English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:643;Page:12728] 
5.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Has he been advised of any countries which have a regulated election period longer than the maximum period possible under the provisions of the Electoral Finance Bill; if so what are those countries? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 In Canada there is a spending cap for political parties but there is a non-specified regulated period. In other words the entire electoral cycle is regulated. Every dollar has to be accounted for within the spending limits. Arguably this approach is even more stringent than the one we have referred to more regularly in the House for the United Kingdom which has a regulated period of 365 days. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister aware that the United Kingdom from which he regularly quotes has in fact five different regulated election periods: for the Scottish Parliament it is 4 months for the Welsh Assembly it is 4 months for the Northern Ireland Assembly it is 4 months for the UK seats in the European Parliament it is 4 months and that it is only the Westminster Parliament that has an election period of 12 months; why did the Minister choose by far the longest of the periods in the United Kingdom? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: It may be a surprise to the member but we are referred to as a Westminster Parliament. 
Hon Bill English 
: When will the Minister tell the public that although he is imposing an 11-month period—in which all political opinion and spending will be tightly regulated—on all New Zealand citizens he has in fact removed the 3-month regulated period that traditionally applied to members of Parliament with the effect being that members of Parliament will be able to spend public money pretty much as they like because it will not count as election expenses but private citizens will be heavily restricted in what they can spend? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: As usual the member misrepresents the facts. The fact is that members of Parliament have always been able to spend appropriately on parliamentary activity in their capacity as a member of Parliament within their relatively modest budgets for each of the 365 days of each of the 3 years of the electoral cycle. However in their capacity as candidates they are treated as any other parliamentary candidate. 
Hon Bill English 
: Has the Minister seen submissions by independent bodies like the Human Rights Commission and the Law Society who have made the point that the 11-month regulated period—which prevents private citizens from having any political opinion unless it meets the Government’s criteria—heavily weights the law in favour of the incumbent Government which can spend without restriction on pushing its point of view; and why should the public believe the Labour Party which stands to benefit from this law and not believe the independent bodies like the Human Rights Commission and the Law Society? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: As usual amongst those various questions there were a number of completely inaccurate assertions. The Electoral Finance Bill is about ensuring that we never again have a repeat of the appalling behaviour of the National Party and its Exclusive Brethren friends where it sought to outspend and buy an election result. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister disputing the fact that the Labour Party has written a law that heavily favours an incumbent Government because it can spend what it likes on pushing its point of view right through election year heavily favours incumbent MPs because their public spending can no longer be counted as an election expense and heavily regulates and restricts private citizens and political parties who cannot have an opinion unless it meets criteria that the Labour Party has laid down? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I absolutely disagree with all of the propositions the member puts forward. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can I ask the Minister as to whether— 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. A member called out a term that you have said is unparliamentary. He said: “Tell the truth.” You ruled that term out a few weeks ago. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I did not hear that because there is so much noise. But if the member did say that he will withdraw and apologise. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: The inaccuracy to which I referred is that the member alleged that this is a Labour Party matter; the matter is before a select committee that represents all parties of the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am not quite sure what relevance that has. I did not hear because there is so much noise coming from the backbench. I did not hear the comment. If the member made that comment would he stand withdraw and apologise. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Madam Speaker while we are still on that point of order—because you have not ruled and therefore the point of order was live—Mr Brownlee started yelling out across the House all kinds of abuse. I suggest that he might be required to stand withdraw and apologise. It might be a good day for us all to be slightly better behaved. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Will the member please do so. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I wish to apologise to the Hon David Cunliffe. I fully and totally withdraw my remarks. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can I ask the Minister as to— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Just write the cheque! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: When that member pays the GST back I will pay this back yes. More important I have spent more personal money on public causes than all those members together plus the pack of hypocrites in the press gallery. If members doubt that they should challenge me. Now back to the question of the day. Is the Minister of Justice aware that Canada—[ 
Interruption 
] Well all that member has done is pay his sponsors back and most corruptly so. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: We are going to have this question in silence because there is too much chipping across the House and interventions. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I just want to clarify something. Is this the Minister in charge of this country’s diplomacy? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is inappropriate for any member to allege or assert in this House that any member of the House is under the thumb or the guidance of anyone from outside of the House. Mr Peters I think therefore should withdraw and apologise for that remark lest we should start talking about honours lists. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well I was not quite sure who it was the comment referred to but if that member has taken offence and asked for it to be withdrawn and apologised for then it should be. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Perhaps Mr Brownlee can make good his allegation by implication in his last statement before he dropped to his knees by getting up showing some character and backing up what he just said about an honours list—because I am prepared to give him the facts for that right now. I know the allegation the National Party has made but I will give him the facts right now which will show what a deceitful misleading person he is. I ask him to do it now. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I know that the members want to give the Clerk a good send off but I am not quite sure this is the way to do it. That was not a point of order. Would the Rt Hon Winston Peters please ask his question in silence. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I take that challenge as one I met and therefore the statement and allegation by implication were totally untrue at the start. My question to the Minister of Justice is this— 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Given that most of the inappropriate comments are from the questioner maybe the question should be in silence. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the Minister of Justice aware that both Canada and the UK are two of only nine countries that have had an unbroken line of democracy these last 153 years and when did he last hear the allegation that the UK—that is Westminster—or Canada were fascist countries? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Indeed I believe the member is correct and I think it is a matter of some interest to me that those who constantly attack the provisions that basically seek to align in reasonable ways with those jurisdictions seem to have some fundamental difficulty with the idea of protecting the participatory right of New Zealand citizens in their own electoral processes. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. There is a word beginning with “h” that members are not allowed to use in the House in respect of other members. Is it appropriate for a member to use that word about other people present in the House who are unable to stand and take offence or defend themselves—and I mean members of the press gallery because a little earlier in this exchange the member accused members of the press gallery of being hypocrites? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Unfortunately there is nothing in the Standing Orders to prevent anything from being said about anybody outside the House; it is a matter of taste and convention. In this particular case I am sure that those who have certain things said about them have ample retaliatory powers should they care to use them. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Leader of the House is correct in that it applies only to matters in the House. I think he explained the point quite well in terms of one’s own defence. 
Rodney Hide 
: In considering amendments to the Electoral Finance Bill both at the select committee and in the House was the idea of amending the regulatory time period entertained or is that something that is set in stone; and is the real purpose of the bill simply to stop the National Party from erecting billboards in the new year? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I think it is fair to say that the various provisions of the bill enjoy varying degrees of commitment and determination on the part of various parties in the House. There have been many submissions to give variation not only to the one the member refers to but also as he will know to spending caps and a number of other matters. As to the second part of his question the sole purpose of the bill is certainly not to prevent National Party billboards from being erected but given the quality of them it would certainly be a positive for the landscape.