Finlayson Christopher: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Finlayson Christopher: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:642;Page:12136] 
11.  
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does he stand by his statement with regard to the Electoral Finance Bill “Some members have already suggested that the third-party reforms unjustifiably restrict freedom of expression. They do not and the Crown Law Office advice on this matter is clear in that regard.”; if so why? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes; for the same reasons I gave on 14 August in reply to virtually the same question from the member’s senior colleague. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Does the Minister disagree with the submission of the New Zealand Law Society when it said: “The bill seems to be inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 as it limits freedom of expression in a way that cannot be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”; if so on what grounds does he disagree with the Law Society? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I do disagree with the Law Society. I would cite the Supreme Court of Canada which has relatively recently considered very similar legislation regulating third parties in terms of breach of freedom of expression. I refer here to the recent case of  
Harper v Canada 
. It was clearly said that limits on third parties allow all citizens to have meaningful participation in the electoral process and are therefore beneficial. The danger with unlimited expression is that it ultimately benefits the very wealthy not the average Kiwi. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Does the Minister believe that free speech in New Zealand should be equated with the expenditure of vast amounts of money? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Indeed I do not and as my answer to the previous question indicated we have seen—and in 2005 we saw all too clearly—the attempt of one party in this House the National Party in collusion with others who sought to spend more than $1 million to secure electoral victory by a complete rort of our electoral law. That is not the sort of electoral system New Zealanders want or will tolerate. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Minister agree that if the bill cracked down on secret trusts and anonymous donations the public would then have a right to know whether for example the National Party had been funded by the very corporations to which it may later sell our State-owned enterprises and that without these changes we would never know? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I think the question the member raises is one of some import. It is why it is one of the matters that will be referred for further investigation alongside the structure of the administrative bodies and a number of other matters around State funding and the general funding of political parties to an independent inquiry. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Can I take it that the Minister is also disagreeing with the New Zealand Law Society which very rarely recommends that legislation should not proceed yet in this case has said that the bill should be abandoned; if so why? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Yes I am disagreeing with the notion of abandoning a bill that certainly sets out to ensure the security of the New Zealand electoral system. And I stand by the comments I have repeatedly made that I expect the select committee process to add value and further refinement to improve the legislation. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Does the Minister disagree with the written submission of the Human Rights Commission which states that “the inroads on freedom of expression which will result from the Bill are disproportionate and in the Commission’s opinion do not amount to reasonable justification under s.5 of the BoRA”; if he does on what grounds does he disagree with the Human Rights Commission? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: On two grounds: firstly the experience of  
Harper v Canada  
in the Supreme Court of Canada which unfortunately the Human Rights Commission neglected to make reference to. It is the most relevant piece of recent experience in terms of international— 
Hon Bill English 
: It’s a different law. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Oh Mr English! This is absolutely relevant to this jurisdiction. Secondly I rely on Crown Law advice which differs from that opinion. 
I seek leave to table a copy of Chris Finlayson’s maiden speech to this House. I think he needs to read it. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.