English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:643;Page:13364] 
2.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does she agree with the chief executive of the Electoral Commission Dr Helena Catt that interpreting parts of the Electoral Finance Bill is “almost impossible”; if not why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 No I do not; because Dr Helena Catt has advised me that she did not use those words. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister aware that Dr Helena Catt in her capacity as chief executive of the Electoral Commission will be the person to whom anyone should go to get an interpretation of what the legislation means and that she has said this morning that for almost any piece of the legislation there are three four interpretations? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What other reports has she seen recently in relation to the Electoral Commission? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have seen the UMR Research telephone survey undertaken by the commission and released yesterday which shows that 67 percent of those polled support the proposition that any individual or group should be able to run an election-related campaign as long as they are clearly identified and spend within a set limit. The majority of parties in this Parliament—but not the National Party or ACT—have ensured that the bill as reported back from the Justice and Electoral Committee does just that. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Does the Minister agree that any law including electoral law requires the participants to do what is morally right as well as what is legally right and does she think that this is the reason the National Party is having so much trouble interpreting the Electoral Finance Bill? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No the second part of the question is obviously out of order. The first part is within the ministerial responsibility of the Minister of Justice. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes I do. 
Hon Bill English 
: What confidence does the Minister believe it gives the public or anyone who wants to take a position in an election year when the chief executive of the Electoral Commission responsible for enforcing the bill said today: “On any situation where we’ve got one two maybe three four different interpretations then we run the risk of problems during the time between 1st January and election day.”? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I think the chief executive of the Electoral Commission has made it clear there are two main areas that she has concern about. It is in the interpretation of the words “in his or her capacity as a member of Parliament” and “inducement to vote”. I understand that the select committee did attempt to address this issue. In fact it was the subject of a meeting between the Ministry of Justice the Electoral Commission and the Clerk of the House. Dave McGee provided advice on this issue and I will table the advice for Parliament to see. He suggested three options. The committee decided to go with his third option. That third option states that if the committee does wish the phrase “in his or her capacity as a member of Parliament” to be used within the legislation it may wish to provide any guidance or clarification of the meaning of that phrase for the purpose of the bill in the commentary rather than in the bill itself. In fact it is provided in the commentary of the bill but I can see that it could have further clarification during the second reading debate. 
Hon Bill English 
: What confidence does the Minister think it gives the public when the chief executive of the Electoral Commission is told this: “It is your problem because you’re the one in the hot seat or one of two senior officials in the hot seat making just those decisions” about what the bill means and Dr Catt replies: “Yes we can’t make them. What we said to the select committee was as it stands at the moment the advice we would have to give to parties is to seek your own legal advice.”? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Dr Helena Catt has made it clear that the commission would welcome further clarification in the commentary on this bill. I believe that is possible. It is also the role of the Electoral Commission as was pointed out by the select committee to give guidance in terms of interpretation as well. 
Hon Bill English 
: How much confidence does the Minister think it gives the public or anyone who wants to participate in democracy next year when the person who is meant to be the expert on the law says people should go and get their own lawyer; and when they do go to the lawyers they tell people to go and ask the Electoral Commission; and when I have said to the lawyers we will go and ask the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Justice has said the law of common sense will be applied not the law that is written? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I believe the law of common sense will apply. There will also be adequate interpretation for the Electoral Commission to be able to make some decisions. I have greater faith in the Electoral Commission’s ability to do that and to work with the Government to do that than that member has. His whole role has been to undermine this bill so that it is not enacted by next year for one purpose—and this has been highlighted over and over again in this Parliament by many parties—and that is to allow National’s big backers to spend their money in any way they like to buy the election for a National Government. 
Hon Bill English 
: Has the Minister read the commentary on her own bill in light of the comments by the chief executive of the Electoral Commission that she finds it hard to define party election expenses—and she is the expert—when the commentary states “The activities that are permissible will need to be confirmed by the Electoral Commission or Chief Electoral Officer case by case” and when that person has said she does not know what the law means; how stupid is that? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I suggest that the member should not be “Mr Angry”. He should keep calm and read the rest because he has done what he always does: he did not complete the reading from the commentary. The commentary came from the select committee and it states: “but we expect that guidance on excluded communication might draw a distinction between communications that make statements of policy and those that involve inducement to vote for a candidate or a party or soliciting financial support for membership of a political party.” That is the full quote from the select committee. That is in the commentary. Bill English did not read that out and I have already made it clear that the Electoral Commission has sought further advice on the words “inducement to vote”. That can be provided in the commentary during the second reading of the bill. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister understand how frustrating it is for members of Parliament who want to comply with this law when they find that they need to ensure that their activities as a member of Parliament do not constitute a “party” activity and therefore count as an election expense yet when they try to find out what they are allowed to do by going off to the Electoral Commission and its chief executive and asking her what they are allowed to do they are told that she does not understand this bit of the law so they should go and get their own legal advice? If I get it wrong I am guilty after the fact of corrupt practice and can get kicked out of Parliament—what kind of law is that? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: It’s exactly what happened in 2005! 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I thank the Minister of Finance for that; it is exactly what did happen in 2005—exactly. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is it now the case that MPs who want to comply with this law should go and ask the Electoral Commission’s chief executive who has said she does not understand it and we cannot rely on what she says and that we therefore have to go off and get our own legal advice from people who know even less than she does? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I think that any party or member of Parliament who wanted to approach the Electoral Commission would be perfectly able to do so and I suggest that many people probably will. 
Hon Bill English 
: How can the Parliament have any confidence in the Minister when it is the chief executive of the Electoral Commission who is meant to decide these things and who is meant to give opinions in order to assist MPs to comply with the law and avoid the penalties of corrupt practice and when the Minister is telling us to go and ask that person who has said explicitly today that it is precisely that bit of the law that she cannot interpret; how stupid is that? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I would have a lot more faith if I were the public in the Minister of Justice than the public have now in the National Party which was prepared to allow the system to be rorted and to allow a third party to buy it the Treasury benches. That did not work then and we are going to make sure it does not work next time. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I know that in question time there is the opportunity for Ministers to make political points just as there is for the Opposition in asking questions but this is a serious matter. This is about trying to get advice from the Government which is pushing through the Electoral Finance Bill about the way MPs can get legal advice in order to comply with the law. There is hardly a more serious issue for the members of this House and for the accountability of the executive. Otherwise we are put in the position where the Government says that the law may mean anything and that by the way if members break it they will be kicked out. This is a forum—in fact the very forum—where MPs should be told by the Minister how to avoid corruption in politics and she is not answering the questions. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Speaking to the point of order I say that the member needs to go back and look at his question. He asked: “How can the Parliament have any confidence in the Minister … ?”. I answered the question. The fact that he does not like the answer is not my fault. However I would add that it is also not my role to interpret the law for individual members of Parliament. That has never been the role of the Minister of Justice. How many former Ministers of Justice on that side of the House had MPs coming to them and asking them to interpret the Electoral Act as it is now? Not one of them. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Given the way that the original supplementary question was phrased the Minister did address that question. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That was actually a point of order. This side of the House listened to Mr English in complete silence. There was an enormous amount of barracking on the Minister of Justice but she was still speaking to the point of order at that stage not giving an answer to a question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I remind Mr English that points of order are heard in silence. His was. In future I am afraid that I will be asking members who do not respect that ruling to leave the Chamber. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Madam Speaker you have just ruled that Mr English’s question was inappropriate. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I did not make that ruling. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: It was appropriate for the answer that the Minister gave. I know that Mr English is not a new member but then the Minister is not a new Minister either. I think she knew full well what was intended by that question. I seek leave for the National Party allocation to be unaltered by Mr English having a second crack at that question. That courtesy is often extended to other people who offer a question that is either directly or inadvertently misunderstood by a Minister. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Metiria Turei 
: Is the Minister aware that the Exclusive Brethren are right now running a smear campaign against the Australian Greens accusing them of immorality and starting race riots and does she agree that if the Electoral Finance Bill was scrapped as the National Party wants then associated groups such as the Exclusive Brethren with access to millions of dollars could dominate the election debate with lies and drown out those who raise legitimate issues thereby undermining their right to freedom of expression? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I agree with the member. In fact I have also read the press release that has come out of Tasmania in Australia about the Exclusive Brethren’s activity in the election right now. They are accusing the Greens not only of those things but also of bestiality as well. This Parliament has decided we will not have that sort of campaign again and we will pass a bill that stops the sort of campaigning the National Party supported at the last election and tried to cover up.