1. Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Does she stand by her statement regarding the Auditor-General’s draft report into election campaign advertising expenditure paid from parliamentary appropriations that “it’s all very well for the Auditor-General to make up rules after the event when parties have gone to the referee before they kicked the ball”; if so, what steps will her Government take once his final report is presented?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) Link to this
I agree with that statement from New Zealand First’s Peter Brown, which the member has just quoted. As I have previously advised, we will consider the report when it is presented.
Can she confirm the statement made by her ministerial colleague Pete Hodgson on radio this morning, in relation to the Labour Party pledge card, that “No, we won’t be paying the money back.”; if so, what is the point of the Auditor-General’s report if the Labour Party has already made up its mind to ignore it?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
I can confirm that if spending is within Parliament’s rules there is no reason to pay it back. The Auditor-General appears to be questioning the rules themselves. He has, of course, signed off audit certificates for exactly such spending under the same relevant rules in the past.
If the Auditor-General does, in his final report, declare the use of the Labour leader’s budget to pay for the pledge card to be unlawful, will she as Prime Minister ask the Labour Party to pay the money back?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
I have made it clear that if spending is within Parliament’s rules, there is no reason to pay it back. The Labour Party considers it neither fair nor a process of natural justice to change the rules after the event.
Hon Phil GoffWhat differentiates the commitment card put out by Labour in 2005 and that put out by National in 2002, and has she heard any offer from the National Party to pay back the cost of that commitment card by National in 2002 if the two are the same?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
They are the same rules and exactly the same form of publication. I stress that the same Auditor-General in 2002 gave an unqualified certificate of audit to that spending in 2002, and there was no reason to believe that the same approach would not be taken in 2005.
What message is she and her Minister attempting to send about the important role of the Auditor-General, given that she refused to meet him in April of last year when he sought to avoid any misunderstandings about the use of a leader’s budget, and when one of her Ministers says that the Labour Party will defy the Auditor-General before his report is even finalised?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
The message I am sending is that political parties are entitled to consistency in the application of the Auditor-General’s findings, and they are also entitled to a process of natural justice. I also point out to the member that the purpose he attributed to the Auditor-General’s seeking meetings was not the one in the Auditor-General’s letter. The Auditor-General sought to discuss his draft report, which he had already discussed with members of the parliamentary Labour Party before writing it. Further, he sought a meeting only with representatives of the two large parties and Labour did not think that was appropriate. If the Auditor-General was going to meet with parties, he needed to seek to meet with all parties and not just with two.
How can she reconcile her Government’s expectation that taxpayers should meet their obligations to the Inland Revenue Department and that beneficiaries should repay any overpayments received from Work and Income with a statement made by one of her Ministers that the Labour Party will not repay the $446,000 used to fund the pledge card, even if the Auditor-General finds that that payment was unlawful?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
The Labour Party plays by the rules. In no material respect had the rules changed between 2002 and 2005. The Auditor-General gave an unqualified audit certificate to the 2002 spending—and that was the same Auditor-General with the same rules and the same kind of material. The signal we are sending is that we expect consistency and natural justice to apply.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
What, on the issue of election spending, would be the consequences of a political party colluding with a third party to evade the Electoral Act by ensuring material being published was not attributable to that political party?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
I have made clear my view that great lengths were gone to, to ensure that the $1.2 million of spending to which the member refers was not attributable.
Has the Prime Minister seen the statement by the Auditor-General in the Herald on Sunday, in relation to unlawful payments from party leaders’ funds, that “… the remedy is to reimburse it. That’s the end of the matter as far as we are concerned.”; if so, will she follow his advice?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
That may well be a remedy where spending occurred outside the rules. But where spending has occurred within the rules—the same rules that led the Auditor-General to give an unqualified audit certificate at the previous election—then no consistency is being applied if there is an attempt to change them after the event.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
What would the Prime Minister, on the question of the issue of election spending—and, indeed, what would the people of New Zealand—make of a political party providing legal assistance to a third party that had publicly declared its intention to solicit votes for that particular political party, in order to ensure the political party could avoid having the costs of that campaign attributed to its campaign costs?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
If that were indeed true, it would suggest that the level of collaboration between that political party and that other third party funding source did indeed occur, although we note that it has been denied in the past.
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
My understanding is that the Auditor-General’s problem is with the rules themselves. However, I point out that he gave an unqualified audit certificate to spending under exactly the same material rules in 2002. So one has to question why a different approach is being taken now.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Does the Prime Minister deem it in the public interest to be aware of the involvement of political parties, in collusion with third parties, seeking to avoid the import of the Electoral Act when it comes to election campaign costs?
Gerry BrownleeI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It seems to me that that is a question very wide of the mark of the original question. In any event, what relevance would the Prime Minister’s opinions have in this particular case?
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
The issue at the forefront of the original question is the issue of election spending. That being the case, the Prime Minister is giving her opinion in respect of every answer thus far. My question is no different.
With respect, Madam Speaker, Dr Brash’s question goes to the heart of the expenditure of Parliamentary Service funds by the Labour Party for election purposes. That is quite a different matter from that raised by Mr Peters. More specifically, it asks the question about the Labour Party’s response to the Auditor-General’s report.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I want to add just one point. If Mr Brownlee’s objection had any merit, he would have raised it in respect of my first and second questions. He did not, and therefore he is caught by the precedent.
Madam SPEAKERThank you for your assistance in this matter. The Standing Orders require that Ministers give their opinions on matters of ministerial responsibility. It may well be that the member wishes to rephrase the question, but the way it was phrased it would not appear to have ministerial responsibility.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Has the Prime Minister had any reports as to the import, and the longstanding import, of the Electoral Act in respect of the public interest and is she aware of the involvement of political parties, in collusion with third parties, seeking to avoid the import of the Electoral Act when it comes to parties’ election campaign costs?
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That takes us back to the content of the primary question. Although the Prime Minister can be asked whether she has seen a report—of course any Ministers can be asked whether they have seen reports—surely the report must have some relevance to the question that is being asked. The relevancy, of course, would be the Auditor-General’s report. Further, the question is highly hypothetical and invites the Prime Minister to comment, when clearly if any such report has been produced, it is hypothetical and not factual. In essence, my point of order is that the question being asked must relate tightly to the primary question. To go as wide and as general as that seems a little bit too much.
I do not need any further assistance on this matter. The question is broad but it does relate to the central issue in the question asked. As the member is aware, of course, hypothetical questions are in order under the Standing Orders.
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
I have made clear my concern about the use of third party funding in the last election campaign, and I look forward to working with other parties on ways of ensuring that in future our election process is not subjected to those sorts of pressures.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think a lot of the difficulties that might appear to exist around this particular issue could be solved if you, yourself, took a particular course of action. I ask whether you could consider releasing the minutes of Parliamentary Service Commission meetings from the early part of 2003 right up until the final part of 2004, where several iterations of the rules relating to this matter were discussed by members and circulated, largely because of the concern over spending in the 2002 election and a subsequent commitment from all parties to stick rigidly to the rules for 2005, with the further addition that where such a spending breach occurred—as in the case of the $446,000—responsibility for that spending would lie directly with either the party leader or its members.
I do not need any help. As the member is aware, that is a matter for the Parliamentary Service Commission. It meets tomorrow, I think, so it is a matter that could be addressed there.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. With respect, the real point at issue here is whether a select committee report or otherwise constitutes the law of this nation, and it most certainly does not. The question is absolutely and utterly irrelevant.