Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:643;Page:13148] 
3.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does she agree with the statement of her predecessor that the Electoral Finance Bill “will help promote participation in parliamentary democracy”? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Economic Development) 
on behalf of the  
Minister of Justice 
: Yes. A good parliamentary democracy is characterised by freedom of speech on the one hand and on the other hand by constraints on individuals or groups who seek to unduly influence a democratic outcome through the raw use of a lot of money. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: When this bill will form part of New Zealand’s constitutional framework why is the Government continuing to withhold every single report that Ministry of Justice officials have written on the electoral finance issue; and is it not the case that if these reports were full of glowing praise for this bill the Minister would have released every single page in a shot? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: My understanding is that the Ministry of Justice is the adviser to the select committee and has provided the select committee with the wide range of reports that are available to the select committee. The select committee comprises a number of people not including the Minister. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What specifically does the Electoral Finance Bill do to constrain those who would seek to unduly influence a democratic outcome through the raw use of a lot of money? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The bill as introduced has a range of limitations on both the funding of special-interest group campaigning and the expenditure of special-interest group campaigning. The select committee soon will report any changes to the House. The purpose of these limitations is to ensure that the voices of ordinary New Zealanders in an election campaign are not drowned out by fat cats opening their wallets to distort the will of ordinary people. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why is the Government suppressing the release of every report and piece of advice the Ministry of Justice has given the Minister and the Government; and is it not the case that every single one of those reports is warning that this Government is doing irreparable damage to democracy in New Zealand and that is why the Government will not release the reports? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I think I am entitled to say that reports characterised by words used in the member’s question simply do not exist. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why will the Minister not release these papers today? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am not able to confirm that such papers exist but I am able to confirm that the Ministry of Justice is an adviser to the select committee and select committee members advise the Minister that the Ministry of Justice has provided a good deal of advice to the select committee. I just remind the House that the select committee comprises people from a wide range of parties. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How can there be full and open participation and debate on this bill and this issue when the Government is suppressing the release of Ministry of Justice advice to Ministers and the Government—this information was sought months ago it is now under appeal with the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman has written to the Minister saying that the paper should be released so why are these reports not being released? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Because they are a bunch of sneaks. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I beg your pardon? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
:  
Dominion Post  
MP of the Year! 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: That is right. The member seeks to whip up a storm. I am not aware that any such weather event exists. I will say again that advice to the select committee is the property of the select committee. It will come out when the select committee reports back to the House and the Minister expects that report back to be soon. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Would the Minister describe a bill that has had over 600 submissions as “suppressing public input”? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member makes a very good point. This bill was introduced almost 4 months ago. It has been subject to a good deal of comment a good deal of criticism and a good deal of scrutiny. That has happened in a public arena. Is that what secrecy looks like—does it happen in a public arena? One would not know would one that this bill has been through a public consultation process. The claims of secrecy are bizarre. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is it the Government’s intention at any time before the Electoral Finance Bill is passed to release the advice that Ministry of Justice officials have prepared for Ministers and for the Minister of Justice herself on the Electoral Finance Bill and other issues—the advice has been prepared it has been confirmed by the ministry that there is advice to the Government but the Government is in dispute with the Ombudsmen—surely if this Government wants full public participation in this bill it would release the advice that its own constitutional and electoral advisers have given it; if it will not what is it hiding? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member continues to construct a conspiracy. He is making it up. Let me say to the member without hesitation that the Ministry of Justice complies with the Official Information Act of this land and with the processes that are inherent in it. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Minister agree that if non-party groups run million-dollar advertising campaigns that are simply parallel party vote campaigns—just as the Exclusive Brethren did last election with its blue pamphlets that stated “Change the Government”—then a cap on party election spending is simply pointless and we may as well just go to the American system of $1 one vote? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member is absolutely right. Let us just briefly reiterate what happened in the last general election in this country. The National Party had a party cap of $1 million and electoral expenditure on top of that. There was a party cap of $1 million. That is the law. The law constraining us on how much we as candidates for election can spend has been around since 1895. That was the law for the last election—$1 million for the National Party $1 million for the Green Party and $1 million for the Labour Party. But guess what? Along came the Exclusive Brethren which spent more than $1.2 million in addition to the National Party’s cap. This legislation states that that situation is not a very good idea and that we should try to put a stop to it. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is the reason why the Government continues to suppress the advice of the Ministry of Justice to the Minister and the Government the fact that those reports point out that advertisements like the one I am holding which had to be counted as an election expense last time will not have to be included as an election expense this time which means that the Labour Party can steal even more taxpayers’ money to steal another election? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It does not really much matter how much time that member wishes to devote to weaving a more and more elaborate conspiracy. It does not matter how much time he wants to spend on that. The fact is that the Ministry of Justice is bound to follow the Official Information Act in its entirety. It will follow the Official Information Act in its entirety and it will contest processes where it sees fit to do so. The ministry will do that. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table the request on 24 July that went to the Government for the release of this information in the public interest. 
Document not tabled.