Finlayson Christopher: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Finlayson Christopher: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:643;Page:13286] 
10.  
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does she stand by her statement in regard to whether KiwiSaver publicity would count as an election advertisement under the Electoral Finance Bill that “The member clearly knows that it would not count as it is talking about the Government. It is not telling people to vote for Labour or for National.”; if so why? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: What is the crucial part of the KiwiSaver publicity that means that it clearly would not count as an election advertisement: is it the fact that it refers to the Government rather than naming any political party or parties or that it communicates only facts and policies—as she said yesterday—or is it both? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: It is information for the public. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Has the Minister seen comments made by the Auditor-General about the current campaign by the Independent Motor Vehicle Dealers Association and its advertisement entitled “Introducing Labour’s crazy car policy” that “It is an interesting one because it doesn’t actually say anything about voting does it although it does attack Labour.” and is it the Government’s intention that these types of advertisements should be classed as election advertisements if they are published in the regulated period especially if the law of common sense is applied? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I will not decide whether that advertisement is covered but I will give some advice to the used-car salesmen who this time are obviously supporting the National Party. The National Party had the support of the Brethren last time; it has the used-car salesmen this time. I will give some advice to the salesmen: I would have the advertisement checked out if I were going to run it in an election year. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Is the Minister aware that clause 5(1)(a)(ii) of the bill states that an election advertisement can be something that—members should listen carefully— is “encouraging or persuading voters to vote or not to vote for a type of party … that is described or indicated by reference to views positions or policies that are or are not held taken or pursued (whether or not the name of a party or the name of a candidate is stated);” and that therefore her Government’s intention is not reflected in this legislation but instead lives in an imaginary world where courts can apply her new law of common sense? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I do not agree with the member in that respect. I think the courts would not in fact necessarily apply the common-sense law as I have been saying the National Party ought to; I think they are more likely to use the Interpretation Act. They will look at the entire clause to see what the meaning is; they will not do what that member has been doing which is taking out one part of it and trying to make out that that is what the clause means. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: How can the Minister expect the public to understand what an election advertisement is when she has given all sorts of answers to the House over the past few days that contradict the words of the Electoral Finance Bill and when we were told today that the chief executive of the Electoral Commission thinks it needs more guidance on the rules of the bill because they are not clear and are likely to result in a lot of litigation? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The only people who have been contradicting themselves are Bill English and Christopher Finlayson. They have dredged up every example they can dredge up but they move on as they do not get anywhere. Yesterday on  
Morning Report 
 Bill English said while he was having a little chat around the barbecue that using the phrase “Why don’t you vote Labour” would be an election advertisement. He is absolutely wrong. He does not use that example any more so he thinks of a new example. Then it got to canvassing. That is not an election advertisement. I suggest to the member who asked the question that he reads the whole clause. We have to take the clause in context and interpret the whole clause. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting the Minister’s earlier answer to one of the member’s supplementary questions would it come as a huge surprise to her to know that other political parties in Parliament share the concerns of the used-car salesmen when it comes to the vehicle emissions rule? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have no doubt that that member—who has a great interest in transport—may share some of the salesmen’s views. I also know about the member that he wonders why we allow into New Zealand used cars that the Japanese say are not good enough for their roads but that used-car dealers in New Zealand say are good enough for New Zealanders. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: I seek leave to table an advertisement entitled “Introducing Labour’s crazy car policy”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.