Norman Russel William: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Norman Russel William: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:661;Page:9838] 
4. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Has he received advice on the benefits of having campaign spending caps in the MMP referendum? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Justice 
: Yes; and the Minister has also received advice that the previous referenda on the election system in 1992 and 1993 and the super-referendum in 1997 had no cap on spending and no need to register with the Electoral Commission. All that was needed was a promoter statement. In fact the Minister is advised that no Government referendum in the post-war period limited spending by third-party campaigners. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Can he explain the logic of requiring spending caps in an election campaign and in a citizens initiated referendum but not for a referendum on the future of democracy in New Zealand? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Yes the Minister can. The spending limit for the citizens initiated referendum was introduced as part of a package of measures to limit the ability of groups or individuals both to initiate a referendum and to campaign on that referendum. What we have here with a Government referendum where the issue is not put to the public by a third party is an elected Government rightly carrying out its campaign pledge to voters. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Why did the Government accept the advice from the Ministry of Justice that the influence that wealth can have on the outcome of a referendum is debatable over the advice that the rationale for regulating advertising is to avoid the influence of wealth on the outcome by its overwhelming other voices in the public information campaign? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: What has happened here is that there has been an endeavour to balance a number of interests. The interest that the member apparently has overlooked is the issue of freedom of expression. But what the proposal in the bill does is place an obligation on anyone who spends over $12000 during the regulated period to register with the commission. So there is a balancing and freedom of expression is a very important factor. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does the Minister believe that there is freedom of expression during election campaigns when there are spending caps; if so why not have spending caps during the MMP referendum and also protect freedom of expression? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Yes of course the Minister believes there are very important freedom-of-expression issues in an election campaign and that is why the National Party fought so hard against the repulsive electoral finance legislation. But the point is that what we have tried to do with this legislation—[ 
Interruption 
] To receive a lecture on section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act from Annette King when there was no report under section 7 for the Electoral Finance Bill is a bit rich! What we have tried to do here is balance freedom of expression and introduce the requirement of registration. I say also that the Campaign for Better Government spent huge sums of money in 1992 and 1993 to advance its particular views. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does the Minister agree with the 1986 report of the Royal Commission on the Electoral System when it stated that it is not “fair if some in the community use their relative wealth to exercise disproportionate influence in determining who is to govern and what policies are to be pursued.”; if so does he agree that the same logic applies to the MMP referendum? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: One can see where the member is coming from; that is the reason why the registration requirement has been introduced. That coupled with freedom of expression addresses the member’s concerns. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I seek leave to table the regulatory impact statement on the Electoral Referendum Bill. As the House will be aware the Government no longer publishes regulatory impact statements with bills but I believe that the House should look at the detail of them. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I seek the leave of the House to table chapter 8 of the royal commission’s report which is the chapter on political finance from which my quote was taken. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I seek leave to table the “Advertising Rules” section of the regulatory impact statement alone without the rest of the regulatory impact statement. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that portion of the regulatory impact statement. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have a slight question about consistency of ruling. You have just put to the House—and I was very surprised—the question of leave for the tabling of a chapter of a royal commission report which is something that has been published by this House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What was going through my mind at the time and I may have misheard—and if I did I apologise to the House—but I understood it was a royal commission report from the 1980s. It was my judgment on the spur of the moment that that was something that members may not be so familiar with and therefore I felt that it was not unreasonable to put that leave to the House.