3. GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) Link to this
to the Minister of Finance
What steps, if any, will the Government take to address issues raised by the Controller and Auditor-General in his report on election advertising?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) Link to this
I will be introducing a bill this afternoon on this matter, to be taken through all stages under urgency. The Government will then seek to participate with all others in the House in the broader review of the appropriations and related issues.
Can the Minister confirm that the validating legislation he is introducing today will not impose any legal obligation on parties to pay back taxpayers’ money, spent unlawfully; and is that because some of the parties involved have no intention of paying the money back?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
Yes, and I am not aware of the position of all parties on this matter. I know what the position of my party is.
Rodney HideIn light of the Government’s intention to pass legislation retrospectively validating unlawful spending by party leaders and members of Parliament, has the Government given any thought to validating legislation for art fraud, motorcade speeding, defamation, and the destruction of evidence; if not, why not?
Why does the Minister’s bill seek to validate the unlawful spending of Mr Peters and the New Zealand First Party, when Mr Peters is making it very clear that he has no intention of paying back the $160,000 he owes the taxpayers of New Zealand?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I am unaware of the truth, or otherwise, of that assertion. I do note that the bill validates all spending by the National Party, including that for which it has not refunded the Government, including, for example, its 2002 spending, which under the Auditor-General’s rules is clearly outside the scope. [ Interruption]
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is that a parliamentary word, and would its translation be a parliamentary word, as well?
Madam SPEAKERIt is a term. If the member wishes a translation I am sure we have an interpreter here to give it to him, if he is not aware of it.
If the Labour Party is taking such a highbrow attitude to this, in saying that it will pay it back, why has it not included that in the legislation?
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister has made the mistake of thinking I was asking him a question as the deputy leader of the Labour Party. I was not; I was asking him a question as Minister of Finance. He does have a responsibility for expenditure of taxpayers’ money, and the question asked why he has not included the repayment, or requirement for repayment, in his bill.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
On a related matter, whether particular people refund the expenditure is irrelevant to whether the expenditure remains unlawful.
Why is the Minister then placing so much importance on the validating legislation to remedy a technical breach, and such little importance on the actual requirement to pay the money back when it was spent from taxpayers, quite unlawfully?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
There is clearly no requirement at this point. The member misses the second part. At the moment it is quite clear that unless changes occur through statute, a trip like Dr Brash’s on parliamentary funding and at public expense to go and sign up a member of the National Party is outside the rules.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Are you going to accept that answer from Dr Cullen? It would seem to contradict your own determinations in these matters quite flagrantly, relating to parliamentary travel. I do not expect an answer right now, but I think any consideration of the determinations that you have made about parliamentary travel, as is appropriately your domain, would mean that Dr Cullen’s assertion is quite wrong.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
Speaking to the point of order, I say that of course the member does have a fair point if what we do is accept the legal opinion from Mr Jack Hodder, so thoroughly condemned by Mr Brownlee last Thursday. If, however, we accept a legal opinion from the former Solicitor-General, and the Auditor-General’s opinion based on that, then clearly flying on taxpayers’ expense to sign up a National Party member and for apparently no other reason is clearly outside the rules. It is called electioneering.
Ruling on the point of order, I say that this is a matter for the Minister responsible for Vote Parliamentary Service. It is a matter that should appropriately be raised tomorrow at the Parliamentary Service Commission.
Can the Minister confirm that the tests set out in sections 72A to 72D of the validation legislation as presented would make the pledge card legal, and effectively overturns the Auditor-General’s concerns?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
That would be the case, but the member should also note that section 7 lapses at the end of 2007. That was deliberately chosen to allow full review of the rules before election year.