English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 24 October 2007. Volume:643;Page:12642. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
3.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does he still fundamentally disagree with the Human Rights Commission’s view that the Electoral Finance Bill “represents a dramatic assault on two fundamental human rights that New Zealanders cherish freedom of expression and the right of informed citizens to participate in the election process.”; if so why? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes; for the same reasons given on Thursday 18 October when the author of this question Mr Hide first asked it. It is the opportunity to hear and weigh the merits of various points of view without the views of those who would use wealth to drown out all the voices of others that enables informed citizen participation in the electoral process. 
Hon Bill English 
: What does he believe the public are to make of a situation whereby the Human Rights Commission which has a statutory responsibility to advocate for human rights in New Zealand has used the strongest possible words to describe the effects of the bill in calling it “a dramatic assault on two fundamental human rights that New Zealanders cherish” and in calling for the bill to be withdrawn and completely rewritten but the Labour Government just shrugs its shoulders and says it is happy with the bill and that is all that matters? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Although I have great respect for the Human Rights Commission—and that is a matter of longstanding record which is somewhat different from the National Party I have to say—the fact is that the principal purpose of this bill is to protect the rights of citizens to participate without having their voices overwhelmed by those who would use substantial wealth to drown them out. 
Hon Bill English 
: Has he seen the comment made by the Human Rights Commission: “It is difficult to conceive of a greater limitation on freedom of speech”—a comment the Government is paying no attention to—so why bother having a Human Rights Commission if the Government will ignore it just because the Human Rights Commission thinks something different from the Labour Party which is unusual in itself? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I think the last quip is more in keeping with the usual tone of disdain that the National Party usually shows for the Human Rights Commission. But I have to say— 
Hon Member 
: No human rights. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Or for human rights for that matter. As I indicated the Human Rights Commission was a submitter to the parliamentary select committee process—a process for which I have the greatest regard. Out of that process I anticipate a refined bill that I am sure will add value to the process and many views have been expressed. I am sure that at the end of that process we will see a bill that we can progress through the House. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister see that it strengthens the Human Rights Commission‘s criticism of the bill when his own defence of it consists mainly of accusing the National Party and other people of trying to rort the electoral system; and why does he not take their comments seriously precisely because people from right across the political spectrum have the same views as the Human Rights Commission—in fact everyone except Labour? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: As usual the member concludes his question with a completely erroneous statement. The fact is that it is appropriate that we can have disagreement with any submitter including on this occasion the Human Rights Commission in respect of some of its conclusions. That the National Party sought to rort the electoral system—and that the voters and the electors of New Zealand require protection from that behaviour—is beyond question. That is the purpose of this legislation. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does he think it appropriate that this Parliament pass electoral law that the Human Rights Commission is implacably opposed to; and would the Government consider the suggestions made by the Human Rights Commission for the amendment of the Electoral Finance Bill? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The Human Rights Commission as I recall its submission made a number of suggestions for change which included some comment around the definition of advertising around spending limits and so on and which in fact were made by a number of submitters. I have indicated from day one that the Government is open to considering the recommendations made to the select committee and I await with interest the deliberation of the committee on the bill. 
Tariana Turia 
: Does he agree that the electoral finance laws must not be designed and determined by politicians and parties in isolation of the people; and what process will the House initiate to ensure New Zealanders have an opportunity to decide on any changes rather than just politicians? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: With respect to the member I think that process is in progress as we speak. It is called the parliamentary select committee process. Its entire purpose is to enable any and all with an interest in a matter being considered by Parliament on its referral to a select committee to have their say—and on this matter many hundreds of people have. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is he aware that one of the reasons the Human Rights Commission has described the bill as “a dramatic assault on … fundamental human rights” is the regulated period starting on 1 January in an election year; and can he confirm that the Electoral Commission in the United Kingdom studied its country’s 12-month election period—the longest in the world—and recommended that the regulated period for candidate election expenses and national spending by parties should be fixed at 4 months because it found that the 12-month period was far too long? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I think the first of the several questions the member asked is correct—that was one of a number of issues raised in this particular submission as with a number of others. As to the latter my recollection is that the case the member refers to was for the first time that that legislation applied in the UK jurisdiction. 
Hon Bill English 
: Just how strong would the language of the Human Rights Commission need to be for the Government to take any notice of what it says given that it has already described the bill as a “dramatic assault on two fundamental human rights that New Zealanders cherish” and given that it has already said “It is difficult to conceive of a greater limitation on freedom of speech”—what else would the Human Rights Commission have to say before the Government took any notice? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: As I have already indicated to the member I have considerable respect for the Human Rights Commission but on this matter we are at odds. However a number of the specific recommendations the commission makes like a number of other submitters have some merit. I await the decision and consideration of the select committee—a select committee that has representation from every party in this House—in order to see what changes if any the committee is recommending.