Prime Minister—Speech from the Throne 1999

Does the Prime Minister believe that it was compatible with those lofty sentiments that either she or people working for her made a decision in the final weeks of last year’s election campaign to continue campaign spending, knowing that to do so put them in breach of the Electoral Act spending cap, thereby committing what the Electoral Act calls “a corrupt practice”?

As I have advised the House before, I am not responsible for the Labour Party’s spending, and I will not answer such questions in the House. I have no idea how much the Labour Party spent.

Mallard Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this

How has public confidence in the electoral process been restored by the party that is the Government of New Zealand cold-bloodedly breaking the Electoral Act campaign spending limits, and then relying on the police and Crown Law to once again let it off the hook?

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would like to quote to you a new authority on the Standing Orders. That person said that Helen Clark has no ministerial responsibility for the Labour Party. That is what Don Brash was quoted as saying yesterday. This is clearly a question that should go directly to the Labour Party. Don Brash has indicated that he cannot ask such questions in the House. He is quoted directly as making that statement, and now he has asked a question about something that is a Labour Party responsibility, not a parliamentary responsibility.

Mallard Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this

I suggest that that Minister, who is now very burdened with additional responsibilities, take a good look at the question. At the heart of this matter is a $500,000 spend straight out of the leader’s office, which Helen Clark does have responsibility for.

If the Leader of the Opposition had properly linked his supplementary question to that, the question could well have been valid. He did not do so.

I ask the member to please restate the question in a manner that is consistent with the fact that no member in this House is responsible for his or her party activities. So I ask Don Brash to please restate his supplementary question.

Does the Prime Minister have concern about the fact that the police and Crown Law have let the Labour Party off the hook again, and does she have concern that this may undermine public confidence in the Government, in Parliament, and in the electoral process?

I do not accept the premise in the question. The police press statement, of course, makes it quite clear that the police decided not to prosecute the National Party, either, for what many would have seen as a very clear breach of the legislation, and I can assure—[ Interruption]

Members are entitled to be able to hear answers.

I can assure the member that in the review of the Electoral Act, the Government will be paying particularly close attention to third party advertising, like that solicited by Dr Brash from the Exclusive Brethren.

Did the Prime Minister see in the media statement released by the police last Friday any suggestion at all that the police had established a prima facie case against the National Party for a breach of the Electoral Act?

Perhaps I could read from the police statement, which stated, for some curious reason, that the police could not attribute responsibility for the mistake in GST overexpenditure to either the National Party or its media buying agency.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Prime Minister at no point tried to answer my question.

The question was addressed. No member is entitled to a yes or a no or a direct answer. That is what the Standing Orders provide. We could change them, whereby we have only factual questions and factual answers, and I suggest members may like to think about that.

Is the Prime Minister aware of any failure, in the past, to declare GST that has led to criminal charges and criminal convictions?

Cullen Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this

I would think that it is almost certainly true that a failure to declare GST has led to charges and convictions in the past. But, of course, the police could not find anybody in the National Party who knew anything about GST—including, presumably, Dr Brash.

How could the Prime Minister make that last statement and find it credible, when the leader of the National Party is the very man who chaired the Government committee established to introduce GST in the mid-1980s?

That is only because I accept—as I would hope Dr Brash would accept—that he was not personally in control of the finances of the National Party.

How is public confidence in Parliament and the electoral process to be restored when, on three separate occasions now, the police and Crown Law have found prima facie breaches of the law made by Ministers in the Government, including the Prime Minister, and by the Labour Party, but have exercised a discretion not to take any further action?

I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition take advice about what “prima facie” actually means. It does not mean that there is evidence that would stand up in court—unlike the evidence that stood up in court and saw two National Party front-benchers convicted in court: Dr Nick Smith of contempt of court, and Gerry Brownlee of assault. They seem to have no difficulty in sitting on the front bench of the National Party.

Has the Prime Minister received any reports as to how it could possibly be that the police were not able to establish more than a prima facie case, given that the party the police were investigating on a question of a failure to declare GST is led by an economic genius who claims to have had an unblemished record as the head of the Reserve Bank, has a number of lawyers in its caucus who are paid to be the brightest legal minds in this Parliament, and also has the only trained economist in this country, namely the leader of the ACT party, as one of its abiding, compliant principals?

It is indeed strange, particularly when the National Party does not appear to have made the same mistake in any previous election.

Does the Prime Minister accept that $446,000-plus of the Labour Party’s election overspend came directly out of her leader’s budget for the illegitimate practice of spending on the pledge card, and will she now pay it back?

The Labour Party, like all parties, awaits the outcome of the Auditor-General’s report on expenditure from leaders’ funds. And, of course, this little recruitment pamphlet, which was paid for out of parliamentary funds and liberally distributed by the National Party through the election campaign, will no doubt be of interest to the Auditor-General, as well.

Does the Prime Minister remember when GST first came into this country’s law—how many years ago it was—does she know how many business people or, for that matter, contractors or people who are engaged in any sort of trade or deal know the law, and has she received any reports as to whether old age may lead to someone forgetting what the law is?

That is unnecessary.

I would have thought that after 20 years of GST being in operation, ignorance of its existence is a poor excuse.

Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether Mr Peters will have to pay GST on the $40,000 he owes Bob Clarkson and has not yet paid?

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. All supplementary questions must bear some relationship to the primary question. The second thing—

No, I am sorry—long bows have been drawn on this particular question.

I have spoken only one sentence—I have not finished.

Please be brief.

What I really want to say to the National Party is this: laugh now, but cry later.

It was not worth waiting for.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have asked a question of the Prime Minister.

I do not recall the question. The member got the call but did not actually ask the question.

Yes, I did.

Sorry—will the member please repeat the question.

Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether Mr Peters will have to pay—

That is where we are going again.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The member has been around long enough to know that he should not trifle with the Chair.

This matter can be easily settled. As the member knows, one cannot seek a legal opinion through a question in the House. The member was seeking a legal opinion. He may rephrase his question.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I asked the Prime Minister whether she could advise the House. The Prime Minister said in her previous answer that after 20 years of GST, there should be no ambiguity about its effects. She has been answering questions about GST. I think my question is quite reasonable.

The way the member phrased his question was to ask quite specifically whether GST would be payable in a particular set of circumstances. That was, in effect, to seek a legal opinion.

OK, I will rephrase the question.

The member will ask a further supplementary question?

No.

I am afraid I ruled the previous question out of order.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. If you had ruled the question out of order, you would not have taken those trifling points of order from Mr Peters when it was originally asked. I think you are being extremely unfair and are now costing us the opportunity to ask the question.

I ruled that those points of order were out of order. They were not supplementary questions. If they had been put as questions, they also would have been ruled out of order. I do not want any further discussion on that point. The member knows that he cannot seek a legal opinion. If he wishes to rephrase the question in another supplementary question, he is perfectly entitled to do so.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would like you to look at the Hansard later today and explain to me how my question sought a legal opinion. It was a simple question about whether GST would be payable. Of course we are talking about circumstances; that is exactly what the Prime Minister has done in her answers today.

Hide Rodney Hide Link to this

I am happy to look at it. Mr Hide, do you have a supplementary question?

Yes, I am sorry—I dozed off there.

Hide Rodney Hide Link to this

I thank the member.

I ask the Prime Minister—[ Interruption] Is it not great that Mr Peters, who cannot make his point when he asks a question and cannot make his point when he raises a point of order, wants to sit on the sideline—

Hide Rodney Hide Link to this

Would all members in the House please settle. You know that when a member is asking a question, there should be no comment. You are all on a final warning.

Would the Prime Minister care to take the opportunity in the House to attempt to restore some integrity to herself and to her Government, by explaining—when the facts, by her own admission today in the House, did not change—how matters went from yesterday morning, when she was able to attack Investigate magazine for running a smear campaign and say that there were no questions to answer, to David Parker having to stand down as Attorney-General late yesterday afternoon but being able to stay on as Minister of Energy and Minister of Transport, and then this morning having to resign entirely his portfolios when, by her own admission, there was no change to any of the facts that she had at her disposal?

I am very happy to oblige the member. I first heard of the matter at 6.30 yesterday morning. I immediately instigated inquiries among my staff and Mr Parker. That led to a decision by Mr Parker in the course of yesterday to resign as Attorney-General. He contemplated the matter further overnight, and came back to me this morning. Precisely 28 hours after I first heard of the matter, Mr Parker resigned all his portfolios. I believe that period of time was appropriate. A man’s career was at stake, and I believe he was treated fairly.

Does the Prime Minister accept the findings of the New Zealand Police that there was sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case against the Labour Party; if so, why will she not take the obvious step and pay the money back?