Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:629;Page:1269] 
2.  
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: When she declined to meet the Controller and Auditor-General to discuss his report into Government and parliamentary publicity and advertising was she aware of plans to spend over $440000 of taxpayers’ money on the Labour Party campaign pledge card? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 There was no such plan. 
Dr Don Brash 
: At what stage prior to the election did the Prime Minister become aware that the Chief Electoral Officer had ruled that Labour’s pledge card was an electoral expense and that it would push Labour’s total electoral spending above the legal limit; and what did she do when she became aware of that fact? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I invite you to rule on whether the responsibility just referred to is a responsibility of the Prime Minister or of the leader of the Labour Party. If it is the responsibility of the leader of the Labour Party and not the Prime Minister then the question should be ruled out of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I remind members that Ministers are responsible for only those matters that fall within their responsibilities as Ministers not as leaders of parties. That goes for all parties in this House. I would merely caution the member who is asking the question to ensure that that question is addressed in the capacity of Prime Minister and not as leader of the Labour Party. The Prime Minister should answer the question in that capacity. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The first time the Chief Electoral Officer advised the general secretary of the Labour Party or anyone else to my knowledge that he considered that the card might be an attributable expense was on 20 October. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I understand that when a person addresses a question the House has to be silent. Almost every member of the National Opposition was interjecting at that point contrary to the Standing Orders. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes the member is correct. [ 
Interruption 
] Would members please observe that ruling. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes someone did interject when I was making that ruling. Who was the member? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The Leader of the Opposition interjected while you were making that ruling. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is that correct—because we have to have some order in this House? In the first week I was called upon by many members mainly in the Opposition to apply the Standing Orders strictly so that order could prevail in this House. I did hear someone make a comment when I was ruling; that person should leave the House. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This is getting to a point where it is utterly ridiculous. There is a Prime Minister over there who will not account for her bad behaviour and corrupt practice in office and now a Speaker who is prepared to say that she has a different hat on— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but that is not a point of order Mr Brownlee. Please be seated— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: —so we end up with the Leader of the Opposition removed from the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Mr Brownlee do you wish to remain in this House for the rest of question time or not? I am on my feet and you know that you should be seated. I have given a ruling that is perfectly consistent with the Standing Orders—as the member knows. Of course the Prime Minister is responsible as are all Ministers for what she does in her ministerial capacity. But leaders of political parties whether they are Government or Opposition parties are not subject to review in this House. I did call on the Prime Minister to answer the question in that capacity. A point of order was then legitimately raised as points were raised all last week when I did not enforce the ruling because it was the first week back. Then when I was giving my ruling today people interrupted. I am not sure what else I can do as a Speaker but to now enforce those rules. That is the point this House has asked me to rule on and that is what I am doing. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Last week you asked our whips to distribute a note to every member of the Opposition side of the House asking that during the Prime Minister’s statement there should be silence. The members on this side of the House observed that and gave the Prime Minister a very clear run. When my colleague Don Brash the Leader of the Opposition gave his response there was constant barracking all the way through his speech and you did nothing. Today for a comment made by Don Brash which I did not even hear although I sit four seats away from him you will kick him out of the House. I think that that raises real questions about the bias of the Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. Please be seated. I did intervene during that debate. I have spoken with members of the party Dr Smith belongs to on that. I have taken action and since then when I have called for order that call is probably observed in equal proportions on all sides of the House. I ask the member to withdraw his comment about bias of the Speaker please. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Madam Speaker I ask you to reconsider asking Dr Brash to leave under circumstances that are totally inconsistent with the way in which you treated Dr Brash last week. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. I am sorry but those are two totally separate points I tell the member. Last week undoubtedly there were many breaches of the Standing Orders. I called attention to those. I am taking action as I said I would to Opposition front-bench members who came to see me. We are now in a new week. I was also asked repeatedly at the end of last week to apply the Standing Orders. I am applying the Standing Orders. I did not know whether it was Dr Brash who made that intervention but I am asked repeatedly not to show bias in this House and to apply the rules across the board—and fairly. That is what I am doing. Of course Dr Brash can remain in order to be able to ask his question and any other questions he has. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: On that basis Madam Speaker I withdraw. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have two points. Firstly in respect of the leaders’ debate I say that it was not an occasion when members observed the issue of silence as they well know. Some of us of course welcomed the interventions because it is like taking candy off a baby. Secondly that display from Mr Brownlee today is unprecedented in the sense that every time I have seen it in the past the member concerned has been asked to leave the Chamber. He stood there despite the fact that you were on your feet and kept on arguing. On every past occasion when that sort of behaviour has happened the member concerned has had to leave. So should Mr Brownlee be asked to leave. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I agree with the member. But I will give Mr Brownlee his final warning for today. It was he who constantly asked me as Speaker last week to enforce the Standing Orders. That is what will happen now. So could we please have the supplementary question asked in silence. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: What other reports has the Prime Minister seen about complaints to do with election spending? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have seen reports that the police—[ 
Interruption 
] There they go Madam Speaker. I have seen reports that the police are investigating an Electoral Commission complaint against the National Party for spending $112000 more on its election advertising than it was allowed to spend and that the National Party states it was not aware of the need to include GST this election even though it was aware of that during the last three elections. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. As the member who asked that question—and I am only three seats away from the Prime Minister—such were the constant interjections and loudness of the interjections during her reply that I doubt whether I heard a third of her answer. Could I please ask you to ask the Prime Minister to repeat her answer? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I would ask you to consider your earlier ruling today when you said that Ministers should be questioned on matters that relate to their portfolios. That question no way relates to the Prime Minister’s portfolio. If it does of course then every question that we have lined up would be required to be answered by the Prime Minister. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The difference was that the Hon Phil Goff worded his question in a way that was appropriate to have it answered by the Prime Minister; Don Brash did not. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is the question really—how the question is asked. When Dr Brash asked his question of course it was clear that he was addressing the question to the Rt Hon Helen Clark in her role as Prime Minister and it must be answered. When the supplementary question was put by the Hon Phil Goff it was also asked in those terms. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Last week Dr Brash asked the Prime Minister when she or any of her Ministers knew that the Chief Electoral Officer had ruled that the pledge card constituted election material and should therefore be included in Labour’s return of electoral expenses. There was some kerfuffle after that but you yourself ruled that that question was in order. What has changed in the last few days? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I would need to have an opportunity to be able to review the  
Hansard  
on that and I am very happy to get back to the member. But I know that last time as I recall it one supplementary question that was out of order was allowed to go through. I regret that and that is why I am ensuring in fact that from now on there will be a clear statement so everybody knows what the rules are. But I am happy to look at that for the member. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Can I remind you of my last point of order which you have not addressed yet. It is allowable in the House to interject on a Minister giving an answer but those interjections are to be rare and reasonable. Those interjections were continuous and loud to the extent that neither I nor most members of the House were able to hear the answer. I would like to hear the answer again. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his comment and certainly I could not hear all of the answer either. So I would just tell members in the House that of course they can express their views on the answers but they should do it in a way that is considerate so that other members can hear the answers. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Can she confirm to this House that the real reason for her declining to meet with the Auditor-General was that she knew that at that point she was up to her eyeballs in the decision to spend over $440000 of taxpayers’ money on her pledge card thereby flagrantly breaching the electoral spending cap? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The Auditor-General did not seek a meeting either with me or with the Leader of the Opposition to discuss this year’s spending. He wanted to talk about future rules. Our view was that that discussion was better had with all parties and the Auditor-General made it clear that it was for after the election. 
Heather Roy 
: Who is right: Labour Party president Mike Williams who said that the pledge cards for the last three elections were not an election expense so could be paid for out of Helen Clark’s leader’s fund or Labour Party secretary Mike Smith who authorised the 1999 pledge card as an election expense? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That one is absolutely clear-cut. I think we can say thank goodness that the Prime Minister has responsibility for neither of those persons. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Ruling on the point of order I say that that is correct. The member may wish to reflect on her question and rephrase it but I will take the next supplementary question. That question addressed the Prime Minister in her role as a party leader not as Prime Minister. 
Heather Roy 
: Has the Prime Minister had any reports about who is right: Labour Party president Mike Williams who said that the pledge cards for the last three elections were not an election expense so could be paid for out of the Prime Minister’s leader’s fund or Labour Party secretary Mike Smith who authorised the 1999 pledge card as an election expense? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Those matters have never been considered to be an election expense any more than ACT’s one-third-of-a-page advertisement 2 days before the election was considered an expense. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Will she pay the money back? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I remind the member that there are a lot of processes under way. When the Leader of the Opposition cares to engage with members of his party on what is attributable he may want to raise with them why they did not declare up to $1 million of Exclusive Brethren spending especially because Murray McCully had editorial control of it. 
Dr Don Brash 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Standing Order 377(2)(a) is quite clear that in giving answers to questions Ministers must not use extraneous names and facts irrelevant to the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I note the member’s point of order. Certainly I would say that if that was the case then probably many members’ questions and answers would be ruled out of order. But I take the point because it is a legitimate point. I ask all members to show restraint when they are asking questions and giving answers and to stick to the point. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. With all due respect to you that is an unfair thing for you to say about the Opposition because we cannot use that sort of material in questions. You know that; you stamp it out reasonably quickly. You have even gone to the extent today of saying that something you ruled to be in order last week is now ruled to be out of order. It is only the Prime Minister and her Ministers who use that sort of extraneous matter to try to divert attention away from what in this case is very evidently their corrupt practice. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have ruled on the point of order. I will call for the next supplementary question. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The question asked by the Leader of the Opposition to the Prime Minister was very simple: “Will she pay back the money?”. I listened very very carefully to the answer. Despite a number of interjections—I had my ear to the speaker—I have to say that the Prime Minister went through a whole series of various issues but did not address the question with a simple yes or no. She did not actually address the question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No—I thank the member. The question was strictly addressed to the Prime Minister as a party leader because she has no ministerial responsibility in such matters. I would also note however as I have noted before that Ministers are not required to give yes or no answers. They are required to address the question. I want there to be no further comment on this particular point of order. We have another point of order from Rodney Hide. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Dr Brash raised a point of order citing a Standing Order and your response was to say you had noted it. I am left confused as to what is meant when the Speaker notes a point of order. Is the ruling in favour of the person who raised the point of order or against that person? It would help us further down the track if you would give a ruling because just to say that you have noted something leaves us in the dark. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I said I noted it and the member may recall that I went on to draw all members’ attention to that point of order and to the substance of the Standing Order and I sought that they would in fact observe that Standing Order in the future. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I invite you to reconsider your ruling on Heather Roy’s question—and I am sorry to go back a little bit. The issue is simply that in this House members quite often ask Ministers whether they agree with a statement of some political commentator or independent expert and those questions are considered to be within the Standing Orders. I think that to say Heather Roy’s question was out of order when she was asking whether the Prime Minister agreed with the statements of a Labour Party member simply because they are both members of the Labour Party seems to me to have quite significant implications. So I would ask you to give that some thought perhaps and come back to us. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No it was not ruled out of order solely on that. It is the capacity that the member has in relation to the question that was asked. There was no ministerial responsibility at all. Of course one can be asked for comments and for reports but one cannot comment on other parties’ activities for which one has no responsibility at all either. I just draw the member’s attention to the rulings on that. I am happy to assist by giving a new ruling—to take that point under consideration and bring a ruling back so it is clear to everybody. I can see this is a point that members obviously do need some guidance on so I am happy to take it under consideration and to come down with a formal ruling on it. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I had some difficulty in hearing what the Prime Minister was saying but I took it from her most recent answer that she was making a suggestion that I was somehow involved in something improper or untoward in some way. I raise this point of order under Standing Order 116 because I do take offence at the suggestion that I believe the Prime Minister was making. I can assure her it is untrue and I would like you to suggest to her that she take the appropriate action. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I could not hear because of the barrage of noise but I say to the right honorable Prime Minister: the member has raised the question that a comment you made was a reflection on him. Would you please withdraw that comment. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The suggestion I made was that Mr McCully was not only well aware of but had some input into the publication of the leaflets. I am prepared to accept the member’s word that that was not true. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I asked her to withdraw. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: You have to withdraw Prime Minister. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: And on that basis I will withdraw it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Having regard to the last intervention from Mr McCully would the Prime Minister advise the House as to whether she has received reports of a failure to declare expenses—for example of over half a million dollars by the Exclusive Brethren church which was in daily liaison with the National Party before the election and well after it as every one of my colleagues full well knows from countless phone calls we got? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am aware that the Chief Electoral Officer referred Exclusive Brethren pamphlets to the police because he concluded that they appeared to promote the party vote for National. Those pamphlets were not put in National’s return. I say to Dr Brash that estimated publicity of $1 million was not included.