Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:644;Page:13499] 
2.  
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement yesterday when asked how she expects well-intentioned honest ordinary New Zealanders to understand the Electoral Finance Bill that “One expects people to read it carefully and to consult lawyers”; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the  
Prime Minister 
: Yes because well-intentioned honest ordinary New Zealanders are not the focus of this legislation. Those who plan large advertising campaigns have always needed to be conscious of electoral law which of course is why at the last election the Exclusive Brethren and the National Party colluded to stay just within the electoral law meaning that a $1.2 million campaign could be run by the Exclusive Brethren without being charged against the National Party’s allocation. 
John Key 
: Is the Prime Minister concerned that the legislation is so badly drafted that last night the Minister of Justice spent the evening telling the House that the views that she was expressing were her views and clearly not the Government’s views and that the reason is that the law is so incomprehensible the officials cannot even explain it to the Minister so she can present the Government’s views? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No and no but I do note with amusement that the Opposition keeps saying the law is badly drafted then opposes every amendment to it. 
John Key 
: Was the Prime Minister concerned yesterday then when the Minister of Justice was so confused in her interpretation that she said—and I quote from her  
Hansard 
—“I am prepared to say that my interpretation could be wrong. I might be wrong. In fact I am prepared to admit that I could be wrong. I read the comments of Bill English today in a question to the House. He might be right …”; and is it not worrying to the Prime Minister that my deputy leader understands the legislation when her Minister clearly does not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There is nothing wrong in this life with the fact that the Minister may admit that she may be wrong. The fact that even after 17 years in Parliament Mr English may occasionally stumble across a truth should not surprise us. 
John Key 
: Can the Prime Minister tell the people of New Zealand what other legislation this Government has passed that is so incomprehensible that the Minister cannot understand it and officials cannot understand it well enough to explain it to even the dimmest of Labour Ministers? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: One thing I can be sure of in that remark is that the intelligence curve for this Government ends about where National’s front bench starts—certainly in terms of understanding anything that I am aware of. But I am aware of legislation where judges frequently come to conclusions that are contrary to those that almost every member of Parliament has thought obtained in relation to legislation and subsequent amendment is required. And with this legislation there have been useful suggestions from Mr Finlayson that the Government has picked up. I look forward to discussing further with Mr Finlayson one aspect of his Supplementary Order Paper a little later in the afternoon. 
Sue Moroney 
: Has the Minister seen any reports calling for the abolition of limits on anonymous donations? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. I have seen a report arguing that the right to donate large sums of money in excess of $10000 in secret is as important to democracy as the secret ballot. This claim which came from Gerry Brownlee shows the real motivation for National’s opposition to this bill. It is so that large rich wealthy people can give lots of money anonymously to try to buy themselves a Government that will do things like putting accident compensation back into competition for example. 
John Key 
: If the legislation is so incomprehensible that the Minister of Justice cannot understand it officials cannot understand it well enough to explain it to the Minister of Justice Government departments cannot understand it the Electoral Commission cannot understand it and the Prime Minister thinks ordinary New Zealanders who want to try to understand it should consult a lawyer why on the back of all that is it being rushed through the House? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Actually it is not being rushed through the House. The member may notice—[ 
Interruption 
]—Well I know that some younger members are used to a kind of leisurely process of working around this place but I tell them that when the House is not working under urgency it is not being rushed. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Minister received any reports to explain the contradiction of those people who complain that money cannot buy elections nevertheless wanting to have no cap on expenditure? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member gets to the heart of the matter. What this bill is about—and everybody in this House understands what this bill is about—is stopping people from doing what happened in 2005 when a small cabal of wealthy people rorted the election law to try to buy themselves a National Government in order to bring on Armageddon and the end of the world. That was actually their aim in life amazing as it may seem. “Vote National for the end of the world” was the Exclusive Brethren’s purpose. 
Hon Members 
: Point of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is the point of order the fact that we cannot hear? Thank you. The Minister will please repeat in silence the essence of the answer please and no one is to interrupt. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I repeat that the essence of this argument is that people at the last election tried to buy themselves a Government by rorting the election law and the extraordinary thing was that the people who were trying to do that the most—the Exclusive Brethren—were trying to persuade people to vote for a National Government because that would actually have hastened the end of the world. 
John Key 
: What is better for the Government—having the old Minister of Justice Mark Burton who pretended he understood the legislation or the new Minister of Justice Annette King who has given up trying to pretend she understands it? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have listened to a great deal of the exchanges in this House over the radio and I have noticed that the Minister of Justice has been ripping the Opposition to shreds. I look forward to more of that gentle care and attention; I advise the member just to open his mouth and let “Auntie Annette” pull his teeth out. 
John Key 
: If the Prime Minister is so in touch with the electoral legislation that governs New Zealand can she just explain for a moment why she told the  
Holmes 
 interview this morning that the Electoral Act of 1956 is still in operation; and are there any other things that are 37 years out of date that she thinks still apply? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Prime Minister was pointing out that certain features of the 1956 Electoral Act are still carried forward into the current electoral legislation and that is absolutely correct. If the member had not been out of New Zealand for so long he would know that fact.