English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:641;Page:11476] 
3.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Have officials been asked to draft amendments to the Electoral Finance Bill; if so what are those amendments? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Justice 
: I am advised no. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Electoral Finance Bill as sent off to the select committee reflect Government policy on electoral law changes; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The member has asked this question a number of times in a variety of forms and each time the answer has been that the intention of this bill is to produce a fair electoral system and to ensure that during election campaigns people who might be seeking to influence the election campaign are legitimate and upfront and that we know what they are on about. There are issues that will undoubtedly be debated in the select committee and that is the appropriate place to do just that. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Has the Minister seen statements that indicate that this bill will restrict people’s freedom to have a say on important issues in an election year? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes he has seen a letter that actively seeks to mislead the public about the intent of the bill’s proposals. The Government has no intention at all of restricting the ability of legitimate groups that want to play an active role in the public debate during election year and that is not what the Electoral Finance Bill proposes. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why has the Minister written a letter to community groups telling them that the bill does not restrict their ability to play an active role in public debate during an election year when the bill makes them register with the Chief Electoral Officer as a third party spend no more than $60000 from 1 January of an election year nominate a financial agent hire an auditor send in a return showing expenses and donations and get audited under certain circumstances—is that what he means by “no difference”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I understand that the Minister of Justice wrote a letter to those groups in order to correct a letter from the member that went out to many of those groups. The Minister felt that it was important that they got information directly from his office. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why did the Minister write that letter to community groups saying that electioneering activities were “those activities designed to influence votes for or against a particular political party” when the definition of an election advertisement in the legislation is quite different from the one he says it is—which he has read out word for word in this House—when it is far wider and when it includes any position on a proposition associated with any candidate or party; and why did he misrepresent the bill so completely in his letter? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I think that the intention of the Minister’s letter was simply to ensure that groups understood the intent of the bill. There will be opportunity of course to debate this during the select committee procedure if there is any lack of clarity. The Minister wanted to make sure that groups understood that that was the appropriate thing to do. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How many letters or written submissions has the Minister received from the National Party spokesperson on justice and the National Party spokesperson on electoral law; and is it in both cases zero? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: My understanding is that it is zero. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why in the letter that the Minister wrote to community groups does he say that what the bill intends to capture are advertising activities by those who wish to be active in procuring electoral success for a particular party when in fact the bill captures advertising about almost any political position one can think of regardless of whether it is focused on supporting one party and why did he so deliberately mislead community groups about the nature of the bill? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I think the letter contains a statement that what the bill intends to capture are advertising activities by those who wish to be active in procuring electoral success for a political party or parties because that is the case. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it true that the Minister has not received one letter from the National Party spokesperson on electoral law— 
Katherine Rich 
: So what? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: —well it is a good question when we think about who the spokesperson is so “So what?” is a good answer—or one letter at all from the National Party spokesperson on justice on this issue; and does he expect or has he received a letter from the Exclusive Brethren church from those spokespersons writing to him on that group’s behalf? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: To my knowledge no. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister tell us why the Labour Party used public money to deliberately mislead every community group in the country in fact lie to them about the content of the Electoral Finance Bill and expect to get away with it by stating: “This is the Government’s intention.” rather than being honest about what is in the bill; and should not taxpayers be outraged about the lying this Government is carrying out over the Electoral Finance Bill? 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think that conduct in the last question and certainly the wording of it was unparliamentary. I take offence to being described in such a way and I think that the member’s question should be ruled out of order and he should be required to put it in parliamentary terms. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes there has normally been a rule about the use of the word “lie” to a member of the House and certainly I can see how members may have interpreted that. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You will of course be aware that another person acting as Speaker as little as 3 weeks ago made quite an interesting ruling on this matter and said that unless the allegation was made personally to a member then no offence could be taken. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but Mr Brownlee should have raised that at the time and if he did it was done accordingly. I am the Speaker who is ruling that it has been a long-established convention that one cannot impute lying to any member of the House. I can understand how that question could have been interpreted in that way and I merely ask the member whether he would like to rephrase it please. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister tell us why the Labour Party has spent thousands of dollars of public money writing a letter to every community group in the country and in that letter deliberately misleading those community groups about every major point that it makes in the letter; and should not taxpayers be appalled that their money is being used by the Government without restriction without having to register as a third party and without any fiscal cap to misrepresent a bill that has been debated in Parliament and extensively questioned and deliberately mislead community groups? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I think the reason the Minister of Justice wanted to send out this letter was that a letter sent out by the member opposite—I do not know who paid for this particular letter— 
Rt Hon Helen Clark 
: It has the parliamentary crest on it. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: —yes it has the parliamentary crest on it but I do not know who paid for it—seemed to be misleading the people whom the letter was sent to. So I think the Minister of Justice felt that it was very important that people understood what the intention of the bill was. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Could the Minister refer to the primary question asked by Mr English and tell the house what select committee process it would be when before the select committee had a chance to hear the submissions and to make its mind up on the various arguments put by the people around the country a Government decided to draft all the amendments without any regard to those submissions? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The member quite rightly puts his finger on what is at the heart of the debate about this bill at the present time and that is that the bill clearly will attract a good deal of interest from parties right throughout this House and around the country as it ought to and the appropriate place to have that discussion of course is in the select committee and I would urge members opposite to do exactly that. 
Hon Bill English 
: Well who is the strategic genius in the Labour Party behind a process where Labour has spent 18 months muscling up about what it is going to do produced a bill that does not do what it says ended up with the support of nobody leaked changes to the media said: “No there are no changes.” has now written to community groups misleading them about the content of the bill and all of this while the public are meant to be making submissions to the select committee when they do not know what the Government policy now is? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I think the genius on this side of the House was seeking to ensure that we have fair open and transparent elections. The member was seeking to ensure that National members for example could come to debate GST. In this bill there is an opportunity for National members to find out what GST is how it applies to elections how they might pay for it and when they should pay for it. This is a golden opportunity to do exactly that.