2. GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 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—not like National in the 1990s.
Can the Prime Minister explain why she refused to meet with the Auditor-General when he was drafting his June 2005 report into Government and parliamentary publicity and advertising; and did that have anything to do with her locked-in plans to use over $446,000 of parliamentary funding to pay for the now infamous pledge card?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
As the member is well aware, the Auditor-General wrote to the two major party leaders asking whether they or their representative would be available for a meeting. My able representative Mr Mallard met with the Auditor-General.
Hon Phil GoffDoes the Prime Minister believe that public confidence in the political integrity of Parliament and the electoral process is enhanced when a political party can secretly accept “cash for policy” arrangements through trusts that keep the identity of large corporate donors anonymous, as National did at the last election?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
Indeed, I do not think that confidence can be maintained. I look forward to the National Party’s support for clamping down on anonymous donations. I understand that in Australia everything over $250 has to be declared. That sounds like a good idea to me.
If the ridiculous assertions by Mr Goff were to stand, what conclusion would the Prime Minister expect the public to draw from Labour receiving donations from the unions to focus on employment law, from Toll NZ to give it cheap access to the rail track and a cash deal for its business, from WestpacTrust in order to get the Government’s banking business, and from the various “cash for policy” deals that we know it has done with regard to the eight anonymous donations the Labour Party took during the last election campaign?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
I would like to know what the privatised accident compensation policy was worth. I would like to know what a policy that promised billions of dollars to private insurance companies was worth to the National Party. I would like to know what the tax exiles paid the National Party. I would like to know what other big corporates paid the National Party. I would like to know why Gerry Brownlee was not told that Don Brash was meeting with the Exclusive Brethren. There are a lot of things I would like to know about National Party funding, because that is where corruption comes in.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Is it the Prime Minister’s practice to take appointments with chinless scarf-wearers out of her diary after they have been put in there, as Dr Brash ordered to be done in his diary?
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Firstly, the Prime Minister has no responsibility for Dr Brash’s diary. Secondly, that is a total lie on the part of Trevor Mallard, and is a fictitious assertion. Frankly, such assertions from a Cabinet Minister do not enhance the reputation of this Parliament or the Labour Party one little bit.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Madam Speaker, I ask first that you deal with the comment that the member made, and then can we come back to the substance of the point of order—
Madam SPEAKERHon Trevor Mallard Link to this
The unparliamentary allegation that he made during his point or order.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Well, it may be the practice to call people liars here in the House far too often, but I would like that to be dealt with first.
Right, yes; I am sorry. In relation to the allegation that was made, would the member please withdraw and apologise for that particular bit. I then also want to deal with the member’s “chinless” whatevers, as well, which seemed to me to be completely irrelevant to the question.
Thank you, Madam Speaker, but for obvious reasons you do not have to protect me from being accused of being chinless. I offer to withdraw and apologise for that remark.
And the purpose of that, if I may say this to members, is that we would be able to maintain better order if people did not put into their questions and answers those sorts of innuendos.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Continuing with the point of order, I say that it is the Prime Minister’s responsibility to have responsibility for her diary, and that is what the question was about. Gerry Brownlee, during the campaign, was misled by Don Brash with regard to the Exclusive Brethren—
Please be seated. The first part of the question was in order—the part about the Prime Minister’s diary—but the second part was not. So would the Prime Minister please address the first part.
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
I understand that indeed Dr Brash did meet with the Exclusive Brethren, against the advice of staff, but his concession was to take the meeting out of the diary so that Gerry Brownlee did not know about it—and Gerry did not know until Don fessed up.
Please be seated, Prime Minister. That did not, in fact, address the first part of the question. We will now move on.
What is the Prime Minister’s response to today’s New Zealand Herald editorial, which tells the Government that “It must pay the bill and call it a salutary lesson in the limits to which the public will pay for political puff.”?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
Surprisingly, that particular document has not passed my eyes yet. But I want to say—because, unlike the National Party, I do not rush off to have my prejudices confirmed by the New Zealand Herald—we are awaiting a final report and, further, we are very busy with campaign law reform to stop National rorting elections through covert funding. We will be going to the parties with proposals that clamp down on anonymous donations of the kind National received, because we believe that is where corruption enters into politics.
Does the Prime Minister believe that the political integrity of Parliament is enhanced if a leader can get up in this House and say he did not get a dime from the Exclusive Brethren, when I have in my hand a document from the Exclusive Brethren that reads as follows: “Accordingly, we have put together an election programme”—with a budget of $1.2 million—“with the goal of getting party votes for National, as this is the only way change will come about.”?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
Obviously, such actions by political parties do nothing for confidence in Parliament, and it is impossible to believe that that pamphlet was not prepared with the help of National Party members. It may be that they never told Gerry Brownlee about it, but it was prepared with their help. [ Interruption]
I must say, observing the House, that the comments did come from that side, this time, so I ask members on that side of the House to please allow the rest of us to hear the answers.
Hon Dr Nick SmithIt was not out of order, I say to Dr Smith. The question was about the political integrity of Parliament.
Who was responsible for the $446,000 rort of taxpayer funds: the Prime Minister or the Hon Trevor Mallard?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
Labour played by the same rules as Bill English did when issuing his pledge card, and what is good enough for Bill is good enough for others. National played by the rules then; we play by the rules now.
Has the Prime Minister been made aware of section 214B of the Electoral Act, which gives a particular description to the practice of knowingly exceeding campaign spending limits, and can she deny to this House that she played a part in the Labour Party’s decision to overspend by a million dollars on advertising in the last 2 weeks of the election campaign, so breaching the electoral cap and section 214B of the Electoral Act?
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. There was an allegation in that question that was unparliamentary, and I ask you to rule it out. The idea that people knowingly breached the law is absolutely incorrect, and criminal activity cannot be alleged by way of questions.
My question asked whether the Prime Minister was aware of section 214B of the Electoral Act, which gives a particular description to the practice of knowingly exceeding campaign spending limits. That is in the Electoral Act; I am not making it up. It is not unparliamentary, surely, to read the laws of this country in Parliament. We know that the Labour Party is particularly upset by this particular incident. We are staggered that it does not fix it by simply paying the money back.
I am not sure that the allegation that was made ruled that question out of order, but unfortunately it was difficult to see where ministerial responsibility lay. Perhaps the member would like to rephrase the question.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. If the Prime Minister could answer a question—as you have just told the House—from Mr Goff because it was about the integrity of Parliament, then surely it would be OK to ask the Prime Minister about her knowledge of the Electoral Act, which puts Parliament together in the first place. How can it be some sort of an allegation against the Prime Minister to ask her whether she knows what that particular section of the Act states?
Hon Mark BurtonI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Prime Minister has no ministerial responsibility for delivering seminars on the Electoral Act to Opposition members.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have not asked for a legal opinion. I have asked whether the Prime Minister is aware of that section. We know that the Prime Minister spent $446,000 of her leader’s budget on this pledge card. We know that you have ruled that we cannot ask her about that as the leader of the Labour Party. But the issue has gone well beyond that. We have had some days of questioning on this, where the issue has not been affected. I think the precedent is set. It is not unreasonable to ask the Prime Minister what she knew of the spending. That is the heart of this question. If the answer was “I knew nothing.”, that would be interesting. But if it was “I knew something.”, then I think that takes us into different territory. It may be that this question is too hard for the Prime Minister to answer. It may be that it is too difficult for the Prime Minister to answer.
The member is now giving a speech. [ Interruption] I am about to help the member, I hope. Would Mr Brownlee like to put his question again, so that I can judge it.
Has the Prime Minister been made aware that section 214B of the Electoral Act gives a particular description to the practice of knowingly exceeding the campaign spending limit, and can she deny to this House that she played a part in the Labour Party’s decision to spend over a million dollars on advertising in the last 2 weeks of the election campaign, so breaching the electoral spending cap and section 214B of the Electoral Act?
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I refer you to Standing Order 371(1)(b), which states that questions must be concise and not contain, inter alia, inference or imputation.
I thank the member for drawing that to the attention of all members of the House, but I would ask the Prime Minister to address the first part of that question, please.
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
No major party sets out to break the law—no more than the National Party did in 2002 with this commitment card I am holding. I want to say that the only knowing avoidance of election law was the National Party’s dodging of $1.2 million from the Exclusive Brethren spent on a political campaign—and I say to Mr Key that I would be careful if I were him, because he met with them and he did part of the deal. [ Interruption]
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Was that barracking, or what was it—just for the sake of the record?
Why is the Prime Minister so reluctant to indicate whether she was party to the decision to spend $446,000 of taxpayers’ funds on the Labour Party election campaign?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
There are very good precedents for issuing pledge cards. Look at it—no rule changes. It was the same rule and the same practice, but National had so much secret money from big funders it did not touch it this time.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Has the Prime Minister been advised by the Minister of Finance or any other responsible Minister of an offer from the Hon Bill English to refund the hundreds of thousands of dollars spend in 2002?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
No, because I understand that the Hon Bill English, in good faith, believed it was within the rules—just as Labour played within the rules all the way through.