Points of Order

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) Link to this

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to raise a point of order with you under Standing Order 23, for which you as Speaker have particular oversight. It is to do with the allegation of corruption and misuse of parliamentary funding by the Labour Party for electioneering expenses.

Last year the Prime Minister refused to meet the Auditor-General to discuss the report he produced on this particular issue after he had investigated the $21 million Government advertising programme. Dr Brash agreed to meet the Auditor-General, but such a meeting did not take place because the Prime Minister refused to do so. We now know that the Prime Minister must have had constructive knowledge at least of the fact that the Labour Party was relying on that funding for its election pledge card and the pamphlet that went with it. So the question that arises for you is when a request will be made to the Labour Party to repay those funds, to ensure that the integrity of Standing Order 23 is upheld and that the very best construction on the proceedings of the House can be maintained.

Madam SPEAKER Link to this

I thank the member for his point of order. As he may be aware, it is not a matter of order or a matter for this House, but a matter for the Parliamentary Service Commission. It is on its agenda tomorrow.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) Link to this

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not want to challenge your ruling, but you may like to offer the House some advice on a subsequent day as to how this cannot be considered a matter for consideration under the Standing Orders when we look at the words contained in Standing Order 23. More particularly, when we look at the section on page 2 of David McGee’s Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand entitled “Functions of the Parliament and the House of Representatives”, we see there are four paragraphs and at least two of them make it abundantly clear that this expenditure, which has the scrutiny of Parliament applied to it, should fall under the Standing Orders. To dismiss the matter like that dismisses a very important Standing Order that you, as Speaker, are required to uphold.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) Link to this

I must congratulate the member on his inventiveness in trying to bring this matter under Standing Order 23, because the part he most refers to, “the most favourable construction”, is that an approach being made to the Governor-General—previously made to the Sovereign—for him or her to put the most favourable construction upon the proceedings of the House. That has nothing to do with the Parliamentary Service Commission’s allocation of funding—any more than the use of that funding by the National Party to erect billboards has anything to do with the Governor-General putting constructions on the proceedings of the House. [ Interruption]

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) Link to this

The contention of that Standing Order is most certainly that the Governor-General may put the most appropriate construction upon the proceedings of the House. The question that arises in this case is whether there has been a corrupt use of funds provided for a parliamentary purpose. Surely, to satisfy the requirement the Governor-General might have to be able to put that favourable construction on the House’s proceedings makes this a matter that can be considered as part of the Standing Orders.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) Link to this

Apart from the fact that this matter is being dealt with elsewhere, obviously, the spending made by the Labour Party on this matter is not a proceeding of the House. I am sure the House as a whole would not wish to take responsibility for the spending of any particular party within it; that is a matter for the Parliamentary Service Commission. The fact that the Speaker is the chairperson of the Parliamentary Service Commission ex officio does not make anything done by that commission a proceeding of the House.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) Link to this

I think the matter is much more serious, Madam Speaker, than you allow for. As Speaker, you and you alone are the Minister responsible for that budget. The rules on the allocation of that budget are very, very clear: the money can be spent only on parliamentary business. We have heard over the past few days that the Labour Party, for three or maybe four elections, has been using something like $440,000 of taxpayers’ money supplied for parliamentary business in order to fund its pledge cards. That is not the reason New Zealanders pay their taxes.

We have a situation whereby the money has been misappropriated from the Prime Minister’s leader’s fund. You, as Minister, are responsible for that fund. To the public, and certainly to me, it looks as though that fund has been used as a Labour Party slush fund. [Interruption] Members may want to call out on the first day.

This matter raises some very serious questions for the Speaker of this House, such as when did you, Madam Speaker, first learn that that money was being spent on the pledge cards, when it was clearly inappropriate that it be spent; what involvement did you have in OK’ing that expenditure; and, indeed, did you involve yourself in distributing those pledge cards? Finally, how come you have not called in the Auditor-General to investigate that spending and required the Prime Minister to repay that money to the taxpayers of New Zealand, as Jim Anderton and Marian Hobbs were required to do? I think this is something about which you owe an explanation to this House—and, indeed, to the public of New Zealand—and not something that should be shuffled off to the Parliamentary Service Commission.

Madam SPEAKER Link to this

I thank the member for his speech. I repeat that this is not a matter of order. Of course, it is a serious matter; that is not denied, at all. It is a matter, however, for the Parliamentary Service Commission, upon which there are representatives from all parties, and from whom, of course, the Speaker takes advice before any decision is made. The matter is currently before the Parliamentary Service Commission, and it will be dealt with there. However, because it is a serious matter, I am happy to look at it again and to give a Speaker’s ruling on the basis of a further consideration of what role and particular responsibility the Speaker has in this instance.

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) Link to this

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I may be able to assist Mr Hide. I wrote to you, Madam Speaker, on 8 September 2005 outlining the National Party’s concerns about Labour’s advertising breaching the Members’ Handbook of Services rules. On 20 September 2005 you advised that the matter had been referred to the Controller and Auditor-General, who is investigating the matter and, on my last inquiry, was due to make a decision on the nature of his report at the end of this month. It does raise the issue as to where this leaves the House and its members in interpreting those rules prior to the release of that report.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) Link to this

I think the contribution we have just heard takes this consideration one step further. Madam Speaker, the point I raise is that in the ruling you are about to bring down, it seems to me that you need to address your two distinct roles: your role as the Speaker of this House, charged with maintaining the order of this House and the conduct of its proceedings, and your associated role as the chair of the Parliamentary Service Commission. It strikes me that many of the issues raised relate to that role rather than to the role of Speaker.

The question that I think will need to be addressed, because it will come back and back and back, is where the link is between those two positions—in other words, what the accountability is to Parliament for the work you do as chair of the Parliamentary Service Commission. I am not aware, for instance, that the members’ handbook is a parliamentary document in the same way that the Standing Orders are, so strictures laid down there may not have the same status as the Standing Orders. It would be useful for your ruling to clarify that matter, because it may save some future excursions of this type.

Madam SPEAKER Link to this

I thank both members for their comments. That is why I think it is a serious matter and why there has to be clarification of what the jurisdiction of the two roles is. That is why I am happy to take it under further consideration.