Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:634;Page:5538] 
2.  
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement to the House that “I have made it clear that if spending is within Parliament’s rules there is no reason to pay it back.”; if so did she mean that if it is found that spending is not within Parliament’s rules there is reason to pay it back? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes; I meant what I said. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does the Prime Minister maintain the position she has previously expressed in this House that the use of the leader’s budget to fund Labour’s pledge card was parliamentary business and was inside Parliamentary Service rules or does she now agree with her ministerial colleague Pete Hodgson who declared the pledge card to be electioneering and said: “If it wasn’t we would put out a pledge card the day after the election not before it.”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Of course as Prime Minister I am not responsible in the House for the parliamentary Labour Party budget. 
Darren Hughes 
: What advice has the Prime Minister received on paying back any outstanding amounts owed to broadcasters from the time of the last general election? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am aware that the National Party owes $118000 which it refuses to pay back. If it would only agree to pay the $100000 fine that goes with it National could clear that debt to broadcasters who are hanging out for it. 
Dr Don Brash 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek leave of the House to introduce the bill that now sits in my name in the ballot in order to enable the National Party to legally pay back the bill noting the fact that the money owed is already sitting in a trust account for the payment of that bill. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: All that means is that the National Party would not have to pay the fine if it is passed. 
Hon Members 
: Pay the fine! 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I did not hear the comment on the point of order. As it is the first day back members are reminded that they do not interrupt during points of order. Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does the Prime Minister stand by the statement she made on 14 August that “Parliamentary Service authorised the spending”; if so how does she reconcile that statement with the documents now available that show that invoices for the pledge card were forwarded to the Parliamentary Service by her chief of staff Heather Simpson and were clearly stamped by Ms Simpson “approved for payment”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I repeat: as Prime Minister I do not have responsibility in the House for the parliamentary Labour Party. 
Dr Don Brash 
: How does she reconcile her earlier statement that the Parliamentary Service authorised the spending with the letter now publicly available in which her chief of staff Heather Simpson instructed the payment of the pledge card invoices she had earlier authorised directing the Parliamentary Service to “kindly ensure that the payments are made without further delay”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: How asking someone to “kindly ensure” something can be read as a directive beats me. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Can the Prime Minister tell the House how it could possibly be the case that invoices stamped “approved for payment” by her chief of staff Heather Simpson and a letter from Ms Simpson to the Parliamentary Service instructing it to pay the bill “without further delay” could possibly be interpreted as suggesting as she has previously maintained that the Parliamentary Service authorised the spending? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I repeat: as Prime Minister I have no responsibility in the House for those matters. Dr Brash however could authorise payment of $180000 and pay the $100000 fine for breaking election spending law. 
Dr Don Brash 
: If the Prime Minister has no responsibility for what her chief of staff does who authorised Heather Simpson to give those instructions? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Just as I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition does not get involved in the details of administration in his office nor do I. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Will the Prime Minister and the Labour Party pay back the taxpayers’ money used to fund the pledge card during the 2005 campaign if the Controller and Auditor-General’s report due out later this week finds that such expenditure was outside the rules; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The member is well aware that I do not answer for the Labour Party in the House. He however could pay the quarter of a million dollars he owes for the election overspend on broadcasting. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Just thinking about the Prime Minister’s answers—or her refusal to answer some of those questions—I wonder whether we could have some clarification of Ms Simpson’s status. Is she employed by the Labour Party—or the Labour Party parliamentary organisation—or is she employed by Ministerial Services as the Prime Minister’s chief of staff? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I think that members need to think very carefully about this. There is a distinction between the parliamentary Labour Party and the ministerial role. If that were not so the Government could ask a string of questions of the Leader of the Opposition about his activities as the leader of the parliamentary National Party—and we would relish the opportunity to do that. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: That is an interesting sort of suggestion from Dr Cullen but it is somewhat irrelevant. The question here simply is: who does Ms Simpson work for and in what capacity did she authorise the payment of that money? If it is the case that she works for the Prime Minister as the Prime Minister’s chief of staff—and therefore it was a decision made by the Prime Minister—how can the Prime Minister claim that she has no responsibility to answer to this House for this matter? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: In ruling on the point of order I say it was not a point of order within the terms of the Standing Orders. Of course Ministers are responsible for their staff; the capacity they may work in however is a different matter. 
Hon Members 
: What? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That means that if someone is working as a staff member under ministerial responsibility then the Minister is responsible. But members also have other capacities and responsibilities that may not fall within the ministerial responsibility. So your question Mr Brownlee was an extraordinarily broad one. I am trying to define exactly where the responsibilities lie—whether they are within the ministerial responsibility. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I know that Speakers have not had to give decisions on this matter before and you may wish to consider what you have just said. We are now in a position in question time where Parliament is expected to accept that a person whose salary is fully appropriated by this Parliament—and it will be a reasonably substantial salary—whose expenses are all paid for by this Parliament and who appears on the ministerial list as the chief of staff in the Prime Minister’s office is now free from scrutiny by Parliament because despite her being fully funded by parliamentary appropriation she is at times that are selected by the Prime Minister acting in some other capacity. That does stretch the limits of credibility. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but that was not the essence of my ruling. If a person is working within a ministerial responsibility and if a staff member is there then of course there is a responsibility. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The  
Members’ Handbook of Services 
 which we understand is a Parliamentary Service publication makes it quite clear—in fact it has been changed since the last election—that the member of Parliament is responsible for the use of parliamentary funding for parliamentary activity. That is quite clear. There is no dispute about that; that publication is a publication of Parliament and is accepted by all MPs. In the context of this debate Madam Speaker you seem to be putting it to Parliament that a person who authorised money spent under an appropriation by this Parliament cannot be held to account or questioned because that person did so in his or her role as a functionary in the Labour Party. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No that is not what I am saying Mr English. I am saying that if the person works within a ministerial responsibility then of course he or she is responsible and the Minister is responsible for those actions. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Surely that then would mean that the Prime Minister should answer the question because— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well I am not sure what the question is but if the member wishes to put a supplementary question— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Madam Speaker we are on a point of order. The point is that your ruling would now seem to mean that the Prime Minister should have answered that question which was: “Who authorised the expenditure?”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: But she addressed the question. If the member wishes to re-put the question I am perfectly happy with that in the interests of moving on. I will not take it as an extra question but the member would please—[ 
Interruption 
] Supplementary question? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Prime Minister most certainly gave an address to the question but quite clearly her response was incorrect according to your ruling. She said she had no responsibility in that matter. Where does that leave the House? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you. The Prime Minister has responsibility for her office. However the Prime Minister is not responsible to the House for her actions as leader of the Labour Party and for funding provided through the Parliamentary Service to the parliamentary Labour Party. That is not a line of ministerial responsibility. [ 
Interruption 
] I am sorry but that is right. It is a matter I have looked at very carefully. I admit to the member that this matter sometimes highlights the ambiguity of the positions. But that funding goes in that capacity not in a ministerial capacity.