4. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) Link to this
to the Minister of Justice
Is it Government policy that the electoral law should allow public money from Vote Parliamentary Service to be used to produce and publish election advertisements; if so, why?
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) Link to this
The expenditure of public money from Vote Parliamentary Service is the responsibility of the Minister in charge of that vote. The Electoral Finance Act sets out the rules relating to election advertising.
Has the Minister seen a widely distributed email from the general manager of the Parliamentary Service, which says that under the Electoral Finance Act passed by the Government parties can legitimately use money from Vote Parliamentary Service to pay for election advertisements in an election year; and why did Labour change the law to allow this to happen?
I have seen the email from Geoff Thorn, and I have also spoken to him about his email. It is a very sensible email to all members giving advice of the overlap between publicity and election advertising. He informs me he has no examples to give me of how this would work, but he is trying to warn people to be very careful when they are using parliamentary funding to make sure that they do not run up against the Electoral Finance Act. He goes on to tell members where they can get advice from.
Was the intention of changing the law so that Labour could put out a publication like this glossy booklet in my hand—fully paid for by the taxpayer, with the parliamentary crest on it—which is undoubtedly an election advertisement because under section 5 of the Electoral Finance Act it can reasonably be regarded as encouraging or persuading voters to vote for Labour, and which is paid for by Parliamentary Service?
I suggest to the member that the Electoral Commission will make that decision. But I can also say to the member that this booklet was put out in 2007 before the Electoral Finance Act was passed, just as this pamphlet in my hand from Nick Smith, which could be said to be electioneering, was put out before the Electoral Finance Act was passed. I suggest to the National Party and the Labour Party that they get advice from the Electoral Commission.
Madam SPEAKERI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sure that the odd interjection during a question is acceptable to the House, but continuous barracking does make it difficult to be heard.
Thank you. I had already dealt with it, Mr English, but it was not continuous barracking. It was a sole intervention and it will not be heard again while you are asking your question.
If, in fact, members want no interventions during questions or answers, I would be delighted. Otherwise, I will manage that process.
Can the Minister confirm that this booklet, distributed this year even if it was produced last year and therefore is covered by the law, is just like Labour’s pledge card that was put out before the 2005 election—it is an election advertisement produced during an election period and paid for out of taxpayer funding—and the only difference is that this is now legal because Labour passed the Electoral Finance Act?
This booklet put out by Labour was distributed last year. It was approved in October last year, paid for in November last year, and distributed last year, just as this pamphlet by Nick Smith was put out last year and has a date of 1 December last year on it. I say to the member that both distributors of these booklets should perhaps get advice as to whether this year they would contravene the Electoral Finance Act, and that is in the hands of the Electoral Commissioner.
Can the Minister confirm that because this booklet was distributed this year and is probably an election advertisement, it therefore requires the authorisation of Mike Smith, the general secretary of, and financial agent for, the Labour Party; and will she ensure that her own party follows the authorisation rules the way it expects everyone else in the country to?
I assure the member that I expect the Labour Party, the National Party, and any other party to follow the law of this country. This would also have to have an authorisation on it if it was to follow the law. What we get from National Party members are double standards. They bring one booklet into the House that was released last year and raise it; they do not bring in another booklet that was released last year and highlight that. My advice is that they go to the Electoral Commission to get advice on whether those publications are counted, because everyone ought to be very, very careful.
Given the Minister’s enthusiasm that everyone should keep the law, can she explain why, under the Electoral Finance Act, the financial agent of a candidate or a party must include his or her full home address on any authorisation, and does she agree with Labour Party president Mike Williams, who said a few weeks ago that people expressing concerns about this provision of the law were “a bit paranoid”?
I think the issue of putting proper addresses on authorisation came out of the Exclusive Brethren pamphlets, where addresses at which no one lived were put on. Fake addresses were put on, and the National Party supported that. The Exclusive Brethren were the National Party’s mates, it was their money supporting the National Party, and the National Party thinks there is something wrong with being upfront and honest about saying who a person is and where he or she lives.
Can we take it that the Minister has confirmed that the law passed by her requires that any authorisation must include the residential address of the financial agent; and has she seen this CD of Labour’s campaign song, distributed last night and authorised by Mike Smith, general secretary of the Labour Party, which does not state his home address but the Labour Party headquarters’ address?
Is that where he lives, and why should that party not comply with the Draconian law it expects everyone else to comply with?
No, I have not seen that. I ask the member whether the DVD that John Key put out, which is still in circulation, has a name on it. Does it have an address on it? It could certainly count against the Electoral Finance Act. I want to know what is written on it. I ask the member to produce one in this House so we can see it.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Seeing as the Minister is clearly dealing with historic costs, could she tell us, in respect of the foreshore and seabed issue, who paid for the numerous hoardings outlining that it would be “Kiwi not Iwi”—but apparently in 2008 it is anybody, anywhere, any time—and could she also confirm that the National Party’s recent update of its current song is an old replay of Dean Martin’s “Born to Lose”? Who is paying for that?
I am searching for that. I have to say it was an excellent question and we all know that the Parliamentary Service paid for those billboards. National Party members used taxpayers’ money, then, as we know, mounted a campaign against other parties last year and the year before, trying to pretend that their hands were clean. They never were.
When will the Labour Party start to take responsibility for its own compliance with its own law and take this document, which was distributed last week at the Waikato University open day and is almost certainly an election advertisement, and also this CD, which clearly does not comply with the law that the Government passed, to the commission; when will Labour take responsibility, recall these materials, and get a legal opinion on whether it can keep distributing them?
I have no doubt that the Labour Party will be taking its responsibilities very seriously. But what we have not heard—[ Interruption]
David Bennett will leave the Chamber, as will Chris Auchinvole. I am tired of the constant barracking. I saw and heard you two at this time. Members simply must keep it down.
I am sure the Labour Party will take its responsibilities very seriously. But I have to question whether the person asking the question today also takes the National Party’s responsibilities seriously. If he does he will send this booklet to the Electoral Commission and get a ruling on it. The member said it was distributed last year, but it is still available today. I want to know whether the National Party will also send the DVD from John Key to the Electoral Commission. It came out last year, some people still have it, and it can still be played this year. It was given out—and listen to this—in central Auckland in January. Will the National Party send that DVD to the Electoral Commission? Then maybe we will take these questions a bit more seriously.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. When you said that I could ask my question, Mr English interjected four more times, with no regard for anybody else. He has not been here very long and has not performed in the time he has been here, but I think he should actually have some respect for other political parties and give them the right to ask questions in the same way as he was demanding that right just a few minutes ago.
Yes, I agree. All members, including those on the front bench, should please get themselves under control and give respect to others so they can be heard.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister of Justice has three times accused me of breaking the law. I give this House an absolute assurance that the entire distribution of that newsletter, as I have done every year I have been a member of Parliament, was to every household in Nelson last November, and not one has been distributed elsewhere.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Could the Minister advise the House as to whether she has received any reports on the requirement for a street address for those people who are authorising advertisements, and how it will affect, for example, the Exclusive Brethren Church, which takes its directions directly from the United States and does not have a domicile in New Zealand, which I understand would comply with the law?
No, I have not received any advice on that, but it is a very interesting idea, and, obviously, I think the Exclusive Brethren—
Gerry BrownleeJust make the Labour Party comply; that would be a good effort and good leadership from the Minister.
Well done, I say to Gerry. That is the best speech he has made all week, and he did not even have to leave the safety of his seat to do it. In response to the question, I say that no, I have not received any advice on that, but I would say to the Exclusive Brethren that if they are planning the sort of campaign they had last year, they too ought to get advice from the Electoral Commission.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
Can the Minister assure the House that it will not be considered an election advertisement for a newspaper to carry a story that purports to be a clarification that was not given with the consent or, indeed, I believe, the knowledge of the journalist who ran the original story, the editor at the time, or the local management of that newspaper, but was at the behest of the chief executive of the organisation, on demand for the National Party; and can she further clarify that the organisation that owned the newspaper, APN, will not be required to register as a third party?
It is hard to see where the ministerial responsibility lies for that. [ Interruption] No, I am sorry. Can we move on now—
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am reluctant to argue with you, but this is a very important point. The Minister has been repeatedly asked for her interpretation of the Act by the National Party. You have allowed all of those questions. Dr Cullen has again asked for her interpretation of the Act as to whether something is in or out. He has asked for an assurance in that area, and it is my view that that question is within the rules, just as all the others that you have allowed have been.
I think you have ruled appropriately because, quite obviously, Dr Cullen and others would know that the Minister’s answer is simply to go and ask the Electoral Commission or go to the courts, because she has given the House absolutely no elucidation as to her own views on these matters at all.
I would be grateful for your ruling in this respect, because in these questions when I am asked for my personal opinion, it does not count when it comes to election advertising. It is the Electoral Commissioners’ view that counts, so I suggest that maybe you might like to rule out all questions asking for my opinion about what is in and what is out.
I understand. [ Interruption] No, this is a good point of order and it does raise the issue of when opinions are sought that, in effect, are asking for a legal interpretation. Now, all members know that is not permitted under our Standing Orders. I give notice, therefore, that I suggest you think carefully about the way in which questions are phrased, because the matter has been raised. If legal opinions are called for, they will not be permitted.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. If you are going to say that members cannot ask questions that may require a legal opinion, how do we then question the intention of a Minister who brings a bill to the House that subsequently seems to be quite troublesome, when we are told frequently by the Clerk’s Office that the commentary on a bill is the place where courts may go to find out the very intention of Parliament? Surely the intention and understanding of the Minister would be also of relevance to the courts in interpreting this stuff. Are you saying that rather than saying we want the Minister to interpret, we should simply ask what the intention was? It seems to us that it was pretty clear that the intention was, in the case Mr English raised, for someone to put a residential address on a piece of election collateral and that the Labour Party has now said that person does not have to, effectively—and we can only assume that this is what the Minister meant when she said that common sense would prevail throughout this.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
The Standing Orders are actually quite clear. Standing Order 371(2) states: “Questions must not seek a legal opinion.” That does not mean to say that people cannot ask Ministers what the intent of legislation was. But actually to ask, as I indeed asked Mr English on a number of occasions, is a particular thing and illegal. That, of course, is improper and you quite rightly ruled out my question, but I am still grateful to get it in.
I thought you might be. It is not the point, however, and members ask out-of-order questions on all sides of the House slightly too often. May I refer members, for those who are interested, to Standing Order 371(2), which makes it quite clear. As I also made clear in my ruling, it may not be beyond the wit of some of you to be able to frame your questions and give your answers in terms of the Standing Orders. It is not for the Speaker to advise you on how to do either, however much she would like to on occasions.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. There is just one other matter we should clarify. You said in your original statement that asking an opinion of the Electoral Commission may affect your ruling. I think it is important for the whole House to understand that the Electoral Commission can only give an opinion; it cannot give a ruling, and, in fact, if the law says people have to have a residential address, even if the Electoral Commission says that is not right, the courts are the final arbiters of this law and no one is protected by an Electoral Commission opinion, any more than he or she is protected by the Minister’s opinion.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
It might be helpful in this particular area to let the House know that I have been advised that section 4(1)(b) of the Act indicates that a body corporate address can be appropriate.
That was not exactly relevant to the point of order, but I thank the member for his information. Certainly it is legal opinions that, the Standing Orders say, cannot, in fact, be given by members. What the law may well say and who should interpret it is a matter for the law, and, as has been pointed out by Mr Brownlee, I presume reference to the commentary is what, in fact, could be given in those instances. But it is not, according to our Standing Orders, for people to give legal opinions in this House. That is a role for the courts.