Hayes John: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
Hayes John: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13610] 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 This is a great opportunity to speak on this bill. I would like to address the matter of moral authority from my colleague in the New Zealand First Party who talked about this bill in such terms. He does not have any moral authority in a situation where his party has refused to pay back the public money it used at the last election. We have just heard two speakers from clip-on parties that are supporting this bill. Why are they doing it? They are supporting this bill to reduce the cost to them of an election. There is no other reason. There is no moral authority. There is no high ground. They are doing this to reduce the cost of this election. Why is Labour supporting them? Labour is supporting them simply to punish its opponents in National ACT and the Maori Party. It is using the legislative process and its numbers in this Parliament to deal to its political opponents. 
We in National oppose Part 3. We oppose the bill in its entirety because it will silence the views of civil society it will silence the views of unions it will silence the views of churches and it will destroy independent newspapers and other elements of the media. This bill will create an unfair playing field. It works against the interests of new political candidates. Part 3 addresses the issue of fines but does not address the more important issue of enforcement. I draw to the attention of this Committee the police investigation into the 2005 election which was incompetent and I do not use that word lightly. The investigation was for the wrong offences. The police ignored the clear case. They ruined every element of their case because they failed to realise what strict liability meant. They confused their role under the Electoral Act with that of the Auditor-General under the Public Finance Act. This legislation is very distressing. It is poorly thought-through which is why we stand here against it today. 
In relation to clause 119(1) I think that the parties themselves not just the financial agents should be in the gun for offences. There are things that I will do as a candidate as part of a committee and although I may be held accountable or my financial agent or someone else in our structure will be held accountable there is absolutely no holding the party accountable. I think it is patently unfair for a single person to carry all the liability for a large organisation like a mainstream political party. I am not talking about New Zealand First here or the Green Party. I am highlighting situations where decisions are made by groups of people in a democratic process. 
After the last election the police found a prima facie case against the Prime Minister’s chief of staff. It related to authorising the pledge card. The police declined to prosecute on the basis that one person should not be liable for a group mistake. It seems that the Labour promoters of this legislation have failed to reflect on that in any way in Part 3. I refer to clause 91 which requires the appointment of an auditor. If we look at the submissions from the Institute of Chartered Accountants we see that it opposed that provision in total. It said that there is absolutely no way this process can be adequately audited and that in the auditing process no useful value will accrue.