Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:641;Page:11034] 
2.  
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement in regard to the Electoral Finance Bill that “obviously there’s going to have to be some change in the select committee”; if so what changes does she think are “obviously” required? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes; any specific changes are of course a matter for the select committee. 
John Key 
: If changes are “obviously” required to the bill why did the Government introduce it in its current form? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Election legislation is always very carefully scrutinised in the select committee as will be this legislation. 
Tim Barnett 
: Are there overseas precedents for the major provisions of the Electoral Finance Bill? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I understand that in respect of the provisions around third parties many of the provisions are based on similar ones already in place in Britain and Canada. Of course that does not suit the hollow men who like to buy elections. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Prime Minister agree that if we are to protect our democracy from the influence of money then we must change this bill in order to get rid of both anonymous donations and secret trusts? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Those issues can be addressed in the select committee. I note that the Greens have made a number of constructive comments about issues they would like to see addressed there. I have said in the House previously that I believe there are trade-offs between the level of public funding—as in other countries—and what happens with regard to anonymous donations. 
John Key 
: What changes does the Prime Minister think are specifically required to the Electoral Finance Bill? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: At this point those are not determined. 
John Key 
: Why are they not determined when yesterday they were obvious? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The member should look more carefully at the quote he used in his own question. It said that obviously there will have to be some change; it did not mention any specific change. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Prime Minister agree that any changes that are to be made should not allow a party that spent more public money in the 2005 election campaign by a great margin than any other party to be allowed to get away with that simply because it did not know when the 3-month— 
Sandra Goudie 
: Pay it back. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I beg your pardon? If the member wants to talk about paying it back we will start with some National members. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Will the member now please ask his question in silence. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I take objection to a bunch of backbenchers who have stood for nothing complaining about my party. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have addressed the issue. I have asked the member to ask his question in silence. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Prime Minister agree that any changes to be made to the bill should not allow any party that spent more public money on the 2005 election campaign than any other party in this House by a wide margin to get away with that simply because it did not know when the 3-month rule would begin? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I understand that the National Party to which the member is referring did not understand despite it being clear in the law that the capped expenditure permitted actually included GST. 
John Key 
: Did Cabinet fully understand and agree on the definition of an electoral advertisement before the bill was introduced; and did Ministers know that they would be regulating bodies and suppressing the ordinary legitimate activities of bodies like Grey Power the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society and the Post Primary Teachers Association? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Bills like this go through full Cabinet processes. They then go through a select committee process. The issue of definitions is one of many things that others have suggested be looked at in the bill. 
John Key 
: Does the Prime Minister agree that there are really only two explanations when it comes to this deeply flawed Draconian and anti-democratic legislation: first that Mark Burton and Cabinet are totally incompetent and could not see what everyone else could see when it was finally shown to the rest of New Zealand or second that they knew all along exactly what the effects were and they just hoped that nobody else would notice? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Neither; but what we always expected was that the hollow men would oppose any decent campaign law reform. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What reports has the Prime Minister received that justify a third party not being a political party in this House disguising the expenditure of over $1 million on behalf of one party’s campaign then of the members of the political party that was supported by that outside group perjuring themselves on the issue of whether they knew about it? 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think you know what my point of order is. To allege that any member of this Parliament perjured himself or herself is completely out of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please withdraw that comment. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Madam Speaker I mentioned a party. If the member thinks the glove fits and he wants to wear it that is fine but I did not mention him by name. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member knows that a member has raised the point that a reflection has been made. I ask the member to withdraw that reflection and to apologise please. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is a fact that National Party members were aware of the Exclusive Brethren contribution. They have all had to admit that via their former leader Don Brash and Mr Key who in the emails in  
The Hollow Men 
 are disclosed as having known. My point is that just because they are embarrassed— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please be seated. The member knows that that is not a point of order. Would the member please ask his supplementary question if he has one. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Madam Speaker I am seeking to raise a point of order here. I am asserting what is a known fact and you are demanding that I apologise. With respect that is not how— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. The member knows that that is not the issue. The issue is whether the member is raising a point of order. The withdrawal and apology was for a term to which offence was taken. The member did the proper thing then. Would the member please just ask his supplementary question and we can proceed.