Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Urgent Questions 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Urgent Questions 
[Volume:634;Page:5407] 
2.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 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) 
: 
 Yes; by keeping our promises—as we have. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Has the Prime Minister seen reports that the board of Transparency International New Zealand whose directors include former Ombudsman Mel Smith and former Auditor-General David Macdonald has condemned Labour’s plans to change the law to validate any election spending found to be unlawful; will she take action to ensure that the leader of the Labour Party does nothing to harm New Zealand’s international standing and reputation? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Yes I did see that media report and I think Transparency International should also be concerned about fairness consistency and natural justice in audit processes. I further saw the Transparency International report on basic patterns of illegal party funding and campaigning where it stated: “These include setting up front organisations through which funds can be channelled in excess of legal limitations.” 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does it follow in light of the Prime Minister’s statement to the House yesterday that “if spending is within Parliament’s rules there is no reason to pay it back.” that if the Auditor-General finds the spending is unlawful and outside the rules then there is reason to pay it back; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Labour plays by the rules and is absolutely confident—[ 
Interruption 
] I knew their good behaviour would last about 2 minutes—and we can respond in kind if they wish. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member will pleased be seated. I remind members that although interjections are permitted members both in questions and answers are entitled to be heard. So if we could have the answer to the question please. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Labour is very confident that it played within the rules—the same rules materially with the same spending that the Auditor-General gave an unqualified audit certificate to in 2005. That is why I say political parties are entitled to fairness consistency and natural justice—and I am not surprised that National members have broken their good behaviour bond because they cannot take the truth. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is public confidence in the political integrity of Parliament undermined by the sort of behaviour whereby a leader one day absolutely denied any knowledge of $1 million in covert funding only to admit the next day that he knew all along about it and in the meantime took the precaution to take out of his diary the repeated meetings he had had with the Exclusive Brethren? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: None of that enhances confidence in the electoral or political processes. Labour has been very careful knowing of the extent to which Governments in the 1980s and 1990s let the New Zealand public down to make promises it can keep. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Prime Minister accept that for her and her colleagues to refuse to pay the pledge card moneys back when 81 percent of New Zealanders believe they should is about as good an illustration as we will get of this Government’s complete contempt for the public of New Zealand? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: If spending is within Parliament’s rules there is no reason for anyone to pay anything back. What the Auditor-General would need to explain if indeed he goes down the road the member suggests is why he would give an unqualified audit certificate to the same spending under materially the same rules 3 years ago and not now. 
Hon Bill English 
: You keep attacking the Auditor-General. You’re above the law. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Mr English knows well that he had the same spending under the same rules for which the Auditor-General gave an unqualified audit certificate. He may not like the truth which is why he has broken the good behaviour bond. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. A new member from the Waikato region has just made a most unparliamentary statement and I ask you to ask him to withdraw it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am not sure who the member concerned was— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The one with the bald head. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Did the member make an unparliamentary statement? If he did would he please withdraw and apologise. 
Paula Bennett 
: There were no unparliamentary comments up here at all. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Was that the member who made the statement? 
Paula Bennett 
: I think he was referring to me but I do not know. [ 
Interruption 
] Oh sorry— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Now did the member make an unparliamentary statement? Would the member rise who made the comment. If he did would he please withdraw and apologise. 
David Bennett 
: Madam Speaker my understanding is that it was not unparliamentary. But the response from the Minister was unparliamentary and perhaps he would withdraw and apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member said he did not make an unparliamentary statement and we have to accept— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The member made an unparliamentary statement and in trying to identify him I said he was the bald one. He knows what he said. Would he please apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member when asked said he did not say it. We have to accept that member’s word. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. He made reference to my own party’s personality. He mentioned something about a “lapdog”. He knows what he said. Would you please ask him to apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member has taken offence at the comment. Would the member please withdraw and apologise. 
David Bennett 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Supplementary question Gerry Brownlee. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: To the Prime Minister— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Madam Speaker— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: We have a supplementary question unless you are raising a point of order. [ 
Interruption 
] I am sorry but I have called Gerry Brownlee. I did not realise— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: The member is more senior than me. He can go first. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Such courtesy; yes. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: That is appropriate— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If the member would just ask his question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: That is what I am about to do. Does the Prime Minister believe that having a political party collude with a third party through the provision of legal advice to ensure that the costs of electioneering by the third party are not attributed to the political party helps to restore confidence in the political integrity of Parliament and the electoral process? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No I do not and I believe it is exactly the sort of practice that Transparency International was getting at when it referred to basic patterns of illegal party funding like setting up front organisations through which funds can be channelled in excess of legal limitations. It is quite clear Dr Brash knew what the Brethren were doing. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Would it be acceptable for the owner of a small business in dispute with the Inland Revenue Department over tax payable to argue that the auditors of its accounts got it wrong and to refuse to pay; if not what example is she setting by saying the Labour Party will not pay the money back because the Auditor-General got it wrong? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The issue with regard to tax is whether people play by the rules and exactly the same issue applies here. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: In the interests of getting daily closer to the truth does the Prime Minister believe that the public—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes that is unacceptable. We are asking just questions not making comments on the side. Would the member please just ask his question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. With respect that is part of the daily prayer—getting nearer to the truth. How could anyone object to that? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please be seated. We were trying to comply with the Standing Orders where members either ask questions or if the question is addressed to them answer it. They do not embroider their questions or their answers; they stick to the point. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Prime Minister believe that the public would take an equally dim view of those perpetrating election cost avoidance schemes as they do of those who perpetrate tax evasion schemes? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Most certainly I do and the experience in the last campaign of National Party collusion with the Brethren is what is leading the Government to have a fundamental look again at election campaign financing. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. How could that answer be in any way in order? It makes an outrageous and untrue allegation and further the primary question talks about the Labour Party’s massive overspend on the election campaign and also its dipping into some $446000 of taxpayer funds illegally. Where on earth can that fit with the answer given by the Prime Minister? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. If we go back to the original question we find it is a very broad question about restoring public confidence in the political integrity of Parliament and the electoral process. That therefore enables a very wide latitude in terms of supplementary questions. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does she believe that if the Labour Party simply paid the money back that would go a long way towards restoring public confidence in the integrity of the parliamentary process? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: If spending is within Parliament’s rules there is no reason for anybody to pay anything back. The real corruption as I have said is in taking money and colluding with the Brethren on how to dodge campaign limits.