6. Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
What steps, if any, will her Government take to address any findings or recommendations that may be made by the Controller and Auditor-General in his inquiry into election advertising?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) Link to this
The Government will take whatever steps are appropriate—[ Interruption]
Madam SPEAKERI am sorry. If members wish to remain in this Chamber they will allow the member who is answering to be heard. Otherwise, they will leave.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
The Government will take whatever steps are appropriate when we have had the opportunity to properly consider the report, which was tabled approximately 32 minutes ago. [ Interruption]
I remind members of Speaker’s ruling 23/8 that reference is not made to members who are not in the Chamber. Some members who made those comments have been here long enough to know that Speaker’s ruling.
Will the Prime Minister, in light of the clear findings of the Controller and Auditor-General today, now do what she should have done in the first place and make a commitment to repay the more than three-quarters of a million dollars that was wrongly used?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
The Prime Minister will respond when she has had a chance to consider the report. However, I do notice that the Controller’s report rests heavily upon the legal opinion of the former Solicitor-General, and that that opinion is dissented from strongly by Mr Jack Hodder of Chapman Tripp. Where two of New Zealand’s leading legal minds, Jack Hodder and Terence Arnold, disagree, there is clearly room for uncertainty.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether it is the case that he has, or members have had, insufficient time to read the report—
Come on, both of you, please. Comments like that will provoke a reaction. Will the member just ask his question, please.
No, would you both sit down, please. I am on my feet. That question, asking about the Standing Orders, is obviously out of order. Would the member now please address his original question to the Minister.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I hardly got started when a member of Parliament shouted out to you that it was out of order. With respect, he had not even heard what I was going to say, and you should have stopped him, rather than trying to rebuke me for countering him.
No, I just want the member to ask his question. Is your point of order continuing on this point of order, or is it a new one?
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Mr Peters began his question by asking the Deputy Prime Minister. You will know that the question is set down for the Prime Minister, and the practice is, even though she is not present, that one addresses the question to the Prime Minister. In that regard, Mr Peters was incorrect, and we rightly pointed that out.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister, answering for the Prime Minister—
Mr Peters, you will not be remaining in this Chamber if another comment like that is made, or any other member makes such a comment. The primary question is addressed to the Prime Minister, so supplementary questions must be addressed to that Minister. Of course the Deputy Prime Minister is answering on her behalf. So would the member please now ask his question.
If that member wishes to remain in the Chamber, he will please refrain from such comments. Would the member please ask his question.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Is it the case that the Government and other parties have had insufficient time to study the report—a report that, I might add, Don Brash has not read, given that he said that it was clear in its findings?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I had noticed that, unlike myself, Dr Brash had not been reading the report but nevertheless asked a question on the basis of the report. The Prime Minister intends to read the information available before responding. She will respond.
Does the Prime Minister regret, now that the Controller and Auditor-General has resisted her attempts to intimidate him, her previous statements that he had “a credibility problem”, and that he should “go back to the drawing board”; if not, why not?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I notice certain assertions in the report that are still contestable. They certainly relate to the legal interpretation on which the entire report is largely based. They also relate to the issue of the nature of the report made before the election in 2005, and I would be happy to discuss those on a later date.
Does the Prime Minister now regret her earlier decision to totally ignore demands for the unlawfully spent pledge card funds to be repaid, and does she wish to make any expression of regret or apology to the New Zealand public in this regard?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
The Labour Party received a draft report—or a number of draft reports, of course, to individual members—and obviously until the final report, which was tabled today, is considered, a final response cannot be given. I do, however, emphasise to the member that if he cares to read the information just given to him, including the Speaker’s report, repayment does not make the unlawful nature lawful. Validation is still required.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Has the member seen this recommendation by the Auditor-General for the future operations of the Parliamentary Service, and I will read the first bullet point on page 54: “Ensuring proposed advertising is checked (either by Service staff or some independent person) before expenditure is incurred to ensure that the proposed advertising is for a purpose within the scope of the Party and Member Support appropriations.”, which is precisely what New Zealand First did on every occasion?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
It is a correct quotation. But what, of course, the Controller and Auditor-General says in his report is that the Parliamentary Service has not properly applied the interpretation of the rules. However, that interpretation—
Hon Bill EnglishHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
That is what the Auditor-General says in his report, if the member would just read it.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
Dr Smith should get a big-print version for himself. What, in fact, that also means is that again the Auditor-General is relying upon the previous Solicitor-General’s legal opinion, which is heavily contestable, as Jack Hodder’s legal opinion appended to the Speaker’s report makes clear.
Gerry BrownleeHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
“Who’s he?”, asks Gerry Brownlee about Jack Hodder! He is just one of this country’s leading lawyers. Gerry Brownlee has never heard of him. I tell members that long after Gerry Brownlee is dead and gone, Jack Hodder will have some influence on this country.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That is not what we say about people outside. Mr Brownlee has just called Jack Hodder a “Government lackey”. I suggest he talk to his colleague Chris Finlayson before he continues that kind of stupid commentary about a very, very good independent lawyer.
We have a report in front of us produced by the Auditor-General, an Officer of Parliament. We have a report in front of us produced by you, the Speaker of the Parliament. We have had various other institutions of the State, including the Chief Electoral Officer, express opinions on this. Apparently we are to put it all aside because the Labour Party’s own lawyer has a different view.
That is the sort of reason why his party is in trouble. Labour members are a bunch of thieves; pay it back!
Mr Brownlee, please be seated. The essence of the point of order is about comments made by members of the public who are not in this Chamber to, in fact, defend themselves. I ask members to confine their comments in an appropriate way.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to withdraw and apologise for the comment I made suggesting that Mr Hodder was in some way in the pocket of the Labour Party. But I do point out that he is acting as the Government’s lawyer.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
—or even the Labour Party’s lawyer, he was not acting on behalf of either. Mr Rennie has acted on behalf of the Labour Party.
Please be seated. The Speaker hired legal advice, and that legal advice was Mr Hodder. He had nothing to do with any political party whatsoever.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask you how you have allowed a member—namely Gerry Brownlee—to get up and carry on protesting, long after you were on your feet; that is something you will not allow from any other member of Parliament, yet you leave him in this House. I know that it is a stylised piece of behaviour for tonight’s news, but it should not be tolerated in this House and I am asking you to address that issue now.
No, the member is quite right. I have been tolerant because Mr Brownlee is the Opposition leader in the House. But if that happens again when I am on my feet, I will ask Mr Brownlee to leave.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I was going to make this point before the member intervened. Towards the end of his outburst, the deputy leader of the National Party made an accusation that is clearly unparliamentary. Not only that, but because it rests upon the finding of unlawful expenditure, it also applies to Katherine Rich and a number of other members of the House.
I am not sure what that is about. I did not hear, but did you make an unparliamentary statement, Mr Brownlee? If you did, please withdraw and apologise.
We are clearly here today asking questions about a report that relates to funds that were quite obviously—from reading those reports—misused. Now the question that comes to mind is, if those funds were misused, and if Dr Cullen is saying the only way that the use of those funds can be made legal is by changing the law to retrospectively validate that expenditure, then is it unreasonable to suggest that it could be considered theft of taxpayer funds?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
Of course, even if there were some virtue in the argument, it is still unparliamentary to use the term the member used. I point out also that it applies to other members, including members of Mr Brownlee’s own party. I emphasise that if Mr Brownlee cares to read the reports, he will discover what I have already been advised by Treasury and Crown Law. That is, that repayment—whether or not it occurs—is irrelevant to the issue of the expenditure being unlawful in the first place, and validation has to occur; it is the only means of remedying the unlawfulness. [ Interruption]
Yes we do, and we could progress if you withdraw and apologise. That was an unparliamentary comment.
That is my offer. I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you could tell us, then, what standing in this argument Mr Jack Hodder has, given that the Government wants to hang its hat on him? Can I further table a document showing that the Government itself appointed Mr Terence Arnold to the bench of the Court of Appeal. He was in fact the author of the original report.
That is not a point of order. [ Interruption] Can I address the point of order; then you can have leave. Thank you. That is not a valid point of order, because you are drawing the Speaker into the debate. I suggest that people read both reports totally. You were asking leave, Mr Brownlee?
I sought leave to table a document showing that the Labour Government appointed Terence Arnold, the author of the original report, to the bench of the Court of Appeal because it respected his legal experience.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
The Government has no objection to that. I made it clear that both the gentlemen I refer to are distinguished lawyers. Of course, it was Mr McCully, who attacked Terence Arnold’s integrity before he was appointed.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I ask the Minister whether he has read page 55 of the report, which in particular refers to part 5 of the Auditor-General’s 2005 report, then at bullet points 627, 628, and 629 sets out a series of future circumstances, all of which are critical of this report because they are at variance with what else he says in the remainder of the report?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I have only just been able to get to that point, in response to the member’s question. I have been a little busy on my feet in the last few moments, and I cannot actually read and answer questions at the same time, but I think what is said there is actually—
David BennettHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
Well, I can do what Lyndon Johnson used to say was important for a politician.
Members are starting again, and I say to Mr Bennett that that is the last time. You have a loud voice so you are heard when you intervene. It is your last warning.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
Indeed, that seems to be the recommendation. It does seem to me to be at variance with the Auditor-General’s claim that what he said in 2005 was absolutely clear. I think it is important that those rules are properly reviewed. That will take some time. It will also mean that any legislation will have to deal with the fact that currently considerable doubt is around a great deal of current Parliamentary Service expenditure.
Rodney HideHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I think that in the member’s case, Alan Gibbs may as well have signed it directly rather than going through the middleman. However, as I said before, the Prime Minister will respond when she has had time to consider the reports.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Mr Hide could not have asked a more simple or clear question. For the acting Prime Minister to stand up and suggest that somehow Mr Hide is influenced from outside this House seriously breaches the Standing Orders. He should withdraw, he should apologise, then he should answer the question.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I did not suggest that the member was influenced from outside the House. I merely suggested that he receives donations. Is the member now saying that the National Party does not receive any donations from outside the House? That is a fairly extraordinary claim. However, I accept that the first part of the answer was out of order. I repeat the second part—the Prime Minister will respond when she has had a chance to consider the report.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I just want to make it plain to the House that this is a cheque in my name for the money found by the Auditor-General to have been spent inappropriately, despite the best advice. What I want to know is when Helen Clark will front up with her money. When will she write a cheque for the money spent in her name inappropriately? I would like that question addressed.
I thank the member. That was not a point of order. The Minister did address the question and, as members well know, there is no requirement for a yes or no answer to questions.
What is the Prime Minister’s response to the clear finding in the Auditor-General’s report and the Crown Law opinion that because the use of her leader’s budget to fund the pledge card was unlawful, the cost of the pledge card was an election expense, clearly placing the Labour Party in breach of the campaign spending cap in section 214B of the Electoral Act?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
As I said, the legal opinion on which that is based is highly contestable. However, the Labour Party will not be bothering to contest it.
Does the Prime Minister accept the Auditor-General’s finding that the Labour Party spent more than three-quarters of a million dollars illegally, and will she, as the highest elected official in the land, express confidence in Mr Kevin Brady as Auditor-General and in his findings?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
No, we do not accept that. We accept that that is the view of the Auditor-General, and that is the basis on which we have to act. We believe that the rules we operated within were such as to allow the expenditure that occurred.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You make it plain in your report that you consider that all members must seriously consider paying back the money if confidence in Parliament is to be maintained. I happen to share that view with you, and I think that there are other parties in this House that do so also. What I would like—
Look, I thank the member, but the member’s point of order is not a point of order. It is drawing the Speaker into the debate, and I suggest that members can all take an opportunity to read that report in full.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am not wanting to draw you into the debate, at all. What I am interested to know is what action you will be taking in order to see—this is an important point—
Madam Speaker, you have written that you suggest that the money should be paid in order to maintain confidence in Parliament. I accept that. Is that the end of the matter for you?
But if members read the whole report—and this is why I will not accept any more points of order like this—I will be reporting back to the House on the matter. So would members please read the report and not just make selective quotes from the report. There needs to be an opportunity for the whole of the reports to be considered.