English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:641;Page:11117] 
3.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Can he confirm that the definition of an election expense in the Electoral Finance Bill excludes anything done in relation to a member of Parliament in his or her capacity as a member of Parliament? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes; the bill makes it clear that where a member of Parliament is acting in his or her capacity as a member of parliament and undertaking activities consistent with that position that action falls outside the definition of candidate or party activity. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that under existing law legitimate parliamentary expenditure by a member of Parliament can count as an election expense in the 3 months before the election and therefore counts as a contribution to total party campaign expenditure? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I can confirm that clauses 58 and 59 of this bill are entirely consistent with the current approach taken in the Electoral Act. The member might like to refer to section 213(1)(c) for that reference. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister now confirm that the changes in the law regarding the definition of an election expense as it relates to MPs will make the issuing of a pledge card quite legitimate in the next election when it was illegal in the last election? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: No I cannot— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Yes it is! 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I ask the member Dr Smith to just for once listen to the answer before commenting on it. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister now tell us how his proposed bill will deal with the pledge card that was issued by the Labour Party at the last election using parliamentary money and that was found to be illegal and a breach of the spending cap because it breached current law? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: This bill does not deal with the Parliamentary Service Act. It has nothing to do with the Parliamentary Service Act or with the spending of parliamentarians. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister so unfamiliar with this bill that he does not realise that it excludes from the definition of election expenses those expenses incurred by members of Parliament in carrying out their duties; that that is a significant change in the law; and that it is designed to allow Labour to issue a pledge card this time legally when it was illegal to do so at the last election? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: This bill clearly enables members of Parliament to continue to go about their rightful business as members of Parliament. Any activity undertaken as a candidate counts. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why is the definition of political advertisement so sweeping that if someone wants to run a meeting on dog control in his or her street and invites five neighbours to it that person has to make statutory declarations in order to comply with the Act but the bill has the effect of making the Labour Party pledge card a highly political piece of propaganda legal? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The first part of the question is a nonsense and the second proposition that the member raises has simply nothing to do with the scope of this bill. This bill is about election candidates and parties participating in an election campaign. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the bill propose to allow or thus far have any of the submissions made to the Minister as the Minister in charge of the legislation suggested that it is right for a political party to secretly hide away in trusts and other financial devices millions of dollars to be used in a campaign with that party’s full knowledge—of the type that saw National take $1 million from Fay Richwhite in 1990—which is totally against the spirit of the Electoral Act of this country? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I have to admit that no submissions I have received and no advice I have received from anyone have sought to defend openly that practice. But it is interesting that the so-called main Opposition party seems intent on trying to distract attention from the central purpose of this bill which is the prevention of the rorting that we saw from the Exclusive Brethren with the full knowledge of Mr Key and the National Party at the last election. I am sorry to say that no amount of smokescreening will distract this Government or the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders from ensuring that that does not happen again. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Will it be permissible under this legislation for a third party outside of this House by the use of its electoral donation money to a political party to buy that political party’s policy-making machine the nature shape and character of which happened in 1990 with the industrial relations policy of the National Party? 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I raise the same point of order today as I did yesterday which is that it is outside the Standing Orders for a member to allege that any member in the House has been influenced in that way. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Madam Speaker before we rush to the idea that just because some members do not like the truth it is therefore a matter that cannot be raised in this House I remind you that I was on the front bench of the National Party when the Business Roundtable not only bought the policy but put two people in the National Party organisation to write the industrial relations policy. Those are the facts. Mr English can disguise the truth but the reality is that is a political party being bought off. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As long as the member in his question—and I was listening carefully—was not making a personal reflection then it would seem that the question was in order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek leave for the Rt Hon Winston Peters to be given the opportunity to explain why he sat in that group for over 2 years knowing what he knew and never bothered to resign. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As the member knows that is not a point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given what Gerry Brownlee has said I now seek leave to give a personal explanation of precisely what I did back then. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. As a member of that caucus I take personal exception to the slur; therefore under the Standing Orders it is out of order. What is more the member is not telling the truth—he was not on the front bench. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Speaking to the point of order Madam Speaker I say it is hardly credible for Dr Smith to get up and make that point when his own shadow Leader of the House prevented Mr Peters from making the very explanation that the member is now critical of not having. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have ruled on the matter. There was no personal reflection at the time and I did listen really carefully. It is time to move on. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Anyone around this place with half a memory knows that I was on the front bench of the National Party sitting right there until October of 1989. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. As a member quite rightly says that is not a point of order. Most of the points of order have not been points of order and members will be accused by me of creating disorder in this House if they raise similar points in the future. It is time to move on to the substance. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member heard what I said. I have ruled on the point. It has to be a new point of order. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: The Standing Orders are perfectly clear: if a member takes offence at an allegation made in this House then it is outside of the Standing Orders. The Standing Orders are perfectly clear on that. As a member of the caucus at that time I take personal offence at that outlandish allegation. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Madam Speaker I submit to you that there is no such Standing Order. On occasion a Speaker’s ruling—in my view a very marginal Speaker’s ruling—has allowed one member’s word to be taken over another. There is a clear factual reference in this case and there is nothing in the Standing Orders that says that just because one member disagrees and takes offence the remark has to be withdrawn or not proceeded with. There is no such Standing Order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: To clarify the matter back in 1987-89 there was a front bench of 12 members in the National Party; Lockwood Smith— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated all of you. I listened very carefully to the first question. There was certainly no personal reflection; there might have been a general statement made about a party but there was no personal reflection. Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith is right that members have a right to object to reflections on them but there is not a right to have contestable statements automatically ruled out of order in this House. I think the best way to proceed at this stage is for the Rt Hon Winston Peters to please rephrase his question in a way that makes it within the Standing Orders. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given that the member asking the question was actually on the front bench of the National Party which in those days included talks with the Business Roundtable but not with the rest of the caucus which included Dr Lockwood Smith—and that is why he does not know—is it the case that the bill will not allow a political party’s policy to be bought and written outside of this place— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Stop living in the past old man! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Who looks old over there? That member looked geriatric when he arrived. Have a look in the mirror! [ 
Interruption 
] And slightly zany and slightly nutty. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please continue with his question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does such a provision in the legislation allow for a political party’s policy to be bought and written outside of here for money of the type shape character and nature that was behind the National Party’s industrial relations policy in the 1990s? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I refer you to Standing Order 371(1)(c) and ask you to reflect on that question. I think you will find that the entire content of that question breaches that particular Standing Order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes. I rule the question out of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Seeing as the people raising the protest—namely the front bench of the National Party—were not then part of the process as they were not then on the front bench of the National Party how can they argue against my word? I was there and they were not. So Madam Speaker with respect I think you are wrong to rule me out of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: You may well do. Would the member please be seated. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We have now had four or I think five interventions from the member none of which has been a point of order. I know that this puts you in a difficult situation because he calls for a point of order then gets up and makes a speech but I would suggest that because you have discretion over the call you have the ability not to take the member’s call if he continues to abuse the process. I do not really care what he says but no member should be able to use the point of order mechanism as a way of making a series of speeches. That has happened and I would be interested to know what action you intend to take to ensure that it does not continue or we could be here all afternoon listening to the same speech over and over again. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. His point has considerable force. I tell all members in this House—several of whom on other sides of the House have also raised similar points of order that are not points of order—that I will not take any further points of order on this issue. If points of order are raised I will be asking the member who raises them to leave the House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: On this matter? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek to raise a point of order that is new and I think I am entitled to put it. It is simply that you ruled my question out of order and I am asking now whether I can ask the question in a different way. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I gave the member that opportunity and he abused it. I gave the member an opportunity to rephrase his question to bring it within the Standing Orders. You get one chance. I used my discretion to do that to assist the member. You do not get another chance to do so. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. There is nothing in the Speakers’ rulings or the Standing Orders that suggests that just because someone protests at the truth and feels personally upset by it the truth is ruled out of order. I used the phrase “the National Party” and I was talking about a front bench of the National Party of which not one member there was a member. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please be seated—[ 
Interruption 
] No the member will leave the Chamber. The member has challenged my ruling. I explicitly said we would have no more on that issue. I have ruled on it and the member is now creating disorder in this House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters withdrew from the Chamber.