2. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Does she have confidence in the Minister of Justice; if so, why?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) Link to this
Yes; because he is a hard-working and conscientious Minister.
Does she agree with the Minister’s statement in the House in relation to the Electoral Finance Bill that “the third-party provisions in the bill do not unjustifiably restrict freedom of expression”; if so, are all the interest groups that are making submissions to the select committee to protect their democratic rights, simply wasting their time?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
Certainly, no one making a submission is wasting his or her time. Indeed, I note that the Coalition for Open Government states it believes that the problems it sees with the third-party rules in the Electoral Finance Bill can be fairly easily fixed.
Tim BarnettRt Hon Helen Clark Link to this
Indeed, it has. One could instance the United Kingdom where the electoral finance period extends for a year prior to a general election, and also in respect of the role of third parties in election campaigns, in the United Kingdom they must register if they wish to spend more than a certain amount on campaigns. They may not receive anonymous donations; nor may they receive donations from trusts where those contributing to the trust cannot be reasonably identified.
How can the Prime Minister have confidence in the Minister when, despite constant questioning, he cannot even answer questions on things as simple as the definition of election advertising?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
Having seen and heard a number of those questions, they are clearly trying to seek legal opinions from the Minister, which would not normally be given at question time.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Is the motivation for this bill to remove the negative, unfair, and malignant influences of certain businesses from electoral campaigns, and if the answer is yes, then what is the evidence for there to be public concern on this issue?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
Certainly the motivation for the bill is to deal with the most regrettable influence of very big money on New Zealand election campaigns. I note in this respect that Mr Key’s speech today said that organisations should not be allowed to spend unlimited sums of money trying to influence an election—an interesting statement from someone who clearly was one of the bagmen for the National Party campaign. We can go through The Hollow Men and find all sorts of references, like the one in Mr Key’s diary of August 2005, which stated he was scheduled to be “Meeting with loads of big donors in Northland with John Carter (full day and night).”
If the purposes of the changes to the proposed Electoral Finance Bill were not to advantage the Government, why did the Labour Party not consult the National Party, the Māori Party, and the ACT party?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
To the best of my recollection, the National Party has been consistently pretty hostile to trying to rein in the role of big money, because it has had so much of it.
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I take exception to the allegation that Dr Smith just made, and I would ask him to withdraw and apologise for it.
Madam SPEAKER
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. What do we call spending $800,000 illegally on a pledge card, if it is not cheating?
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Given that fund-raising up north all day and night may be just a temporary apparition, surely the Prime Minister has more evidence than that for making the allegation that Mr Key was the bagman, in respect of fund-raising for the National Party?
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. With respect, this issue concerns the involvement of big business in campaigns. That requires there to be a relationship and communication between political parties and big business. If we cannot even ask that question, then how can we even discuss the issue—that is, by the Prime Minister’s admission, the motivation behind the bill?
I thank the member; please be seated. The member is perfectly entitled to ask a question that relates to those matters, but that question must be within the terms of the Standing Orders; in other words, that there is ministerial responsibility for it. Is there another point of order? I was not encouraging one.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You have encouraged it, because you allowed the Prime Minster to make a statement regarding evidence in The, uncontested or disputed by anyone in this House, so if the Prime Minister could refer to that, why can I not ask questions as to whether there were other examples in of such activity? That was the nature of my question.
Yes, but the whole purpose of your question did not relate to any ministerial responsibility. I think it was Mr Key’s question that did relate to ministerial responsibility and the Prime Minister was responding accordingly.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
What reports has the Prime Minister received that justify the claims that she has just made to the House?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
Certainly, The is full of such references—for example, Rob McLeod of the Business Roundtable approaching Dr Brash and Mr Key to help arrange a donation to National from heirs to the Spencer family fortunes; for example, the dinner Mr Key apparently attended on his birthday, which was hosted by Bill Birnie, formerly of Fay Richwhite; and another one hosted by Rod Deane, at which Mr Key is said to have been present. That is why I made the statement about Mr Key being a bagman for collecting very big money, and I am sure it is still going on.
What responsibility does the Prime Minister take for the Electoral Law Reform Bill, given she chaired Cabinet and was responsible for the provisions of the bill, as introduced into the House?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
Of course I chair Cabinet; that is the role of being Prime Minister. I am also a Prime Minister who is always open to intelligent and informed contributions; I am waiting to hear one from the Leader of the Opposition.
So is the Prime Minister telling the House that she has no responsibility for the provisions in the bill?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
For the rather new parliamentarian opposite, I just set out that, of course, I chair Cabinet. It goes with the job!
Is the reason the Prime Minister will not answer the question, despite this being the third time I have asked it, that she is quite simply embarrassed by a piece of legislation she knows should be ripped up?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
Over here, we accept collective responsibility. There is little evidence of it over there.
Does the Prime Minister agree with the editorial in the latest New Zealand Law Journal regarding the Electoral Finance Bill that states: “This Bill is fundamentally obnoxious and should be scrapped. It will penalise private citizens who have the temerity to interfere in politics while doing nothing to deal with the major electoral funding issue we face: the misuse of taxpayers’ money on a huge scale to ensure the re-election of the incumbent government.”
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
I would like to name the editor of the New Zealand Law Journal, a certain Bernard Robertson, a well-known, right-wing commentator, and guaranteed to take a position against the Labour Party anytime, anywhere. I prefer the judgment of the Coalition for Open Government, which states that the problems with the rules that it sees can be fairly easily fixed, in the bill before the House.
Can the Prime Minister confirm for New Zealanders that that is exactly the sort of opinion she is trying to close down with the provisions of the Electoral Finance Bill, because she does not like it when people publicly say they disagree with her?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
Most certainly not. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, I have never been to the editor of the Sunday Star-Times asking that Rod Oram be shut down—or was it the business editor of the ?
Rodney HideDoes the Prime Minister appreciate that our democracy is a precious thing, owned by the people of New Zealand, and that, in light of the damning report of the Auditor-General and the implications of our electoral law reform, in actual fact taking cheap shots across the House is not the best way to get the best law and the best outcome on this most important issue?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
I absolutely agree with the first contention of the member that democracy is a precious thing. The second point I want to make is that The Hollow Men showed how exposed our democracy is to big money in politics. Had the Leader of the Opposition come in here today and tried to make good on what he said in his speech about discussions around multiparty approaches, he may have been taken seriously, but his approach in the House today has been completely inconsistent with the speech he gave barely 2 hours ago.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Has the Government received any reports from the Campaign for Better Government—which she will recall had so much to say about the 1993 elections, when the elections were overt—comprised Peter Shirtcliffe, his wife, and his daughter, who spent millions to try to skew the MMP choice in that election; is that the kind of business involvement we do want in this country?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
I think it is clear that New Zealand law on big money in politics has been far too open for too long. That is what there needs to be some genuine discussion about, in this House.