English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:646;Page:15347] 
6.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does she stand by her statement in relation to whether particular material constitutes election advertising that “It is the Electoral Commissioners’ view that counts.”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Justice 
: It is clear that the Electoral Commission has a central role in determining what is election advertising. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is it the Government’s policy that political parties should be able to spend taxpayers’ money on election advertisements in election year? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Two different forms of legislation govern this matter. The Parliamentary Service Act governs what members of Parliament can spend money on. The Electoral Commission determines what is election advertising. Matters that are properly authorised as being for parliamentary purposes do not count as election advertising for the returns of expenses. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that the Electoral Commission has ruled that the Labour Party’s  
We’re Making a Difference to Everyone 
 booklet was paid for out of parliamentary funding and that it constitutes an election advertisement thereby making it quite clear that taxpayers’ money has been used for Labour’s election-year advertising? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As with this DVD the booklet was prepared last year. It covers and contains simple statements of fact about what the Government has done. I note that a very large number of communications from National MPs to constituents about a range of matters of National Party policy are properly paid for out of Parliamentary Service funding. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is it the Government’s policy that spending on election advertising in an election year should be subject to a cap; if so can the Minister give any reason why the cost of Labour’s booklet funded by taxpayers’ money should not be declared in Labour’s return of election expenses and therefore count towards its election expenses cap? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I wish the member would keep holding up high 
 We’re Making a Difference to Everyone 
. If he holds it right up the camera will get a very clear view of it. That is probably why yet again Mr Key is chewing his fingernails in the Chamber at the present time. The Electoral Finance Act provides a very broad definition of what electoral advertising is considered to be. Parliamentary purposes as the member himself pointed out in the debate many times cover a wide range of activities by members of Parliament. Members of Parliament do not suddenly become non-politicians because it is an election year. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Minister received in all of this comparative debate about the parliamentary spending of taxpayers’ money any reports as to the amounts of money the parties are spending and which party spends the most? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is well known that the National Party receives the lion’s share of Parliamentary Service funding. What National members have never told us because they spent the lot in 2005 is what they spent it on. We know that in 2002 they paid for advertising in newspapers out of Parliamentary Service funding under Mr English. They have never told us what they spent the money on in 2005. It remains a secret which they keep hidden. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that it is Government policy that Government departments and other instruments of the Crown cannot permit public money under their supervision to be spent on election advertisements; if so how can the Parliamentary Service permit the Labour Party to publish this election advertisement which I am holding up out of parliamentary funding now that we know that it is an election advertisement? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Parliamentary Service is not a Government department. It is a statutory commission and all parties are represented on it. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that if Labour’s use of taxpayers’ money for this election advertisement which I am holding up does not count against the election spending cap that makes a mockery of the Electoral Finance Act because it means that alongside the election expenses that are tightly monitored there is now a large slush fund of millions of dollars that political parties can spend in an election year on things like Labour’s booklets just like its pledge card from the last election? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Since the National Party gets roughly twice as much money as the Labour Party out of the Parliamentary Service I do hope it will spend it on Labour booklets as he just promised. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You made a ruling that members could put the name of the party they belong to on their parliamentary boxes. But I do not think it should extend to advertising in the way that the Maori Party members are doing. Their parliamentary boxes have on them “The Maori Party is 2 meke” which means that they are too much. They cannot do that any more than the National members can have a sign saying they are too inexperienced or the ACT members can say they are too absent from the House. I think it is inappropriate because it abuses the ruling— 
Hon Bill English 
: New Zealand First is on 2 percent. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: It might be now but I can tell the House that the National members will be climbing over glass to get to us after the election. That is the experience of New Zealand First. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As the member knows that is not a point of order. However it is a matter he may raise with me outside the House.