Finlayson Christopher: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Finlayson Christopher: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:642;Page:12434] 
8.  
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does he agree with the Hon Peter Dunne regarding the Electoral Finance Bill that “It is little wonder that groups including the Human Rights Commission and the Law Society have condemned the bill as a massive attack on free speech.”; if not why not? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I certainly agree with Mr Dunne’s comment that the proposition behind the bill is difficult to argue against. He also makes some constructive comments on ways of addressing concerns raised by submitters. I welcome this and I stand by the comments I have repeatedly made—that the select committee process will add value by further refining the bill. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: How can the Minister stand here and defend a bill that another Minister of the Crown has likened to something the KGB would have struggled to match; and why does he not give up defending this bill and throw it out as the Law Society and the Human Rights Commission have suggested? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Because again if the member were a little more careful with his reading he would note that the Minister he is referring to suggested that changes needed to be made to the bill. As I have said repeatedly the select committee that is considering this bill—and of which that member is apparently a member although he shows no evidence of it in this House—I am sure will suggest useful changes. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Can the Minister confirm that in the 2005 election year campaign billboards began appearing early around February or March but that the cost of those was not attributed to that party’s campaign costs; and that these facts alone highlight why change is necessary? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Indeed I can confirm that the National Party had such billboards along with of course a $350000 Exclusive Brethren - funded campaign followed by a million-dollar Exclusive Brethren - funded campaign—none of which managed to find their way into proper accounting processes around electoral finance. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Minister agree that freedom of speech can be protected while ensuring that elections are not bought by those with the most money if we are able to narrow the definition of third-party electoral activity so that third-party election activities genuinely aimed at influencing an election’s outcome are the only ones affected and we are able also to have a real crackdown on secret trusts and anonymous donations to protect the public’s interest in knowing how political parties are funded? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I do indeed agree that if a narrowing down of the definition of “third party” is achieved then it will indeed further help the protection of freedom of speech. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Noting that answer and also the speech by the Leader of the Opposition to the National Press Club in August in which Mr Key accepted the need for some change to electoral financing law including a cap on third-party expenditure and more transparency of donations why has the Minister not engaged directly with the Leader of the Opposition and his party to bring about a solution that everyone seems to be broadly in agreement with? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Because the bill concerned is in front of a multiparty select committee. That select committee— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That’s not an excuse. That’s a weak excuse. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Oh Dr Smith should calm down. That bill is before a select committee whose membership was enhanced and significantly enlarged to ensure that full political party participation could indeed take place and that the discussion could take place around the submissions from many submitters. I think that that is the precisely correct place for that consideration of the bill to take place—including I might add useful amendments to it. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: When the Minister said in the House yesterday: “I am persuaded by relevant case law by contrary legal advice” with regard to the compatibility of the Electoral Finance Bill with the right to freedom of speech what “relevant case law” was he referring to and what “contrary legal advice” was he referring to? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Again the member should recall that  
Harper v Canada 
 was the relevant case law. Contrary legal advice came from Crown Law of course which included reference to that case law and which also made reference to the United Nations Human Rights Committee and its view on these matters and the European Court of Human Rights which also supported that. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Can the Minister explain why he thinks the New Zealand Law Society got it wrong when it said the legal advice provided by the Crown Law Office was deficient and did not engage with the points raised in its submission? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: It is not for me to judge the debate between the Law Society and the Crown Law Office. I am persuaded by the appropriateness and value of the Crown Law Office advice given the references and the considerations I have referred to already. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Can he explain why he thinks the Human Rights Commission got it wrong when it said: “By limiting freedom of expression and creating a complex regulatory framework in the way it does the Electoral Finance Bill unduly limits the rights of all New Zealanders to participate in the electoral process. The Commission therefore considers that the Bill is inherently flawed and should be withdrawn.”? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: One of the great things about our select committee process is that it enables all sorts of views to be expressed. I do not think that the Human Rights Commission’s analysis is correct. I have explained that at length to the member including the fact that the Human Rights Commission failed to make reference in its submission to the most relevant and up-to-date case law. But it made some useful points and I am sure the select committee will give careful consideration to the primary issues it has raised along with many of the other submitters and make useful refinements to the legislation. 
Hone Harawira 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Kia ora tatou te Whare. Does he agree with Garth Wyllie executive of the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) Inc. who told the Justice and Electoral Committee that the Electoral Finance Bill will impinge on democratic rights by suppressing freedom of speech and what difference does he see between freedom of speech and an ability to pay to promote a particular political view? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: No I do not agree with that submission and I am confident that when the select committee has completed its work it will offer some suggested changes that will further improve the legislation to ensure that the freedom of speech of ordinary New Zealanders and their right to participate in the electoral process is protected whilst ensuring that there is not an overwhelming and undue influence of those few who have large sums of money to spend on the election process. 
Hone Harawira 
: What guarantees can he make that the revelation of third-party advocacy will not be used to persecute individuals such as happened in the case of Amokura Panoho a Department of Labour employee who was forced to resign because false allegations were made in public against her by two Government Ministers? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I think that that question is getting to the very edges of relevance in this particular question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I would agree. But would the Minister try to address the question within the context of the primary question. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I can say to the member that the parameters of this legislation are clear and they are about defining provision that enables ordinary New Zealanders’ rights to participate in their electoral process without their voices being drowned out by those—as we have seen in recent experience—who can and will spend vast sums of money to try to overwhelm the voices of the many. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does he agree that the Electoral Finance Bill is too broad in its sweep when South Pacific Pictures’ movie  
We’re Here to Help 
 about Dave Henderson’s fight with the Inland Revenue Department is captured by clause 5 as “words and graphics” that will persuade voters not to vote for a particular party especially in light of Michael Cullen’s repeated attacks under privilege on Dave Henderson and does he not think that that is absurd given that the Government through the Film Commission has poured $1.9 million of taxpayers’ money into the movie which none the less under his bill would be declared election advertising? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Perhaps the relevant part of the member’s question in particular is around clause 5(1)(a) and I would suggest in particular clause 5(1)(a)(iii) which has been the focus of a considerable number of submissions. It is I believe an area in which the select committee will offer its view and I would not be surprised to see a suggested refinement to that clause. I would be happy to consider that as I have indicated all along.