Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:633;Page:4893] 
7.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What are the specific details of the work being undertaken by the Ministry of Justice in relation to validating unlawful spending of parliamentary funds on election campaign advertising? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I am advised that the Ministry of Justice is not currently doing any such work. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why then has the Government chosen through the Leader of the House the Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen to indicate that this work is being done and that the Government’s intention is to pass retrospective legislation to validate its $800000 theft of taxpayer funds? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The member cannot accuse the Government of theft— 
Hon Members 
: Yes you can. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I am afraid members cannot; it is against the Standing Orders of this Chamber. We can certainly do tit for tat around that if we want to do it all afternoon. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: My apologies Madam Speaker. I withdraw and apologise. I will reword the question. Why then does he think the Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the House told the nation last week that this work is being done and that it is the intention of the Government to retrospectively validate the inappropriate expenditure of some $800000 of taxpayer funds? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I have read carefully the answer the member gave on my behalf last week and that is not what the member said. I can confirm to the member that the Ministry of Justice was consulted on its work on the electoral finance regime—a matter on which I briefed the Justice and Electoral Committee myself. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Minister hold any concerns that the possible passing of retrospective legislation to validate the illegal activities of the New Zealand Labour Party tells New Zealanders that corruption within the Government is OK and that the theft of taxpayer money is OK— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am sure you can anticipate the point of order fairly easily. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes. The word “illegal” is not appropriate in this circumstance. The member I am sure can— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. How can this action be described in any other way? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I am sorry. To my knowledge there has been no court action and no determination of this matter. There are allegations out there. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Fair enough. Does the Minister hold any concerns that the passing of legislation to validate the allegedly illegal activities of the New Zealand Labour Party would tell New Zealanders that corruption within the Government is OK and that the theft of taxpayer money to pay for election expenses made by the Labour Party is OK as long as one has the numbers in the House to carry out a validation of that process after it has happened? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Although I do not actually accept the underlying assertion the member makes I would point out to the member that I have no responsibility for validating legislation. But validation is a normal part of the House’s procedure at least annually through the financial review. I would remind the member that in I think the 1995-96 financial year $56 million of tourism expenditure was validated through that instrument and $12 million of corrections money in the same Budget was in fact validated through that particular vehicle. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Minister accept that the vast majority of retrospective legislation that validates decisions—for example those decisions being validated by the Maori Purposes Bill on behalf of the Government—does so because there was no knowledge of a breach at the time and does he also accept that in this case the Chief Electoral Officer David Henry had made it very clear to the Labour Party that its dipping into this $800000 of taxpayer funds was inappropriate and illegal? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Perhaps I should have made it even clearer to the member that I have no responsibility for the validating legislation. However no I do not actually accept the member’s assertion. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the House take it that the Minister on behalf of the Government today has ruled out any possibility of validating legislation that would cover the $800000 of inappropriate expenditure of parliamentary funds by the Labour Party on its re-election campaign? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: As I said to the member previously I do not accept the underlying assertion he made and he can make no such assumption. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That was an entirely different question from the question that had been answered previously and certainly when the Minister used that answer to address the previous question it addressed the question. But in this case it simply obfuscates what is necessary in order to address the question. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The member included an assertion in his question that I simply do not agree with or accept. That is the point that I made in my reply. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well in that sense the question was addressed but would the member like to ask another supplementary question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: No Madam Speaker. We have a limited number of supplementary questions that we can ask and we do not want to go over our particular number—unless of course you are indicating that we can do so. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Not today. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Well then by way of point of order Madam Speaker can I ask you to consider how the member can refer to a previous question when in fact the content of the question had been ruled in order and the question still hangs out there—does this Government intend to retrospectively validate its decision to rob the taxpayer of $800000 from parliamentary funding that was inappropriately spent on its re-election campaign? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well the member did address the question. That would seem to me in that context to have settled the matter. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. At the start of my questioning today we had a flat denial from the Minister that the Ministry of Justice was looking at this particular issue. I refer you Madam Speaker to the  
Hansard 
 of last week where the Hon Michael Cullen speaking on behalf of the Minister of Justice made the following comment to the House: “I am aware that the Ministry of Justice and Treasury have looked at ways in which validation might occur. Of course validation occurs every year. That member’s party validated …” etc. etc. That answer surely indicates that it was an appropriate question for the Clerk’s Office to accept this morning and it also indicates that the Minister has been less than forthcoming with regard to the truth of the Government’s intention. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: If the member cares to read that answer again he will notice that it states: “have looked at”. The question he asked today was: “What are the specific details of the work being undertaken …”. Those are two different tenses. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member is entitled to be heard in silence when he is making a point of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: In my point of order I would like to indicate to the House that the National Party would not block leave if the Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the House were to seek the opportunity to tell the nation that the Government will not retrospectively validate its robbing of the taxpayers’ purse. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a valid point of order.