English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:644;Page:13424] 
6.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does she stand by her statement that in her view the term “capacity as a member of Parliament” in the Electoral Finance Bill “excludes statements of policy made outside the House that are intended to be enacted by a future Parliament.”; if so why? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Economic Development) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Justice 
: Yes that is what she said. However she will be having further discussions with other parties who have identified possible concerns. If the member has identified possible concerns she would be happy to have further discussions with him. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister aware that the definition she has given Parliament means that a member of Parliament who said outside Parliament: “Our policy is to cut personal taxes.” would be publishing an election advertisement and would have to meet the statutory criteria for publication of an election advertisement? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The Minister is yet to have any discussions with that member or other members about their concerns but I can imagine for example a situation where a Government signals that legislation will be introduced after an election and that might somehow cause members some concern in terms of their ability to take a public position free of any encumbrance. 
Hon Bill English 
: Given that the Minister of Justice has had 2 years to think about what the term means can she explain further her interpretation of the bill in that if I as a member of Parliament say next year that National’s policy is to cut personal taxes then whenever I write that down including in letters to constituents I will have to get the written authorisation of the financial agent of the National Party and preface whatever I say with a statement of my name and address; why does she think that is a good idea? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I think the Minister might say that in a House of 121 MPs it is not only her view that is important; rather it is the view of Parliament. I understand that the Electoral Commission has invited all parties to discuss this matter and that—I could be wrong—all parties except the National Party are prepared to do so. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister now telling us that statements the Minister of Justice made just 2 weeks ago precisely for the purpose of recording in  
Hansard 
 her policy intent so that the courts could refer to that  
Hansard 
 now do not count and that he will have some kind of mini-summit with other political parties in the next couple of hours to sort it out? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Maybe it would help the member if I were to remind him that the law he refers to has been on our statute book for a little while. I have here the Electoral Act 1993. It is not new. The member voted for this legislation—as did I—14 years ago. The member ought to try to get over himself. This Act has been a New Zealand statute all this while. 
Hon Bill English 
: Has the Minister advised the minor parties that are supporting this bill of the consequence of her interpretation as stated in  
Hansard 
 for the purpose of aiding the courts when they inevitably pick up this issue and has he told the Greens that if they put out a pamphlet that states that their policy is to introduce mandatory country-of-origin labelling for food it will be counted as an election advertisement even if it is put out by an MP; it will have to be authorised by the financial agent of the party; the cost of the publicity will have to be included as an expense in the Greens’ election return; and it will count against the Greens’ election spending cap? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: One could be excused for being a little confused about the position of the National Party on this issue. The National Party now appears to be holding the view that somehow this Government is taking a line on parliamentary expenditure that is too harsh. I am advised that discussions with the affected parties—including the National Party if it wishes to be involved—will take place in due course. As to whether they have started I am afraid I do not yet know. 
Hon Bill English 
: Would the Minister be surprised if other political parties were suspicious of her definition because it has the effect that Government members will be allowed to talk about what the Government is doing but Opposition members will not be allowed to talk about what they would do if they became the Government—and how ridiculous is that? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I say again that the position in respect of the Minister of Justice is that she will hold discussions with other parties that wish to hold discussions with her—including the National Party if it is interested. Concerns have been raised of the order of those that the member raises—although a little less dramatically. The Minister of Justice is very happy to have discussions with those members. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister of Justice aware that this provision will be debated today or if not today then tomorrow; is she also aware that she put her comments on record 2 weeks ago in this House in order to clarify the matter and now this Minister has stood up today—the day we will be debating the bill—and said that it will be resolved by her having talks some time in the future when by the end of this week it could possibly be the law and no one will know what it means? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: What the member has to decide is whether he wants to be part of these discussions.