English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:634;Page:5715] 
10.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does he agree with the statements of the Chief Electoral Officer that the Labour pledge card and the A2-size pamphlet headed “Working together” “clearly encourages … voters to vote for the Labour Party” and that “the expenses of these publications should be included in your [Labour’s] return of election expenses”; if not why not? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The member’s question appears to paraphrase a statement setting out a legal interpretation of the Chief Electoral Officer—a statement that I have not received. As I have previously advised the House on a number of occasions it would be inappropriate for me to comment on what are legal interpretations of the Chief Electoral Officer made in the course of his duties under the Electoral Act 1993. Furthermore I would not expect to receive copies of statements from the Chief Electoral Officer to any political party including the Labour Party because I do not have ministerial responsibility for political party expenditure. 
Hon Bill English 
: In his capacity as the Minister overseeing the Electoral Act is he aware that following that opinion from the Chief Electoral Officer the general secretary of the Labour Party wrote back to him agreeing on 13 September 2005 to include the pledge card as an electoral expense that would be counted for the campaign spending limit but after the election on 3 October wrote again to the Chief Electoral Officer saying that he had changed his mind and would not include the pledge card as an election expense? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: As I have pointed out to the member it would be absolutely inappropriate for me to receive those communications between that statutory officer and political parties. Otherwise I might equally have received copies of correspondence between the Chief Electoral Officer and the Exclusive Brethren on how it sought to avoid $1.2 million of an election advertising smear campaign on behalf of the National Party being counted in the National Party’s election campaign expenditure. I did not receive that either. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister aware that the Auditor-General’s finding today—that the Labour Party pledge card and brochure were electioneering—confirms the opinion of the Chief Electoral Officer the Solicitor-General and Pete Hodgson Labour’s strategist that Labour therefore breached the campaign spending limit which is set down under section 214B of the Electoral Act and that that is an act of corrupt practice? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Of course I have not read the reports tabled in this House today. Opportunity has not yet presented itself. If I had chosen to comment having not read them I might make the sort of silly mistake the member’s colleague Mr Brownlee made attacking a very senior legal practitioner who was part of one of those reports. The member who is so busily commenting on them clearly had not read them. I have not read them so of course I will not comment on them. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the member aware that the test of whether Labour’s publications amount to electioneering and therefore count for the campaign spending limit is not reliant on the Auditor-General’s report but on well-known legal cases such as the case against RegBoorman in the Wairarapa in 1988 and  
Peters v Clarkson 
 in Tauranga in 2005; and that that is how we know Labour breached the spending limit because its publications breached the guidelines laid down by the court of New Zealand? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The member does not seem to be able to grasp that I as Minister of Justice do not have responsibility for individual party expenditure. Otherwise I might equally be called on to explain and account for the National Party’s overspend on its broadcasting activity. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister aware that in respect of breaching section 214B of the Electoral Act publications were authorised by Heather Simpson and that she told the police she did not regard the pledge card as electioneering because it was part of the 3-year publication plan and does he believe that “planning” to break the law means that one did not do it? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I am afraid it is not my responsibility to provide that member with free legal advice. 
Hon Bill English 
: What is the Minister’s view of an Electoral Act which sets a limit on campaign spending under section 214B—[ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think there were six interjections in the first sentence of my question. I am prepared to accept a reasonable level of interjection but I think Parliament has a right to hear the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I would agree but the same rule is also to apply to those who give the answer. All members in this Chamber are entitled to be heard. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister believe that the Electoral Act for which he is responsible is effective when the Labour Party was able to break the campaign spending limit by over half a million dollars and get away with it when Bob Clarkson went to court in 2005 and if he had gone over the limit he would have been chucked out of Parliament? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: As I previously said I do not have and it is inappropriate for me to comment on the legal interpretations of statutory officers in my capacity. But I have informed the House previously as I have informed select committees that I do believe there is cause to have a good look at electoral law around the whole area of electoral expenses donations advertising and broadcasting. And that work is well advanced. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: As Mr English has brought the question of Bob Clarkson to issue here is the Minister aware that at the court Mr Clarkson denied knowledge of working with the Exclusive Brethren yet just 3 weeks ago admitted he did? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think that question is asking an opinion of the Minister on a matter that was raised but I do not think the Minister has ministerial responsibility for that. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I heard a very unparliamentary comment from the member for Hamilton East which I think he should withdraw and apologise for. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please withdraw and apologise. 
David Bennett 
: What for? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I did not hear what the member said but would the member please— 
David Bennett 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. What was the comment? 
Hon Chris Carter 
: When Mr Peters was speaking I heard him yell out “liar”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but that is unparliamentary. [ 
Interruption 
] It was Mr Clarkson who said “liar” was it? Members please whoever made that unparliamentary comment which was obviously heard by members would he or she please withdraw and apologise. 
Bob Clarkson 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I tell the truth and he does not. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: So you are calling the member a liar and you are refusing to withdraw and apologise? 
Bob Clarkson 
: Definitely. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would you please leave the Chamber. 
Bob Clarkson withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I stand by my statement that the member for Hamilton East also called out “liar”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If the member says he did not say that I will take the member’s word. 
David Bennett 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I did say that as well. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member did say it. Would he then please withdraw and apologise. Before the member said he did not say it. 
David Bennett 
: I never said I did not say it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: But you know that “liar” is an unparliamentary word. [ 
Interruption 
] Please be seated. I understand that the member is a new member. Would he please now withdraw and apologise for using an unparliamentary term. 
David Bennett 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I would like to remind you of your earlier warning to that member that he was on his last warning. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That member is a repeat offender but he has withdrawn and apologised so perhaps for the benefit of the rest of the Chamber he could just hold his counsel. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister surprised that Winston Peters thought that if Bob Clarkson breached the electoral spending cap under section 214B it was so serious that he had to take him to the High Court but now he is busy— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That is a ridiculous prefix to a question about which the member knows nothing. Surely it is not within the purview of the Minister anyway. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I suggest that the member rephrase his question as a question. 
Hon Bill English 
: Speaking to the point of order I point out that the Minister is responsible for section 214B. There are in fact only three or four court cases regarding section 214B and it is quite legitimate to ask him about the effectiveness of that section given the behaviour of Mr Peters. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Hon Mark Burton has been asked a question. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I did not actually hear the question from the member. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please repeat the question. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister believe that the Electoral Act is effective when Mr Peters took Bob Clarkson to court over the issue of whether Mr Clarkson had breached section 214B but right now is supporting a Government that certainly did breach the section? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I think the matters surrounding the case of Mr Clarkson are among many of the reasons why the review of electoral law particularly as it relates to electoral expenses donations advertising and broadcasting is required—similarly as it applies to GST problems suffered by the National Party and in particular the $1.2 million smear campaign funded in aid of the National Party during the last election campaign.