English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:643;Page:13200] 
4.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What is the penalty in the Electoral Finance Bill for a Government department a Crown entity a State enterprise or a Crown-owned company which publishes an election advertisement? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The new provision in the bill as reported back by the select committee makes it clear that Government agencies are not able to electioneer. If they breach this provision the State Services Commission and the Auditor-General would be required to act. In addition nothing in the bill exempts these agencies from the penalty provisions that apply to corrupt and illegal practices under the bill. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why did the Government try to insert a clause in this bill that exempted Government departments from the electoral advertising laws and then turn round and withdraw that exemption; was she party to both decisions? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The answer to the last part of the question is “No”. The answer to the first part is that the member has just spoken a load of dishonest tripe; it was not the Government— 
Hon Member 
: You can’t say that! 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I can because it is dishonest tripe and the member knows it. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am sure I may have leapt to my feet just a little ahead of your own consideration of this matter and I look forward to your decision about whether the Minister’s answer is appropriate and whether she should be required to withdraw the comments that she has just made. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member has not sought for the Minister to withdraw the comments but I do think the Minister’s answer was going outside the scope of the question. I ask the Minister to address the question please. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I am addressing the question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That would seem to members on this side of the House to be almost a reward to the Minister for what has to be bad or at least unruly behaviour or comment in the House likely to lead to disorder. Her remark was deeply offensive to every single person in the National Party including me. I would like you to consider whether it should stand in the  
Hansard 
 record. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If Mr English wishes the Minister to withdraw that comment then of course she should and she should apologise for it. However I will just make this other comment. If I interrupted every member who made a comment that was likely to cause disorder there would hardly be any conversation in this House today. I thank Mr Brownlee for bringing this matter to the attention of us all and I assume that questions will be asked correctly and answers will also be given succinctly and keeping to the point. Now would the Minister please just withdraw and apologise. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I withdraw and apologise. The member started his question by asking “Why did the Government attempt to insert this clause?”. That was tripe. The Government did not try to insert this clause at all. This clause which the member released in a big exposé to the public yesterday was written in the select committee to try to put in place belt and braces to show that Government departments cannot electioneer. I happen to have the clause—the big exposé—in front of me. The first of part of it takes the  
Cabinet Manual 
 and puts the rules around what Government departments can do and then—of course the member has not read it—it states who cannot publish an election advertisement and states that Government departments cannot do that. You see the part that was not straight in the press release was the second part of that amendment. I say to Mr Smith that the second part of the amendment was not outlined by Bill English. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Ministers get a pretty fair go at answering questions. Generally if they have a long answer they discuss that with you in preparation. This Minister’s answer is developing into a general debate speech. I think she needs to be brought up on that otherwise this practice will be encouraged. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. This is a supplementary question so often it is difficult for Ministers obviously to be able to anticipate the question. The question did make a statement. The Minister was attempting to address that statement with the information she has. Normally this House wants Ministers to address the question. I would ask both those who ask the questions and Ministers who respond to them to do so succinctly. We have had some very long questions in the House today just as we have had some long answers. The two probably go together. Would the Minister please succinctly conclude her answer. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: In conclusion I say that the attempt by the select committee to write a clause that made it clear that Government departments could not electioneer should be applauded because the current Electoral Act has no such clause. It is very clear that Government departments will not and should not electioneer. They will face difficulties if they ever try to and I do not believe they would. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister aware that the new definition of “election advertisement” is considerably wider than when the Auditor-General drew up his rules many years ago and has she communicated to Government departments that any civil servant who signs off a publication that encourages people to vote one way or another by reference to Government policy will be guilty of an illegal practice and liable for a $10000 fine? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Any public servant or Government department that attempts to electioneer will face not only any penalties that exist in the new bill but also the State Services Commission and the Auditor-General. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister aware of the widespread practice of Government departments posting ministerial press releases on their websites and can she tell us whether this press release posted on the Ministry of Women’s Affairs’ website and headed “Labour committed to pay and employment equity” would constitute an election advertisement? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Press releases now under the current Act are not taken as election advertisements and never have been. I could get press releases that came out when Bill English was Minister of Finance or Minister of Health which say similar things and he has never appeared before any court or commission. Such a press release is not taken as an election advertisement. However the policy is a blimin good one I think. 
Hon Bill English 
: Now that the Minister has answered the question about the existing law can she confirm she is aware that the law is about to change under her ministerial custody and can she answer the question that I asked: would a press release posted on the Ministry of Women’s Affairs’ website and headed “Labour committed to pay and employment equity” constitute an election advertisement under the new rules? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No it would not. 
Hon Bill English 
: So is it now the case that while no one else is allowed to publish anything that might encourage people to vote one way or another by reference to an issue it will be OK for the Public Service to publish press releases like “Labour committed to pay and employment equity” and how does that comply with the new rules? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The press release is a fact. That is the policy. That is what the policy is. It can hardly be an advertisement saying “Vote Labour”. It is just a fact. 
Hon Bill English 
: What is her opinion since she is keen to give it out about a KiwiSaver ad published say a week before the election that uses the line: “The Government will start you off with $1000 and match your savings with up to $1040 a year” and does she regard that simply as a statement of fact or a week out from the election as an attempt to persuade voters how to vote? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: This is the member who claims he has read every part of the bill and knows it backwards. 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. The Government is made up of a number of parties including the Progressive party and United Future and New Zealand First are part of the support to this Government. Obviously it is not an election advertisement. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Despite the last answer will the Government give a clear undertaking that if National gives a cast-iron promise to abolish the matching tax credit in KiwiSaver the Government would make sure that there is no Government advertising pointing out that fact and simply rely upon the Labour Party to advertise that fact? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I am sure that is possible if the Minister of Finance will allow it. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister aware that the explanation she has just given is actually wrong and that the provisions in her bill do not refer just to a particular party but to what she calls a type of party and that therefore a Government amounts to a type of party; and also that her bill does not refer just to telling people how to vote but an election advertisement can include reference to any issue not just to any party? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The member is bordering on the ridiculous. The Government is a type of party! In fact this Government is a number of parties. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister aware that she is bordering on the reckless by giving civil servants the message today that they can run highly political press releases on Government websites and that the Government can say what it likes right up to the election day about how much money it is going to give people when the law is quite clear that both of those will constitute election advertisements and people who take part in them will be committing illegal acts? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The member is wrong. They do not constitute an election advertisement. They are a press release. They do not say “Vote Labour” or to vote for a candidate. That is quite patently wrong. What we have today is a National Party that is absolutely desperate to try to stop a bill that has the majority of this Parliament’s support from going through. We have to ask why it is trying to stop it. Why is it taking this approach when I can have here the press releases from people whom New Zealanders would respect who believe that this bill as it has come back to the Parliament is a far improved bill? In fact the Coalition for Open Government believes that this bill is better than the current Electoral Act. 
Hon Bill English 
: How is it that the Minister is now suddenly so sure of her opinion when the definitions are brand-new they have not been tested by any precedent with the courts the police or the Auditor-General and why is she not showing just some restraint in advising public servants that they can take actions that on the face of it break the law if they run Labour Party political messages? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: What the select committee has done to its credit is bring in a clause that makes it absolutely clear that Government departments cannot electioneer. That did not exist under the Act that the Government brought in in 1993. It is clear now. I suggest that any people who have any doubt go to the Electoral Commission for advice but I suggest they do it openly and they do not write a letter to the Electoral Commission as the Brethren did to the Chief Electoral Officer: “Give us some advice but tell us how to do it so nobody knows we’re going to spend money promoting the National Party.”