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:13633] 
2.  
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statements in relation to the  
New Zealand Herald 
’s coverage of the Electoral Finance Bill that “There have been weeks if not months with full-blooded attacks front-page headlines editorials attack stories cartoons you name it.” and that complaining to the Press Council “just doesn’t get you anywhere”; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister)  
on behalf of the  
Prime Minister 
: Yes; because that is the case. 
John Key 
: What does it say about the Government’s confidence in its own bill that in the face of criticism the Prime Minister cannot argue about the specific points journalists are raising but can only smear those journalists as being shallow error-prone and making major gaffes because of their limited knowledge? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Prime Minister was speaking to a group of journalists and journalism students in relation to the nature of parliamentary reporting. On that occasion of course she was not talking specifically about the debate around the details of the Electoral Finance Bill; she was talking about the fact that we have a robust media in this country that is sometimes—not always—highly accurate. 
John Key 
: Is it not the case that the Electoral Finance Bill has been widely criticised by almost every other newspaper in the country by the Law Society by the Human Rights Commission and by New Zealand Bill of Rights Act specialists and does the Prime Minister consider that those people and organisations are wrong in their analysis as well as the  
New Zealand Herald 
? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There was a great deal of criticism of the bill as it originally entered the select committee. A very large number of changes were made in the select committee and indeed a large number of changes were made during the Committee of the whole House. That of course means that there is now quite a different bill from the one that went into the select committee. 
John Key 
: Does the Prime Minister by mentioning a possible complaint to the Press Council mean that in her opinion the  
New Zealand Herald  
has not been fair and balanced in its coverage of the Electoral Finance Bill and in fact has deliberately misled or misinformed its readers; if not what other grounds does she have for even considering a complaint to the Press Council? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Clearly the Prime Minister was not considering a complaint to the Press Council because she says “there was little point in complaining to the print media’s self-regulatory watchdog the Press Council.” She was pointing out that the  
New Zealand Herald  
has run a campaign. Clearly it has. A front-page editorial that says “our view” and “their view” and where “their view” is simply other newspapers saying the same thing as the  
New Zealand Herald 
 
is scarcely a balanced coverage. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Could the Prime Minister confirm that one of New Zealand’s primary concerns in the Pacific is to remove the influence of foreign interests in national elections in various countries in the Pacific; and what reports has she seen to advise that it is both a sound policy abroad and one to be encouraged back here in New Zealand? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is indeed the New Zealand Government’s position within the Pacific and of course it is very interesting to see when one reads  
The Hollow Men 
 the very clear evidence of external influence being brought to bear on New Zealand’s electoral process via the National Party. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Has the Prime Minister noted that the Business Roundtable’s John Boscawen paid $9000 to get a Canadian call centre to make automated calls to 82000 Aucklanders urging them to join his rally against the Electoral Finance Bill; and is she concerned that this kind of activity could herald the way in which electoral campaigns could be bought and sold in future? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Indeed I have seen reports suggesting that Mr Boscawen has spent considerable sums on hiring outside agencies to conduct what has been described as a phone scam. But the fact that Mr Boscawen has also paid for extraordinarily badly put together newspaper advertisements which no one would have got past the first 235 words of is neither here nor there. 
John Key 
: Does the Prime Minister agree with the key principles of the Press Council that “a publication is entitled to adopt a forthright stance and advocate a position on any issue”; and has not the  
New Zealand Herald  
simply been doing that? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The media are certainly entitled to take a forthright stance. Sometimes some of them have difficulty understanding that politicians—on both sides of the House—are entitled to take a forthright stance in response. That is called being in a democracy. 
John Key 
: Is it not becoming a hallmark of this Government that it simply attacks the motives of people and organisations that dare to disagree with or challenge the Government—just as the Government did when it did not like what the Auditor-General had to say just as it did when the Minister of Finance tried to say that the only reason journalists reported tax cuts was that they were for their own benefit and just as it has now when the  
New Zealand Herald  
has been running a fair and balanced campaign against the Electoral Finance Bill; and do we not all know on this side of the House that it is the beginning of the end when the messenger starts to be shot because the Government cannot win the argument? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That obvious and robust defence of the  
New Zealand Herald  
suggests that the member might well be described as the  
New Zealand Herald 
’s page-boy from now on. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Prime Minister recall the  
New Zealand Herald 
’s very neutral stance on Peter Shirtcliffe and the Campaign for Better Government—which comprised only three family members and campaigned back in 1993—its 57 editorials attacking anyone who questioned Fay and Richwhite or on the question of the Airways Corporation board its attack on some member of Parliament who had attacked the board chairman even though the board chairman chaired the board of the  
New Zealand Herald— 
and if it was not prepared to disclose that interest why does he expect it to disclose something now? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Well many things! I recall the  
New Zealand Herald  
launching a very similar campaign against the abolition of the right to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council which it said would mean the end of our legal system. But one must be fair: one also recollects the  
New Zealand Herald  
stating in one editorial that the National Party was doing very well until Mr Key started to announce policy. 
John Key 
: Has it dawned on the Prime Minister that it is not necessarily the  
New Zealand Herald  
that is wrong that it is not necessarily the millions of New Zealanders who are opposed to this bill who are wrong and that every organisation around this country that thinks this legislation is wrong is not necessarily wrong itself; has it ever dawned on the Government that for once in its life it is wrong so why does it not just scrap the bill as we suggested 6 months ago? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I suspect that the Government has been wrong more than once in some 8 years of Government; it would be rather surprising if we had not been. I am equally confident however that this is not one of those occasions. But the member should not be afraid of robust debate; some day he may want to be able to engage in robust debate with the media. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Prime Minister personally agree that the involvement of ordinary citizens in the review mechanisms for the Electoral Finance Bill should consist of more than just the usual chance to make submissions? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is always very difficult to ensure that there is a proper canvassing of opinion from the public at large—particularly on complex issues like electoral law where there is obviously not a simple yes or no answer around a whole range of matters. I think working through how best to engage in a review that incorporates public participation that is as wide as possible is a difficult matter and is one that we need to give more time and consideration to.