English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:642;Page:11907] 
4.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does he stand by his statement that the Electoral Finance Bill “will help promote participation in parliamentary democracy”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Justice 
: Yes. 
Hon Bill English 
: How does the Minister reconcile the statement that the bill will help promote participation in parliamentary democracy with the statement made by the Human Rights Commission—hardly an extremist organisation—that the regulation of third parties in the bill “makes a mockery of [the] clause … which refers to promoting participation by the public in parliamentary democracy.”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I justify that because it is the aim of the bill to ensure that people are able to participate in a good fair and open election campaign which is the aim of a democracy. I am looking forward of course to the Human Rights Commission getting a chance to talk through its submission with the select committee. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Is the Minister concerned that some submitters to the Electoral Finance Bill believe that their rights of free speech will be inhibited simply because they cannot spend vast amounts of money on advertising or is he more concerned with protecting the one person one vote concept of democracy that is dear to most New Zealanders’ hearts? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I could not have put it better myself. Of course this bill is about ensuring that people cannot buy policies and cannot buy election campaigns. It guarantees that all New Zealanders will feel they are being heard being listened to and having a fair vote. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that under the Minister of Justice’s bill the Labour Government will try to buy the election because the bill will allow the Government to run a campaign on low-cost health care using political messages that would be outlawed if they were financed privately? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister elaborate on the last answer given that the messages included in the Ministry of Health’s instructions to telephone answerers would count as electoral advertising if they were coming from an organisation that was privately financed and not using taxpayers’ money? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I would say that it is entirely appropriate for someone on the end of a phone to alert a caller to the range of policies that may help him or her. That is what that taxpayer’s money is for and that is why those messages should be promoted to the caller. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister not understand that someone answering a taxpayer-funded telephone service outlining the record of the Labour Government on health would be making statements that are currently defined in law as election advertising and are therefore outside the law—so there will be one law for Government-funded advertising campaigns and another law for everyone else? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: What I understand—if I can take a concrete example—is that if someone rings the helpline for the family violence programme and if that person is referred to a publicly funded non-governmental organisation then that is a good use of taxpayers’ money. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that if someone rings the 0800 number described in the Government-funded advertising campaign for election year and if the person who answers that phone call points out four or five of the things the Labour Government claims to have achieved in health then that amounts to taking a position on a proposition associated with a political party and therefore it would be illegal if anyone else financed it? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The member’s examples are getting more and more bizarre. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister give a definitive answer to Caritas and the example it has provided in its submission in which it says that the Catholic bishops’ campaign on poverty scheduled for election year will be caught as election advertising and therefore will effectively be banned and in which it also states: “We cannot easily see how the bill will distinguish between organisations such as the Exclusive Brethren and Caritas.”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The member knows that the problem with the Exclusive Brethren is that they delivered a vast amount of material without identifying who they were. If anyone tried to track them down they could not be found. The amount of money they spent was always a matter of subterfuge as they tried to support the election of a National Government. That is the problem. If people are out in the open saying who they are and going about their normal business there obviously is no problem. 
Hon Bill English 
: Will the Catholic bishops’ campaign on poverty scheduled for election year 2008 be caught as an election advertisement and therefore make the Catholic Church subject to all the requirements of the third party regulations in this bill? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I think the Minister of Justice has made it clear a number of times that the intention of this legislation is to capture people like the Exclusive Brethren not the Catholic Church as in the example the member has pointed out—that is the Catholic Church going about its normal process of issue-based discussion and not supporting a particular party but simply explaining an issue. The member wishes he could find an example like this to make it stick but I am sorry he cannot. 
Hon Bill English 
: If the Minister says that I am making it up— 
Hon Member 
: 21 percent. 
Hon Bill English 
: I tell the member to stop forecasting his own election result. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If members have finished we will have the question. 
Hon Bill English 
: If the Minister says that I am making it all up and the example is bizarre what basis does he think Caritas and the Catholic Bishops Conference would possibly have for the statements that they have made in their submission—that it will catch their campaign on poverty and that the bill does not distinguish between groups like the Catholic Church or Caritas and the Exclusive Brethren—or were they just making it all up? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: If I were the Catholic Church and if I were receiving a mail-out from the National Party I might start to worry as well. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. With all due respect the Minister is the Minister responsible for this question and surely should address the question put to him rather than just making some flippant comment indicating to the House whom he is not. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister like to expand on his answer please. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The substance of the question from Mr English was why the Catholic Church would worry. My answer was that it would worry if it was being communicated to by people on the National benches about this issue in a distorted way as it has been. That is the source of the problem. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Will the Minister ensure that the bill is amended so that the Catholic Church’s campaign can proceed given the facts that thanks to Working for Families this Government has cut child poverty by two-thirds and the National Party opposed the Working for Families package? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I will ensure that that takes place because of course this is the kind of good news that the National Party does not like but that ought to be told right across New Zealand.