English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:643;Page:13069] 
6.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does she stand by her statement yesterday when asked whether Government advertising programmes would be caught by the definition of election advertising in the Electoral Finance Bill “No Government departments will not be caught because they will go to the Auditor-General to have their advertising cleared.”; if so why? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Economic Development) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Justice 
: On behalf of Annette King— 
Hon Member 
: “Mr Fix-it”. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: It’s not broken yet but he’s going to fix it. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Just wait for high tide mate. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If there are any further comments like that I will ask the member to leave the Chamber. It only creates disorder. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes; Government departments are not allowed to electioneer. The Prime Minister said as much again earlier this week and moreover the State Services Commission guidelines are in the public arena for all to see. Should any Government department have doubts as to whether it is within established guidelines then it would be well advised to seek the advice of the Auditor-General. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Auditor-General referred to in the answer to the question the same Auditor-General described last year by the Prime Minister as “overturning accepted and longstanding practices on electoral spending” and the same Auditor-General whom the Prime Minister accused of smearing the reputation of Labour and other parties and of changing the rules on electoral spending after the final whistle had blown; if so why has the Government developed a new-found respect for his judgment on the legality of election spending? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It is the same Auditor-General. If the Auditor-General says that the spending of the Government department in question is not electioneering then I think we can believe that that is the case. 
Ann Hartley 
: Has the Minister seen any examples of where taxpayer funding has been used for election advertising? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes I have. I have here from the National Party unsurprisingly a full-colour glossy product from National’s front-bencher Dr Nick Smith and here is what it states: “Why New Zealand needs a new Government” and “Nick for Nelson”. It was paid for by the New Zealand taxpayer—not in 2005 before the Auditor-General decided to have his say on the matter but it was printed in 2007 which was afterwards. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Members are permitted to briefly display pamphlets or whatever they have but not to throw them around the Chamber in the way that that was happening. I ask the member who is perfectly entitled to display the pamphlet to then put it down. The same advice goes to the Minister. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That seems to me to be a particularly harsh ruling. Mr Williamson was not throwing the pamphlet around the Chamber. He was simply augmenting the extraordinary display of taxpayer-paid Labour signage that is throughout the House already. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No that is not a point of order. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table my newsletters from 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 and in fact for every single year that I have been a member of Parliament. 
Documents not tabled. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I seek leave for the pamphlet from Dr Nick Smith that has just been displayed to be referred to the Auditor-General for comment as to its legality under the current spending rules in Parliament. 
Document not tabled. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Does the Minister have any reason to believe that our impartial Civil Service will do anything other than the right thing during an election period with regard to advertising and does she agree that National members should not judge others by what they would do themselves? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I thank the member for his question. It is an opportunity to put on the record that the State sector of this country across successive Governments maintains its neutrality. I say simply given that we have heightened anxiety about these matters should Government departments have any concerns about whether they are electioneering or even slightly electioneering they should rush off and see the Auditor-General and get clearance from that office. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Minister agree with the Green Party’s electoral finance proposal to ban donations that originate from overseas with the exception of donations from New Zealand citizens who live overseas and are entitled to vote to ensure that political parties are not influenced or supported by international political and financial interests that are kept secret from the New Zealand public? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The formal answer to the member’s question is that I await the response of the select committee and its report back to the House; indeed that is where the matters lie at the moment. But I make the comment that this is a House of Representatives and not a House of Representatives who happen to have rich mates. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister tell the House why the New Zealand public would have faith in Labour’s commitment to the Auditor-General’s processes when before the 2005 election he tabled a report in this Parliament telling MPs what the rules were and how important it was to stick to them and then Labour in a campaign of calculated deceit went and broke those rules breached the electoral cap and had to pay the money back—Labour did that under the Auditor-General’s guidelines? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I have only a couple of points to make. The first is that the member needs to get the timing right. Labour got the judgment after the expenditure not before—that is the first thing. There is no doubt about that. The second point is that members could not say that the Auditor-General is something of a soft touch could they? 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister explain to the House why the public should believe Labour’s commitment to following the rules laid down by public officials when during the 2005 election campaign it was warned in writing by the Chief Electoral Officer that spending the money on the pledge card would breach the electoral cap the Labour Party replied by acknowledging the problem and saying it would count the money for election spending and then 3 days after it was elected it withdrew that undertaking; so why would the public believe Labour’s commitment to following the rules? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It seems to me that when the member fails to make a point in one aspect of his argument he simply shifts his target. You see on the issue of the Auditor-General it is a matter of fact that we were given advice after the expenditure—that is a matter of fact. On the issue of whether Government departments ought to go to the Auditor-General the advice from this Government—from the Prime Minister down—is: “If you have any doubt do so and you won’t find the Auditor-General a soft touch.” It seems to me that the member is buying into the conspiracy that we found in the  
New Zealand Herald  
earlier this week that somehow Government departments are going to be immune from the electoral finance legislation. In fact the Leader of the Opposition made the same mistake in question No. 1. I can assure the member there will be no immunity or special treatment for Government departments under this Government. 
Hon Bill English 
: When will the Minister of Justice finally understand what the law will be: that when the Electoral Finance Bill is passed it will not be a matter for the Auditor-General to decide whether Government department advertising is lawful but a matter for the law—that is the Electoral Finance Act if it becomes so—to lay down a test of what makes election advertising? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: There are guidelines on the State Services Commission’s website. The member should go to those guidelines and look at them because the State Services Commission requires that they be followed by all State agencies. If any State agency has any doubt about whether it is following those guidelines irrespective of what any law that does not apply to Government departments says then they can go to the Auditor-General to get some further advice. The bottom line is this. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: We will now have the rest of the answer in silence. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The bottom line is this. Government departments may not electioneer they have never been able to and they are not allowed to in this case as well. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister now remove the confusion created by his last answer as to whether it is Government policy that Government departments will be exempt from the election advertising rules or whether they will be subject to the election advertising rules as set out in the Electoral Finance Bill? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Not only are Government departments not allowed to electioneer which is the case now but there is a tighter test for Government departments than there is for the rest of us. It is to be found in the State Services Commission’s guidelines. If Government departments have any doubt as to whether they are following those tighter guidelines then they can go to the Auditor-General for advice and we recommend that they do. 
Hon Bill English 
: How can the guidelines be tighter than the Electoral Finance Bill requirements when the Electoral Finance Bill definition of an election advertisement states it is anything that encourages a person to vote for any party or candidate as indicated by reference to any position on any issue? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member is inviting me—as other members did earlier this week—to comment on what changes might or might not be going on in the select committee. It is not proper for me to do so. I say to the member that he does not have long to wait.