1. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Which aspects of the Electoral Finance Bill prompted her to make the statement that “obviously there’s going to have to be some change in the select committee”?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) Link to this
The bill is a complex piece of legislation, and the role of the select committee is to recommend desirable changes.
What motivated the Prime Minister to say there are obviously going to have to be changes to the bill, if she appears to have no idea what has to change or why it has to change?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY Link to this
As the Prime Minister indicated yesterday, this is very important legislation, and the select committee is the appropriate place for a range of issues to be debated. For example, the National Party might like to debate clause 103(2), because that deals with the GST issue; and during the last campaign it was clear the National Party did not understand anything about GST, and this bill is a chance for National to clear up that matter.
Darren HughesHon STEVE MAHAREY Link to this
That is an important question, because it goes to the heart of the fact that this bill is simply an effort to try to draw New Zealand into line with other jurisdictions such as Canada and the United Kingdom. If we have legislation that matches those jurisdictions, I think we will be part of the mainstream. I am sure Mr Key and Mr English, and others, will be looking forward to the opportunity of being part of the mainstream, because they place a lot of emphasis on that.
Has it always been the view of the Prime Minister that there were significant issues that would need to be sorted out by the select committee; if so, why was the bill introduced in its current form?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY Link to this
I think the Prime Minister has always been aware that this is a complex area and that there would be input from all parties, once the bill reached the select committee. I repeat, I imagine the National Party is anxious to debate clauses such as clause 103(2), because it did not understand the old law around GST, and this is a chance to get it clear.
Is it not the situation that the Government got the bill completely wrong, in that it was trying to pull a fast one over New Zealanders, but now having read the editorials around the country, and realising the backlash from many people who actually support the Government, it is trying to distance itself from the bill, and that is why it will not explain the obvious differences?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY Link to this
No. I know that the member would not have spent a lot of time in select committees, because of his meteoric rise to the front bench, and the busyness that brings to his life. But select committees are the appropriate place to have this kind of in-depth discussion about complex legislation, which of course impacts on all parties. So the Prime Minister has always been aware that the select committee was an appropriate place to have that discussion.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Seeing the issue of fairness has been put into question, are there any reports thus far on this bill that suggest that the legislation should prevent one political party from advertising on radio or television, at the expense of a $100,000 fine on each and every occasion, such as was put into law by the National Party against New Zealand First in 1993?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY Link to this
Simply going to the heart of the question, so I do work within the responsibility of the Prime Minister, I say that this bill is very much about fairness. That is absolutely right. There is the notion that people, for example, may be able to spend a lot of money trying to drive an election in a particular way, as the Exclusive Brethren appeared to be trying to do. This bill is aimed at ensuring that everyone gets a fair deal, that a vote counts, and that people do not feel that someone with a lot of money is stealing an election from them.
If it was obvious to the Prime Minister on Monday that changes were needed, why can she not answer the very simple question about what is obvious that needs to be changed, or is the situation that Cabinet simply cannot work out what is wrong, in the same way it cannot work out what to do about rising interest rates, rising crime, and falling education standards?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY Link to this
On the latter issues, I imagine the member is simply waiting to adopt our policies at some time, since they seem to be working as well as they are. On a previous question—the issue of change—I imagine the Prime Minister was very aware of the National Party’s discomfort around the GST issue, for example, and she would know that it would want to debate that and get it clear in the legislation.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
What is the Government’s view as to the role, constitutionally, of a select committee of this Parliament: is its job to rubber-stamp everything that Cabinet does, or is it to hear public submissions on proposed legislation and give a fully competent report back to Parliament—which of those two roles does the Government support?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY Link to this
It is the Government’s view that select committees are a place where people go to do real work and make real changes to legislation, particularly under MMP where, of course, select committees have become increasingly independent and have made real changes to legislation on the way through. In the case of this legislation, we have a range of parties that will have strong views in relation to it; the select committee is a great place to debate those.
What sort of Government is it that talks tough, brings in a bill that is about one-quarter of what it promised, cobbles together a majority by the most slender of margins on an Electoral Act that is something that should have bipartisan support, and then, when it finally gets the legislation into the House, it realises it has so rapidly lost control of the whole process that it is backing away from it; or is it what all New Zealanders know—a hopeless outgoing Government?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY Link to this
It is an excellent Government. It is one that wants legislation that will ensure fairness and one that wants to ensure that all parties have an opportunity to raise critical issues, such as why they do not understand GST. I imagine the National Party is really keen to get that issue sorted out.
If the Government has not lost control of the process and it is still sure it has the numbers, why is it that on Monday the Prime Minister said that the changes needed to be made to the bill were obvious, but on Tuesday and Wednesday she has not a clue what those changes are, even though they were so obvious on Monday?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY Link to this
Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister has an open mind but not a vacant one. In other words, she is ensuring that there is debate around this very serious subject, and the member opposite, I am sure, is looking forward to making sure this legislation is as good and as fair as it can be.