Finlayson Christopher: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Finlayson Christopher: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:642;Page:12515] 
8.  
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does he stand by his statement regarding the Electoral Finance Bill that “the select committee process will add value by further refining the bill”; if so what refinements was he referring to? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 That is my view but I would not presume to predetermine the specific outcome of a select committee’s consideration of the matters before it. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Is it not the reality that the bill is incapable of refinement; and should the Minister not listen to the Human Rights Commission which like the New Zealand Law Society said that the right thing to do is to withdraw the bill and completely rewrite it or will he continue to toe the party line and defend this indefensible assault on freedom of speech? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I do not accept the first premise in the member’s statement—that the bill is indefensible. It is eminently defendable. It will be subject to refinement as I said in the answer to the first question and I am sure that that will help to improve what is already good legislation. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Is the Minister aware of the delaying tactics of Opposition parties at the Justice and Electoral Committee; if he is aware of that would he agree with me that those delays are designed to postpone the introduction of the Electoral Finance Bill so that the National Party can run a costly billboard campaign during the early months of 2008 just as it did in 2005? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. The first part of the question is in order but not the second. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Indeed I think the member has it precisely right and although as you point out Madam Speaker his assumption is beyond my ministerial responsibility I am sure that it is correct. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: If the Minister will not withdraw the bill will he ensure after changes are made to the bill either by the select committee or by Supplementary Order Paper that the bill is sent back to the select committee so that the public can make submissions and give evidence on what will be fundamentally different legislation from the current disaster which he commended to the House at first reading? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: That proposal it seems to me ignores the very fundamental role of a select committee. The member seems to be suggesting that we should call for public submissions presumably listen to take note of and respond to them by way of potentially refining the bill and then ignore that process and go back to start all over again. I understand that National members want to try any strategy at all to avoid actually having change made to legislation that they used to abuse the electoral system last time with their friends by means of multimillion-dollar rorts of the system. I am sorry but this party will not support that sort of avoidance of fixing the rort-prone electoral law that we currently have. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Is the Minister aware that individual members of the Exclusive Brethren Church were the third-biggest spenders at the last election—outspending all political parties except National and Labour—if so does he think that they should be brought under the sensible rules of New Zealand’s electoral law just like the rest of us? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: That is my understanding. I think that when one considers the wide range of expenditure that the Exclusive Brethren undertook—not only the million-dollar campaign that we are all aware of and the $350000 pamphlet campaign that preceded it but of course the phone canvassing and push-polling undertaken at the urging of various National MPs—which Mr Neville Simmons has recently admitted took place—to try to further undermine the electoral system in New Zealand. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Will the public have an opportunity to comment and make submissions on the Supplementary Order Paper—yes or no? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: There is no Supplementary Order Paper for anyone to comment on. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Has the Minister heard reports that this morning in the select committee the Human Rights Commission said it had considered the decision of the Supreme Court in  
Harper v Canada 
 on which the Minister places so much reliance but had decided that it was not worth mentioning because all it stood for was the principle of caps on third-party spending; and how does he reconcile that with his own comment last week that the Human Rights Commission had neglected to consider the case? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The Human Rights Commission made no reference to the case in its submission as the member knows—I am sure he has read it—and it certainly did not seem to me to reflect any consideration of it. I say it is a bit rich to have National quoting endlessly the Human Rights Commission when one considers that that is the party whose then PC eradicator Dr Wayne Mapp claimed that minorities had captured certain institutions in New Zealand and were telling people in New Zealand how to think. He said that the Human Rights Commission was one of those institutions and that it should not have an advocacy role. It is very interesting that for once the National Party seems to place some credence in the Human Rights Commission’s view. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Why is the Minister changing his mind on the $60000 spending cap and changing his mind on the definition of an election advertisement but will not change his mind on the most glaring omission—that being the lack of any measures in this bill to prevent his party from robbing the taxpayer of $800000 to fund another pledge card? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: As I indicated in my primary answer I have not yet responded to the select committee’s consideration of these matters because it has not yet reported. But as for stealing the real attempted theft in 2005 was the National Party’s attempt to steal an election outcome. 
Simon Power 
: Has the Minister received any reports on whether New Zealand First has paid back the money it owes from the last election? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As the member knows the Minister has no ministerial responsibility for that matter. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Barely a day goes by when we do not have Government members asking every Minister for reports on all manner of things and you have repeatedly said that it is perfectly in order to ask a Minister for a report. We are asking questions of the Minister of Justice and he has responsibility for electoral law. One of the key breaches at the last election was that a number of parties used taxpayer allocations for campaigning as found by the Auditor-General and that is why the question from my colleague Simon Power as to the reports the Minister of Justice—who is responsible for electoral law—had received is perfectly in order. I simply ask for some consistency. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I understand the member’s argument. The fact remains of course that reports can be called for but only reports on matters that are subject to ministerial responsibility. As the member knows that is not a matter of this Minister’s responsibility. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Yes it is. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry Dr Smith; it is not. Please be seated or you will leave the Chamber. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Mr Mark Burton the Minister of Justice is responsible for electoral law. One of the key debates around electoral law is the use of taxpayers’ money such as we saw on the pledge card at the last election. I cannot see how you can rule that a question specifically about that and whether he had received reports on it is somehow now deemed to be outside his jurisdiction given the broad range of questions you have allowed on this issue. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister is not responsible for that matter. The Minister who is responsible for it is the Minister responsible for the Parliamentary Service which is well known. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Just protecting the Government! 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member who made that comment please leave the Chamber—the comment that the Speaker was protecting a member. That is totally unacceptable. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Protecting the Government. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith withdrew from the Chamber. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does he agree with the Human Rights Commission in its submission this morning that his 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 he does not agree with the commission will he explain to the House why the Human Rights Commission is wrong in its submission? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: No I do not agree because I think that alongside the provisions in the bill there is the opportunity for the select committee to look at those to ensure that if there are areas within it that need to be refined that is done and for the select committee to ensure that the purpose of the legislation is as well delivered as it can be. So I fundamentally disagree with the commission. The purpose of this legislation is to protect the right of participation of ordinary New Zealanders and their right not to have their voices overwhelmed by those who have the capacity to spend large amounts of money.