English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:643;Page:12984] 
5.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Is it Government policy that the definition of an election advertisement should include any form of words or graphics that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging or persuading voters to vote or not to vote for a type of party or for a type of candidate that is described or indicated by reference to views positions or policies that are or are not held taken or pursued; if so why? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes; because clause 5(1)(a)(ii) of the Electoral Finance Bill is a simple extension of the existing definition in the Electoral Act 1993. It extends the definition to include references to types of parties because in the past some advertisers have tried to get around the Act by avoiding specifically naming the party they do or do not support. 
Hon Bill English 
: How does that definition compare with the definition of election advertising proposed for MPs spending public money and leaders’ office budgets as set out in the appropriation bill introduced last week bearing in mind that her predecessor as the Minister of Justice said: “The Electoral Finance Bill needs to align with the review of parliamentary expenditure”? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The definition for MPs is around enabling them to do the work they are required to do as members of Parliament. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that the definition of electioneering for MPs spending public money is much broader than the definition for the public which means one law for the citizens who vote in elections and another much more relaxed law for the MPs who are campaigning in those elections? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: As that member knows MPs have a job to do whether or not it is election year. They have a job to do to communicate with their constituents and the legislation enables them to communicate with their constituents. Can I say that it has been drafted in the same way as the interpretation for MPs in the Electoral Act was in the past. We know that secretly the National Party supports what is in the appropriation bill. Just because they do not want to say it publicly does not mean they are not double-dealing behind the scenes. 
Hon Bill English 
: Given that the definition of electoral advertising in the Electoral Finance Bill means anything that might encourage a voter to vote for any party or candidate is she satisfied that Government departments that are as we speak taking tenders for multimillion-dollar advertising contracts for next year are clear on whether those Government advertising programmes will be caught by the very broad definition of election advertising in her Government’s bill? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No Government departments will not be caught because they will go to the Auditor-General to have their advertising cleared. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Minister agree with the Green Party proposals to protect the freedom of speech of non-governmental organisations and other groups by narrowing the definition of third-party election activities so that it includes only genuine attempts to change the way that people vote; and in addition our proposals to promote democratic participation in the election by controlling the big-money spenders such as the Brethren’s 2005 pro-National campaign which drown out the voices of other non-governmental organisations and organisations that are legitimate campaigners and have real issues in the election? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I know there are some parties in this House that do not want the voices of third parties to be heard— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would members remove those newspapers. I will ask the Minister to give her answer in silence. Members will be asked to leave the Chamber if they interrupt. It is impossible to hear when members barrack. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I know that some political parties in this House do not want small parties like New Zealand First the Greens and so on to have their voices heard when it comes to a bill like this. However I support the right of any party to put up amendments and also the right of the public to put up amendments. The place for decisions on that to be made is the select committee. If one were to listen to National Party members one would believe that this bill was done and dusted that no changes could be made and that the select committee was a useless body anyway because it does not believe in it. That is not where this Government comes from and I know that it is not where the Green Party comes from. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Dr Nick Smith I heard you interject even when I said the question would be heard in silence. There were others however. They were also mumbling away getting louder and louder. Next time I will be asking you or anyone else to leave the Chamber. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is reasonable for you to call for the House to be in silence but there is a quid pro quo which is that you will reinforce the Standing Orders and prevent a Minister from simply making things up about National’s position. She has no responsibility for that. If you are going to insist on silence then you cannot expect members to be silent when you are not enforcing the Standing Orders to prevent Ministers from straying into territory for which they do not have responsibility. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I listened very carefully Dr Smith. Those were matters of debate. There are supplementary questions to be heard. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm what she demonstrated in a previous answer to me that she does not understand how the law will work even though she is the Minister of Justice—namely that Government departments running advertising campaigns will either be covered by this law or not and if there is no exemption then they are covered by it and it does not matter what the Auditor-General says? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I will not confirm what the member said. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Government make up its mind about this issue when it was proposed a few days ago apparently that there will be an exemption for Government departments doing advertising—meaning they can do what they like and are not covered by the law—but then yesterday it said that Government departments will not be covered; what is the situation for departments that right now are writing contracts with advertising agencies for multimillion-dollar campaigns on sustainability cheap doctors’ visits and other Labour policies? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Government departments cannot do what they like. They cannot be engaged in electioneering. 
Hon Bill English 
: What advice have the Ministry of Justice officials or the Minister given to Government departments regarding the legality under the Electoral Finance Bill of the multimillion-dollar advertising campaigns that they are planning to run during the regulated period which now covers all of election year—what advice have they been given? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: To my knowledge as Minister of Justice I have given no advice yet. I think I have had the job for 5 minutes so give us time. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that these circumstances currently apply: Government departments are writing multimillion-dollar contracts for advertising campaigns to run next year during election year and they have had no legal advice about the significance of the changes in the Electoral Finance Bill and whether those advertising campaigns will be caught and counted as election advertising? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I cannot confirm that Government departments are busy sending out tenders or planning to run big advertising campaigns in election year but I do know that since I have been in this House Government departments under a National Government and under a Labour Government have always had advertising campaigns about Government projects. I believe that what the Minister of Finance said today is absolutely right: under a National Government Ministers never wanted people to know about their entitlements so they never told them. That way people never accessed any additional assistance. We do not believe in doing that. We believe that people are entitled to Government help and we make sure they know about it—and they will know about it.