2. Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Does she stand by the statement in the Speech from the Throne in 1999 that her Government would “restore public confidence in the political integrity of Parliament and the electoral process”?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) Link to this
Yes, by keeping our promises—unlike National, which betrayed the electorate through the 1990s, particularly superannuitants.
Does the Prime Minister now accept that her handling of the Taito Phillip Field affair over the past 12 months—[ Interruption]
Madam SPEAKERDoes the Prime Minister now accept that her handling of the Taito Phillip Field affair over the past 12 months has damaged public confidence in Parliament and in the political process; and does she, with the benefit of hindsight, now wish to express any regret to the New Zealand public about her actions or inactions?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
No, because unlike Robert Muldoon I am not going to go around ordering inquiries into private members. If I did, I would start with Don Brash and the covert election funding.
Tim BarnettDoes the Prime Minister think that public confidence in the political integrity of Parliament is enhanced by a party leader denying knowledge of a campaign in support of his party and then later having to admit that he was briefed about it?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
Obviously, Parliament is damaged by such behaviour, particularly when one knows that Dr Brash met the group and planned the campaign.
It is questionable whether there was ministerial responsibility, but as no one heard the answer, we will move on to the next supplementary question.
What is the Prime Minister’s response to the poll in the New Zealand Herald that showed that 81 percent of New Zealanders want the Labour Party to pay back the taxpayers’ money unlawfully spent on the Labour Party’s pledge card?
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We are going to raise points of order from now on when unsubstantiated assertions are made. There is no published report yet that states that that spending was unlawful.
I remind members that that was a point of order. The member was talking to the point of order, and there were interjections. That is the last warning. Even if there is a barrage, those who interrupt during points of order will leave this Chamber.
Gerry BrownleeI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Could the Leader of the House tell us, then, why the Prime Minister talked, as late as yesterday, about retrospective legislation being a possible direction from the Auditor-General in order to sort out this particular problem that the Labour Party has?
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
—I point out that there has been no Auditor-General’s report yet.
We can go round and round on this forever, but the reality is that the Labour Party has overspent the Parliamentary Service budget by some $446,000, and has overspent the electoral cap by at least a similar amount—
Please be seated, Mr Brownlee. There is no final report with a final determination yet. That is a fact. Once the report comes out, then everyone will know. Can we please continue.
Will the Prime Minister please give a straight answer to the obvious question: if the Auditor-General finds that the Labour Party pledge card involved an unlawful use of taxpayers’ money, will the Prime Minister confirm that she expects the Labour Party to pay it back?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
I do not believe that rules should be changed after the event, otherwise we will be seeking the bill for Bill English’s commitment card released in 2002.
I seek the leave of the House to table the rules for Parliamentary Service expenditure that were changed early in 2003, late in 2003, and in 2004 in the year prior to the election, all of which were rules constructed with Michael Cullen very much to the fore in those discussions, which makes it very, very clear that it was not a problem in 2002 but it most certainly was in 2005.
Hon Jim AndertonCan the Prime Minister advise how “public confidence in the political integrity of Parliament and the electoral process” can be restored by actions in the Wigram electorate on the day before the 2005 election, when tens of thousands of dollars were spent on full-page advertisements in local papers, and expensive full-colour leaflets personally attacking the sitting member were delivered to every household, supporting the National Party’s electoral campaign, all authorised by an unidentified person said to live at a property that was in fact vacant, and which later transpired to be the actions of the Exclusive Brethren?
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Let me make it very clear that although the National Party has repeatedly stood against Jim Anderton since he first stood as an Independent in 1993, there is no way that we are in any way responsible for the deep dislike of him held by many of his constituents.
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
That spending would have been part of the $1.2 million campaign, with the goal of “getting party votes for National”, which the Exclusive Brethren mounted, and which Dr Brash, having originally denied knowledge of, finally fessed up about. Why did he not tell the truth all the way along?
Hon Harry Duynhoven Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I was very close to the speaker turned on at my desk but I do not have a clue what the Prime Minister just answered to the House. The noise from the National benches continues when I am raising a point of order.
I must say that on this occasion the noise was coming from all quarters of the House. I ask you all please to give courtesy and respect to each other so that members are able to be heard. You can express yourselves in between questions and answers, but not during them.
Has the Prime Minister been informed as to the total amount of the Labour Party leader’s 2005-06 budget, which was found by the Auditor-General’s draft report to have been spent unlawfully; if so, what was that amount?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
Labour played by the rules, the same rules that led to the National Party’s pledge card—the same rules.
Does the Prime Minister think that public confidence in the political integrity of Parliament is enhanced by one party attacking others for spending that is exactly the same as that party itself has undertaken in the past?
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. How can that question possibly be in order? It has already been made clear to the House today that the rules around the Parliamentary Service’s money expenditure were changed, largely at the behest of Dr Cullen, in 2003—ably assisted by the co-leader of the Greens at the time—and that those rules were exceptionally clear in 2004. So how on earth can there be an assertion that somehow some party has also breached those rules, when there has been no mention of that fact by the Auditor-General—other than the mention of the Labour Party’s pledge card?
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
I have in my hand the record of the rule change of 28 November 2003. The only change was that any publicly funded advertising had to display the parliamentary crest and a contact point; previously, it had had to display either the crest or a contact point. That makes no difference to the comparison between the 2002 National Party pledge pamphlet and Labour’s 2005 pledge card.
I will rule on the points of order. Those were not points of order; they were debatable points. I think we are up to answering the question on the table.
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
Of course it does not enhance public confidence in Parliament for one party to say: “Yeah, our pledge card was all right.”—that is, the National Party one—and then not want anyone else to fund one. I say, further, that the real corruption in politics is Dr Brash’s “cash for policies” and refusal to say where his money came from.
Hon Annette King
Hon David Cunliffe Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It may assist the House, but I suspect that the microphones, at least on this side of the House, may not be turned up appropriately. Like my colleagues, even with my ear to the speaker I cannot hear what the Prime Minister is saying.
What discussions did the Prime Minister have with the Ministers of Finance and Justice that caused their departments to commence work on legislation to validate the potentially unlawful spending by the Labour Party; and why will the Prime Minister not tell New Zealanders how much taxpayers’ money the Auditor-General has found to have been spent unlawfully?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
Of course, the Auditor-General has made no such finding. He has not made a final report.
Hon David Benson-PopeDoes the Prime Minister not yet understand that displays of hubris and arrogance on her part are diminishing public confidence in her and her Government, by the day; and when will she and her Ministers start to show the public the respect they are due—
Judith CollinsNo, they are not heard in silence. Please be seated. No, I did not say that earlier on. I have given a ruling on this. Interjections are permitted, with questions or answers. It is when people cannot be heard giving them that in fact there is a breach of the rules. So, Dr Don Brash, please continue.
Does the Prime Minister not yet understand that displays of hubris and arrogance on her part are diminishing public confidence in her and her Government, by the day; and when will she and her Ministers start to show the public the respect they are due, in relation to both the Taito Phillip Field affair and the use of taxpayers’ money to fund the Labour Party pledge card?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
The arrogance is being caught red-handed taking support from the Exclusive Brethren, which Dr Brash solicited and about which he did not tell the truth. I say to Dr Brash to tell the truth to Parliament today.
Heather RoyDoes she accept that members of Parliament, and especially the Prime Minister, are honour-bound to accept the findings of the Auditor-General as an independent Officer of Parliament when he makes adverse findings into their spending, even if it is financially uncomfortable?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
My understanding is that the report is about Parliamentary Service control of expenditure, and I would remind the member that her party is one of the parties that spent within the rules over which some retrospectivity is now being suggested.
Rodney HideI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. With the greatest respect, I do not believe that the Prime Minister addressed the question. [ Interruption] At least the member is staying awake. It was about the relationship of members of Parliament to any finding of the Auditor-General, given that he is an independent Officer of Parliament and the fact that we have to be honour-bound by his finding. What we got was a bit of a diatribe about the ACT party and nothing about the relationship of Parliament, the Prime Minister, and MPs to the findings of the Auditor-General.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
The member’s question made an assertion about the nature of the inquiry. The Prime Minister responded properly, by questioning that assertion, which is a perfectly legitimate way of addressing a question.
It made reference to the fact that the Auditor-General is an independent Officer of Parliament and that if he makes an adverse finding about the way MPs spend money, whether we are honour-bound, as a consequence, to take heed of it. There was nothing about any particular report.
I think the difficulty here is that we do not have the report. As I understood it, the question made reference. The Prime Minister chose to address the context of the question and that was perfectly permissible. It may not be an answer that obviously the member wanted, but he wants to continue with his point of order.
The difficulty is that the Leader of the House said that we cannot make reference to the report, because it is not yet published. The Prime Minister is quite happy to make references in her answer to the report, which has not been published, when it suits her, but not when she is asked about it, because, again, it has not been finalised or published; yet here we were, asking our little supplementary question, and we have had to sit through Parliament all this time in order to ask it, and we got a dismissive answer. I believe that the issue of the relationship of MPs, of Parliament, and particularly of the Prime Minister, to the Auditor-General is one worthy of a proper answer being addressed by the Prime Minister. I ask you, Madam Speaker, to uphold the rights of smaller parties that have not yet been able to hear an answer, to get an answer to the question to which they have sat through all this time for an opportunity to ask.
I think the difficulty is that the House is dealing with hypothetical situations. Although the question did refer to the draft report, we do not have a finding. Until there is a finding, the Prime Minister is perfectly entitled to deal with the question whichever way she chooses to do so. Obviously, that is not to the satisfaction of the member. I am fully aware that his party has few supplementary questions, but I think the point has been made through points of order.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
Can the Prime Minister confirm that so far the only identified and accepted unlawful overspending in the campaign was by the National Party, which failed to account for GST, and the person who pleaded innocence about that is the person who chaired the committee that set up GST in the first place, Dr Donald Brash?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
I can confirm that, and I can also confirm how wondrous it is that a man so involved in the design of GST does not understand it.
Can the Prime Minister confirm that the National Party would like to amend legislation to enable it to pay back the money that is due, while the Labour Party is keen to amend legislation to prevent it from paying back money that is due?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
The member was free to pay the money back, but, of course, he knows he would have then overspent. He had buckets of covert money—cash for policies—that he will not tell the truth about.