4. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) Link to this
to the Minister of Justice
Does she believe that the Electoral Finance Act 2007 is working well; if not, why not?
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Economic Development) Link to this
Yes. As with all new legislation, there is a bedding-down period during which the legislation is understood and implemented.
Did the Minister expect that one of the effects of the Electoral Finance Act would be that Treasury at Budget time would have to get legal advice on whether Budget documents breached the Act, and did she expect that the advice given to Treasury and the Minister of Finance would be that to use the phrase “Labour-led Government” in the Budget documents would make them an election advertisement?
I would note in passing that whether or not the Government has a moniker of “Labour-led” in front of it, the Budget has gone down rather well in this country.
Has the Minister of Justice advised the Minister responsible for Ministerial Services that, following the advice from Crown Law to Treasury that the phrase “Labour-led Government” makes a publication an election advertisement, it is now likely that the Department of Internal Affairs, through Ministerial Services, has illegally published hundreds of electoral advertisements on behalf of the Labour Party, because it has published documents that include the phrase “Labour-led Government”?
To the best of my memory, the Prime Minister opined earlier this year that in the course of this year Government advertising would be subject to the view of the Auditor-General, and, to the best of my knowledge, that is the case.
Is the Minister aware that the Department of Internal Affairs, through Ministerial Services, funds Government websites that have published hundreds of documents that include phrases such as “Labour-led Government”, and that, according to her Electoral Finance Act, if those documents are election advertisements, then the Department of Internal Affairs has breached the law; and should she not take advice on that?
I am sure we can cross that hypothesis when we come to it, but in the meantime let it be said that this Budget is the sort that we would never receive from a National-led Government.
Was it the intention of the Labour Government to write the Electoral Finance Act in such a way that it would prevent unions affiliated to the Labour Party from campaigning against the National Party at the next election, and does the Labour Government intend to take any action to change the situation?
The High Court has recently determined what it thinks the word “person” means. The Electoral Commission will decide whether the Amalgamated Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union, or any other union, is or is not a third party. That union is of the view that, whether it is or it is not, it will be campaigning on workers’ rights, because it knows that the National Government would take to them with an axe.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Has the Minister received reports suggesting that New Zealand should abandon the belief—held for over 100 years—that money alone should not be allowed to win elections irrespective of manifestos, policies, or political commitments, or, above those, political personalities?
It would seem to me that the idea of buying an election is contrary to the history of this country, but it certainly is contrary to the culture of it. That was, none the less, what National Party members attempted to do in the 2005 election. They got their mates out there; they got themselves more than $1 million—
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. With respect, I do not think that question time should be ruined by the cacophony of sound that I am hearing from some terribly uninformed people whose only contribution to politics these days is to shout out at question time. There are far too many doing it, particularly those seated to my right and behind me. It would not be so bad if it were humorous or halfway intelligent, but it is not.
Madam SPEAKERYes. I remind the House that members have a right to hear both the questions and the answers. So would members please make their contributions a little more quietly.
I was simply suggesting that New Zealand has never bought, and I think will never buy, the idea that someone who is wealthy can get access to power because of that wealth. It is contrary to democratic principles. It is, none the less, what the National Party and its Brethren mates attempted to do in the 2005 election, when $1.2 million was put to that cause. That is one of the reasons why the Electoral Finance Bill became the Electoral Finance Act.
How can any member of Parliament, political party, or member of the public have faith in the Crown Law advice on this legislation, when in court last week Justice MacKenzie slated Crown Law advice by making it clear that the word “person” means what the law says it means, whereas Crown Law had given different advice; and when, at a meeting between MPs and the Electoral Commission last week, the Electoral Commission suggested that all party logos, no matter how they are displayed, may constitute election advertisements that need authorisation—a reversal of the position it took a couple of months ago?
The National Party is well known for doing U-turns, but it doing one in the course of one question is something I have not come across before. The first half of the member’s question was designed to show that Crown Law knows what is what, and the second half to show that it does not. Why does the member not decide, one way or the other, what he thinks?