Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:641;Page:11651] 
4.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does he stand by all the statements he made in his recent letter to community groups regarding the Electoral Finance Bill? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes because the letter repeats the Government’s intention to advance legislation that protects our electoral system from manipulation and notes that the bill is now before the Justice and Electoral Committee at which the letter expresses confidence improvements and refinements for inclusion in the bill may well be suggested. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Minister’s letter tell community groups that: “Electioneering activities are intended by Government to have a narrow scope in their definition in law.”; if so why is it that the definition in clause 5(1)(a) of the bill is in fact extremely wide as is noted by many of the submissions coming in on the bill? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I believe that the member makes an accurate reflection on the content of the letter and does so because like it or not we cannot avoid in this bill attempting to deal with the rorts that were visited upon our electoral system in 2005. Those precisely used the sorts of materials that purported to be non - party - political and non-electoral advertising but which quite literally sought according to their own authors to spend $1 million with the sole goal of getting votes for National. You see we are trying to close a loophole that was used and abused by the National Party and its friends to undermine our electoral system. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Minister’s letter tell community groups that the bill will not restrict their ability to play an active role in public debate; if so what does he call the requirement for them to register as a third party the cap of $60000 on their spending the requirement for them to appoint a financial agent the requirement for them to appoint an auditor and the requirement for them to file a return of their expenses and donations—and if those are not restrictions what are they? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I call them the provisions that apply only to those who seek to become participants as third parties in the electoral process. Of course unlike the impression given in Mr English’s taxpayer-funded extremist and misleading letter those organisations will be able to go about their normal business without any reference. For instance the Plunket Society runs a very good car seat campaign and it calls for public donations. That activity will not in any way be caught by the provisions of this bill. Yet the impression given by the National Party is that such activities as the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society’s excellent Kiwi Conservation Club for kids will be caught—the sort of campaign I am sure that members in this House have supported and given resourcing to. The impression given by the National Party is that all of those sorts of activities will somehow be fettered. That is absolute nonsense and National members know that. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: What should people making submissions on this bill base their submissions on: the vague intentions of the Minister or the black and white facts as they are presented in this bill? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: All submissions to a bill should be based on the understanding of the bill the person making the submission has. I say to Mr Brownlee that that is the point of a select committee process. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister provide to the House a list of references showing which clauses each of the statements he makes are based on; and if Mr English is wrong but able to list everything he claims against a clause in this bill why cannot the Minister do that for his vague intentions? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I would be interested to know how Mr English could find a clause that “relates to every—[ 
Interruption 
] Hang on—if members want to hear it! According to Mr English’s letter: “The bill will restrict your freedom to have your say on important issues in election year. We believe robust and diverse debate is widely held …”. It goes on to say: “The scope of the bill is so broad that any public communication”—any public communication—“by your organisation in election year will need to be scrutinised.” I challenge that member to point to the clause in the bill that says “any— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: It’s true! 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: So the member is suggesting that the Plunket Society putting out a public appeal for donations to the car seat campaign would have to be scrutinised under this bill. That is a patent nonsense. There is no such reference in the bill. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is it not the case that the Labour Government is so terrified of public scrutiny of its record that it has simply decided to legislate against it? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: It is the case that this Government is happy to have a contest of ideas with a National Party that is so bereft of policy that the only thing it parades is apparent policy on a change-by-day basis—that is our policies—and the only way that it sees for itself to contest a campaign is to have the unfettered use of millions of dollars of other people’s money to try to buy a result. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: If the Minister is to be believed then why will this bill restrict Opposition parties on the amount they can spend on an attack on and criticism of the Government for some 11 months prior to an election but allow the Government itself to dive into the taxpayer pool in an unfettered way to promote itself throughout that time? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. As by the time the election comes every Government programme that any such publicity will be supporting will have been adopted by the National Party then it will be a very even-handed approach. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: There is that but— 
Hon Member 
: You’re going to answer the question. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Who said that? Notwithstanding that Dr Cullen’s contribution probably represents the fact of course the member confuses two completely different things. Like National members of Parliament members on this side of the House are constrained in the use of parliamentary budgets—absolutely constrained. For legitimate purposes— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Dr Cullen’s intervention has clearly meant that the Minister has not understood the question and I would like to ask it again. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Could we just hear the Minister’s reply. If he could get on with the reply then it would help us a lot. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The fact is that any expenditure to promote a Government service for instance is constrained by very strict parameters. It is under the absolute scrutiny of the Auditor-General and the member knows it. It is a red herring. The central issue here is the absolute terror of the National Party at fighting an election on policy and ideas rather than on fat bank balances. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I know that you are not responsible for the answers that a Minister gives but I think you probably do have some responsibility to ensure that the question asked is addressed by the Minister. The Minister who stood up and gave that answer clearly had not listened to the question he was asked. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I did listen quite closely and know a little about this and I do think actually that the Minister did address the question this time. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does the Electoral Finance Bill comply with the Legislation Advisory Committee guidelines and was a regulatory impact assessment undertaken as prescribed by the Minister for Economic Development; if not why not given the importance of this bill? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: It is my recollection that the answer to both the questions is yes. 
Ron Mark 
: Will the Electoral Finance Bill provide protection for a third-party group that put a million dollars into a parallel election campaign to get votes for a political party on the basis that that party would rebuild the New Zealand Defence Force and reinstate an air strike capability when that party then reneged on that deal; or is the situation simply that the Exclusive Brethren have blown their money and should never have trusted National in the first place? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I cannot see where the ministerial responsibility is for that question. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. At the start of my question I asked the Minister: “Will the Electoral Finance Bill provide protection for” third parties and that does fit within the Minister’s responsibilities. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That does and if the question had stopped there it might have been all right. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: In a sense it will—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If members ask questions they are entitled to hear the answers. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: In a sense it will because it will prevent the likes of the Exclusive Brethren from undertaking that sort of covert campaign in the future. But of course the Brethren could take a read of their own top line and wake up because they have been ripped off by the National Party. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Will the Electoral Finance Act prevent the Labour Party from using taxpayer money to distribute another pledge card? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The question of pledge cards is not in any way covered by this bill. Nor am I convinced that the bill will deliver the GST that is still outstanding from the National Party. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I will be asking two members to take their argument outside if there is any more of this across-the-Chamber chat.