Finlayson Christopher: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13467] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I want to focus tonight on a number of key terms in clause 4 which is the interpretation clause. Clause 4 is a very important clause and over the past couple of weeks my deputy leader Mr English has been asking various Ministers of Justice a couple of questions in the House focusing on the particular words. I have done the same and for our efforts the Prime Minister last week called us nitpickers—a phrase that is reminiscent of Sir Robert Muldoon and Simon Walker. Then today she said there was a slight change and that what we need to do—that is members of the public and members of Parliament—is read the provisions carefully and consult lawyers. Then later this afternoon we heard a press release from the Prime Minister saying that in fact the Government was willing to talk to the National Party about various provisions we have proposed in our Supplementary Order Papers because they seemed to make a lot of sense. Well that is kind but more about that later. 
Let us focus for a moment on the word “publish” in clause 4. Even though the Minister has proposed a number of amendments the situation with that word is still hopeless. We can deal with paragraph (i) of the definition very briefly. This paragraph was inserted by majority. It states that one is publishing an advertisement if one brings it to the notice of the public in any other manner. That phrase was clearly an extravagant phrase. It was clearly hopeless and indeed the National Party members on the select committee pointed that out to the Labour members time and time again. But it was inserted by the hopeless majority because they would not listen. Mr Benson-Pope was too busy trying to save his career from the Claire Curran challenge and Mr Chauvel was too busy writing press releases announcing his appointment as Dr Cullen’s private secretary. Of course as we have seen—and it has been very well exemplified by her performance tonight—the chair was incompetent. 
So paragraph (i) of the definition of “publish” is going and of course it should go because it is absolutely and utterly nonsensical. The other amendments that the Minister has included in Supplementary Order Paper 162 are unsatisfactory and National cannot support them. Paragraphs (b) (e) and (g) are amended but those amendments are minor and trifling and do not deal with the essential concerns of the National Party. I ask the Labour members to take these hypothetical situations: if a person is carrying a placard at a demonstration for example and that placard praises a particular party or candidate or conversely criticises them then that will be deemed to be the publication of an advertisement. I refer in clause 4 to paragraph (b) of the definition of “publish” which refers to someone displaying an advertisement. 
Another example I ask members to reflect on is the situation whereby someone sends an email to anyone saying that he or she thinks Labour is hopeless or the National Party is fantastic. Apart from that being a self-evident statement of the truth it would also be publication of an advertisement in accordance with paragraph (c) of that definition. So this definition of publishing is far too broad. It is an unsatisfactory clause. It should be amended as the National Party has proposed. We have suggested in the first of my Supplementary Order Papers that we amend the definition of “publish” so that it is consistent with section 214B of the Electoral Act 1993. In other words the activity comprises advertising in any way: broadcasting on radio or television; publishing issuing distributing or displaying addresses notices or posters; and so on. It is consistent with the Electoral Act 1993 and it is not expressed in the very broad terms that the Electoral Finance Bill has.