have said on several occasions that interjections are permitted, but they should be orderly, and members should be able to be heard—not only questions but also answers. I do think the member took advantage of my saying that his question should be heard in silence. Would the member just ask his question; otherwise, we will have interruptions again.
Can the Minister explain why this three-page letter from the President of the Labour Party, Mike Williams, is not an illegal election advertisement, when it makes claims about other political parties, it has no authorisation, and it has been sent to people who are not members of the Labour Party? That is a breach of the law.
No. Once again, “Lawyer English” is on the job, so no doubt he will send it off to the Electoral Commission. He is Parliament’s tell-tale tit.