Carter David: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
Carter David: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13614] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 About 12 minutes ago amongst the hysterical screams from one member of the Labour Party Jill Pettis we were actually told what this bill is all about. She talked about New Zealanders wanting to write cheques for the National Party to support the National Party to get rid of this Government and that is what is happening. There are people who used to support the Labour Party who no longer want to support the Labour Party and the Government has realised that the only way the Labour Party will have any campaign at all and any chance of winning the next election is to shut National down and not give it the chance to get its message out. Jill Pettis let out today what the bill is all about. David Cunliffe is nodding his head. He is agreeing that this is all about rigging the next election. I say to him to mark my words: the public of New Zealand will not be fooled. 
I want to refer to two particular clauses—clauses 119A and 119. But before I do that I want to go back to the comments I heard from Doug Woolerton. He is a guy I have got on pretty well with and I admired his contribution because there he was in a deep hole crawling his way out and fighting vigorously for something he knows is indefensible. The loyalty he now shows to his new political master the Labour Party is simply unbelievable. One cannot accuse Doug Woolerton of being disloyal. When he decides to saddle up with the Labour Party he does it with 100 percent commitment. Sadly that will be the end of his political career. He does not have long to go. 
I refer now to clause 119. I will read out what I found to be a staggering comment. The clause heading states that the “Electoral Commission may provide guidance on commercial value of advertising space”. That is what it says—that the Electoral Commission may provide guidance. Why would that need to be in the law? I would have thought that if members opposite wanted such a clause in here then it should say that the Electoral Commission “must” provide guidance. Is this not the very issue on which Winston Peters challenged Bob Clarkson and again resoundingly lost? Winston Peters has a habit of losing cases but he lost on this issue quite significantly. He lost on the issue of the value of advertising space. 
Here we have a silly clause in this bill that says that the Electoral Commission “may” provide advice. But is not the head of the Electoral Commission one Helena Catt? Is she not the one who has been in the paper recently saying that she actually does not understand the legislation? The Government is asking the very organisation led by Helena Catt to give guidance if it so chooses yet its chief executive has publicly said the law is such a mess the organisation cannot understand it. This is a nonsense. 
I want also to refer to clause 119(1). My colleague Chris Finlayson has put forward what I think is a very sensible amendment. The subclause relates to who is liable. In the case where clearly it is a decision made by a number of people involved in the political party then according to this legislation the liability goes back to one person. 
We had the case last election 2005 where the pledge card was put out. It should have been authorised; it was not authorised. The police investigated and said there was a prima facie case that could be taken against Helen Clark’s chief of staff one Heather Simpson but the police decided not to lay the charge because they did not feel that Heather Simpson as one person should be responsible for a decision that was obviously made by Helen Clark Heather Simpson and a number of others on the strategy team. That was the police’s reason on that occasion for not pressing charges because according to the police it should have been something that was a liability to be faced by the political party. 
Now the Government completely ignores that decision. Probably it wants to because it knows it will be in the position of grabbing taxpayers’ funding to run its campaign. That is what this is all about; it is all about making sure those who are not in Government do not have fair rules on which to fight this campaign.