English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:644;Page:13583] 
1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does she stand by her statement yesterday in relation to the Electoral Finance Bill that “I am prepared to listen to the debate on clause 80(d) so that Parliament’s interpretation on the clause will be made clear to the electoral agencies and that is all they ask.”; if so why? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes; because that is what I said. 
Hon Bill English 
: Now that she has listened to the debate on clause 80(d) which occurred last night how would she summarise Parliament’s interpretation of the phrase “in his or her capacity as a member of Parliament”? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I will wait until the Committee stage is completely finished because I notice that the National Party is prepared to debate anything at any time at any length. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that yesterday she said she was prepared to listen to the debate because that would clarify Parliament’s interpretation of the clause that now that the debate has happened she has no idea what Parliament’s contribution was to the interpretation of the clause and therefore that the electoral agencies are no further ahead than they were after her other bumbled attempts to explain that clause? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No but I can say to the listening public that when I give my word I keep my word unlike the member who said on Radio New Zealand on 4 December there would be no filibuster from the National Party then tabled 30 amendments during the tea break in order to make sure the debate continued. We cannot believe that Bill English is a man of his word. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wish to raise several points with you. The first is that that response from the Minister appeared to reflect a degree of personal upset she has about the process that is being engaged in in the debates on this bill. Secondly though the suggestion that an honourable member of this House cannot have his word taken is inappropriate for this House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister withdraw that part of the statement. Before she does so I ask everyone in the House when asking questions and giving answers to stick to just the question or the answer and not to add any superfluous comments. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I withdraw. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why can the Minister not do today what she said she would do yesterday and that is having listened to the debate tell the House what she thinks the law means when it refers to actions “in his or her capacity as a member of Parliament”; she said she would do that yesterday she has listened to the debate so why can she not tell us now; and why is she trying to say she will wait while we debate a whole lot of other things that are totally unrelated to this matter? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I will make my comments in my own time. I do not march to Bill English’s tune. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that she took no part whatsoever in the debate yesterday that the only statements made by the Government were some nonsensical statements by Charles Chauvel that in fact this is her third attempt to bring some clarity to this matter and that she has failed to bring any clarity to it despite giving an undertaking to the House to do so? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: That is a total distortion of anything that I said. I will make my comments when I am ready. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister tell me what is distortionary about the facts that when she said she would listen to the debate—as if there would be some kind of debate—she did not take part in it when that is a matter of fact; that Charles Chauvel made one short nonsensical speech when that is a matter of fact; and that she has not met her undertaking to Parliament yesterday which was to listen to the debate and then clarify the interpretation when that is also a matter of fact? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Here is a matter of fact. We debated Part 2 yesterday. We started it the night before. I led the debate on that part the night before with a 10-minute speech in which I asked members to contribute to the debate. The member might not have been here for that but that is the truth; those are the facts. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister aware that MPs will want to comply with the law because this is the part of the law that applies to members of Parliament and that in seeking some understanding of what the law means they have had statements from the chief executive of the Electoral Commission who says she does not know; one bungled shambles of an explanation from the Minister which was impractical and as she admitted herself wrong; and now a failure to take any clarity from yesterday’s debate about how MPs can comply with the law that Parliament is about to pass? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: There were about four questions there. In answer to the first yes. 
Hon Bill English 
: Whom do MPs ask to find out how to avoid committing the crime of a corrupt practice? 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Not the Exclusive Brethren. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I think my colleague is right—not the Exclusive Brethren. 
Hon Bill English 
: When will the Minister give us an interpretation of clause 80(d) so that MPs know how to comply with the law and know how to avoid the very severe penalties that go with committing a corrupt act? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Before this bill is passed.