Controller and Auditor-General—Confidence

Has she reconsidered, in the light of today’s report, her position—like her colleague Peter Dunne has done—and why will she not now apologise for her earlier intemperate and misguided comments regarding the Auditor-General? Why is she digging in and saying she does not have confidence in him?

She is not saying whether she has confidence in him, because it is a matter for Parliament. The Controller and Auditor-General is not an appointment of the Government.

Does the Prime Minister recall seeing on page 30 of the drafts provided to her earlier that the Auditor-General makes it clear that by publishing his report in 2005 and warning parties to stay inside the rules in election year, he expected MPs and parliamentary parties to be especially careful in that area; and does she now regret her decision not to meet with the Auditor-General to discuss her spending proposals for the 2005 election?

On the latter part of the question, I have no advice. I myself believe that the Controller and Auditor-General’s interpretation of his own report is open to question. I do not think it is as clear as he now, in his 2006 report, makes out it is.

Can we assume from the answer the Prime Minister gave earlier to Dr Brash that it is the intention of the Labour Party to advance validating legislation to make legal the election overspend and the spending of Parliamentary Service funds on electioneering, and does that mean that the Labour Party has no intention of paying the money back?

English Hon Bill English Link to this

I am now able to tell the member that the Labour Party will be paying the money back. I have been waiting for the Prime Minister to read the report and issue a response, which she has now done.

She’s not the Labour Party.

Oh, you have finally woken up to that! However, validating legislation is still required. If the member cares to read the Speaker’s report—and I have received very similar advice from both Treasury and Crown Law—he will find that validation is required even if all the money is repaid by every party in the House. That is the only way of rendering the appropriation lawful—and that covers the spending by Katherine Rich and others.

Will the Prime Minister concede that that answer is only technically correct, because, of course, the expenditure has already been incurred, and that there is an obligation on the Labour Party to pay the money back?

It is clear that the member was so stunned by the answer that he did not hear it. I will say this very slowly, for Mr Brownlee: the Labour Party—or perhaps the “Lay-ba Par-tee”, to use the National Party form—should and will be paying the money back. This does not affect the need for validating legislation—it remains unlawful.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do apologise for asking the same question twice. I was just shocked by the first answer but, on behalf of the taxpayer, also delighted.

That is not a point of order. Is there another supplementary question?

Mallard Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this

Will the Prime Minister accept the criticism—

He’s one of their brighter ones!

Sorry?

Interjections are permitted. It was not an unparliamentary remark—unless the member objects, in which case I will ask the member to withdraw and apologise.

Does the Prime Minister accept the criticism of the Auditor-General, when he says: “I find it hard to accept that despite my 2005 Report and the message to be careful about advertising expenditure in the pre-election period, behaviour did not change.”; if she does not accept that, why not?

No, the Labour Party and the Prime Minister do not accept that. The Auditor-General might have thought he was being clear; if he meant to be clear, he should have been clear.

When will the Labour Party pay the money back?

That question is not within the Minister’s responsibility.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The two occasions today that Dr Cullen said the Labour Party would pay the money back were on the floor of this House. It is not an unreasonable—

I agree with the member that the remarks were made on the floor of the House. But the Minister has no ministerial responsibility for the Labour Party.

Has the Prime Minister been told by the leader of the Labour Party when the Labour Party intends to pay the money back, and will she pass that message on to the House?