English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:646;Page:15039] 
4.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Is she satisfied with the quality of advice provided by officials during the process of reviewing electoral law and the development of the Electoral Finance Act 2007; if not why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The Minister of Justice in Cabinet received advice from officials on various options relating to the reform of electoral finance laws over a long period that started in July 2006. The Justice and Electoral Committee also received a large amount of advice as well as a number of submissions during its deliberations on the bill. At the end of the day the Electoral Finance Act 2007 reflects the decisions made by Parliament following consideration of the advice and submissions on the bill. 
Hon Bill English 
: Has she read that part of the officials’ advice produced in July 2006 and released last week which provided three options in respect of the length of the election period—to leave it at 3 months to shorten it to writ day or to shorten it to the day the Prime Minister announced the election date; if so why did she think these options were wrong and why did her Cabinet decide to make the regulated period the whole of election year? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Madam Speaker— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Because they are cheats. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You can hear what the member is saying. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well actually I cannot. That is the problem. Does the Minister take offence? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I take offence. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I said “Because they are cheats.” 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister has asked for you to please withdraw and apologise for making that comment. So would you please do so. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. The rules are that if the member does take offence at such a reference then the member is asked to withdraw and apologise. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. A few minutes ago Mr Keith Locke took exception to something that the Minister of Finance said and it was like pulling teeth to get to a position where the Minister was eventually put in a position of having to make a withdrawal. This was just a comment across the House; it pales into insignificance compared with some of the things that are said across this House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The difference was that the term that was used by the Hon Dr Nick Smith could be interpreted as being one of abuse; the other was an observation on a political position. That was the difference. However in respect of the second comment the Hon Dr Michael Cullen was asked to withdraw and apologise. So could we move on please. Would the member withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I can tell the Minister is a bit sensitive. I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I am not at all sensitive. Unfortunately that member has a habit of interjecting on everybody and often in a very personal way. In relation to the question asked this Parliament decided that the regulated period would be from 1 January 2007. This Parliament voted for that by a majority. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that all the official advice to Cabinet was to keep the regulated period at 3 months or less that Cabinet decided without any detailed consideration of the implications to lengthen the regulated period to 12 months and that that particular decision has been the cause of most of the problems that politicians of all parties are having in trying to apply the law that she passed? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Cabinet decided that it would line up New Zealand’s regulated period with some international standards but at the end of the day it was this Parliament that decided. The National Party does not like the fact that it lost a democratic vote. 
Hon Bill English 
: Did Cabinet give any consideration to the implications of extending the regulated period or whether to get officials to advise Cabinet on the implications such as those that have now arisen which for instance create legal uncertainty about what is the legitimate activity of a member of Parliament in election year and what would count as an electoral advertisement which has gone to the ridiculous extent where the law has driven politicians to the ridiculous position that activities that are regarded as legitimate parliamentary activities will also count as an election advertisement and will therefore have to carry an authorisation by someone who has nothing to do with Parliament? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I think most members of Parliament who voted for the longer period took account of the fact that the National Party during the 2005 election campaign spent millions of dollars before the 3-month period started and that National when that member was the leader of that party put up hoardings around New Zealand before the regulated period—all aimed at ensuring that National would not be caught by the 3-month rule. National carried out a rort then and it does not like the fact that one has to be clearer now about what one is doing. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that Cabinet gave so little consideration to the practical effects of this legislation covering the whole of election year that Labour has already been caught out for breaching the legislation on three separate occasions that Parliamentary Service is having to hire extra people to try to administer the legislation that the small parties have found their spending plans virtually paralysed by the legislation and that every election advertisement now has to meet the ridiculous requirement of including the personal residential address of the person who authorised it? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I will not confirm that because making allegations is not the same as saying one has been found guilty of something. Otherwise we have the allegation that John Key’s DVD—which has no name no authorisation and was still being handed out at a fair this year by a member of this Parliament—should not have been authorised.