Brown Peter: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Brown Peter: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5791] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I will commence where I left off before that interlude. I want to make this point absolutely clear: New Zealand First will pay any moneys that it rightfully and lawfully owes. However we have reservations—and we are entitled to have reservations—about the Auditor-General’s summation. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Mr Brown please continue. 
PETER BROWN 
: And because we have reservations about the Auditor-General’s report— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It might be that not many other people are interested in what this member is saying but I am and I cannot hear him even leaning back hard against the speaker behind me. Could you maybe ask for a little more decorum so that we can hear the member? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Mallard. Can the member please continue. 
PETER BROWN 
: We have reservations about the Auditor-General’s findings we are entitled to have those looked into and we are seeking legal advice. On this issue I tell members that some top Queen’s Counsel in the country cannot agree on the whole thing. 
I want to make this clear also. The Auditor-General alleges he went and spoke with the political parties and outlined his concern. We know that he spoke to Dr Don Brash because Don Brash was on the radio saying so but he did not speak with anybody in New Zealand First and I do not believe— 
John Hayes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your judgment on Standing Order 111. Given that Mr Brown and his leader have intimated they are seeking a judicial review of their circumstances it seems to me that it is important that you give a ruling on the issue of whether we can hear his speech or whether there is a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the trial of the case. On that matter Mr Assistant Speaker I seek your view. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It is a very simple matter. This is not a matter awaiting or under adjudication in any court of record at the moment. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you very much. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If Mr Mallard’s proposition were correct then clearly Mr Brown is misleading the House and you must most definitely have a view on that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have only just stepped into this debate. I am listening very carefully to what Mr Brown is saying and I will continue to do that. In the meantime I say that Mr Brown should not get into the details of the case if papers have been filed. 
PETER BROWN 
: Mr Assistant Speaker— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have already ruled Mr Brown. 
PETER BROWN 
: Well let me make clear what I have said. I have not said— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Hang on Mr Brown. I am on my feet; please be seated. I am saying to the member that he should not get into the details of the case if papers have been filed. If they have been filed the member should not get into the details of the case; if they have not been filed it is a different matter. 
PETER BROWN 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker and let me put your mind at rest. I have not spoken about any judicial review or any papers or any speaking about any judicial review or papers—or any legal court or anything else along those lines. I have suggested that New Zealand First will be consulting lawyers and getting their advice. We understand that the Auditor-General spoke with at least the National Party and advised its members some time before that he was going to take a tougher or a different line on this issue. At no point did he speak with anybody in New Zealand First. I will say that again: at no time did he speak with anybody in New Zealand First. I do not believe that he spoke with the Maori Party the Green Party or United Future but they can clarify that for themselves. At no time so it appears did he advise even the Parliamentary Service because some of the so-called offending material that we have been found guilty of using was checked by the Parliamentary Service. We had clearance from the Parliamentary Service. Then for the Auditor-General to claim by vague references— 
Simon Power 
: Like a Solicitor-General’s opinion. 
PETER BROWN 
:—that this July 2000 report constitutes a warning for the third parties is we believe patently unfair. It is all very well for Simon Power to say: “Like a Solicitor-General’s report.”; the Auditor-General knocked on Don Brash’s door and spoke with him for quite some considerable time. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can members be seated. I say to the members on my left—many of whom have been in this Chamber for many years—that I would like them to look at Speakers’ ruling 57/3: “Interjections … are out of order unless they are rare and reasonable;”—and as a former colleague in this place used to say they sometimes at least might be witty. 
Judith Collins 
: Point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Speakers’ ruling 57/3; I have made a ruling. 
Judith Collins 
: I have a point of order—a new one. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry. 
Judith Collins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to clarify because of all that has gone on this afternoon whether the member speaking—and I raise this point now before he continues so that I am not interrupting him again—has declared his financial interests in this matter and whether his case is different from those of the rest of us. We think it is different because we do not owe the money. Is this a financial interest that should be declared by the member? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I think you know Mr Assistant Speaker and I think that that member knows that there is not a financial interest in this. If one looks at this appropriation legislation one sees that the case is exactly the opposite. If there were to be any interest it would be in the approach that some members opposite have been suggesting. There is none in this bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I think the Minister has made a good point but I am prepared to listen to what the member has to say. 
Judith Collins 
: Mr Assistant Speaker I refer you to Standing Order 165(1) which states: “A financial interest is a direct financial benefit that might accrue to a member personally or to any trust company or other business entity in which the member holds an appreciable interest as a result of the outcome of the House’s consideration of a particular item of business.” I put it to you that the member who has just resumed his seat—Mr Brown—would on an ordinary reading of that particular Standing Order have a financial interest. He needs simply to declare that interest as I see it under Standing Order 166 and I request that you ask him to do that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I do not want to prolong this any more than is necessary but I explain for the House that when one is dealing with financial matters there are really two sorts. The first is when there is spending—the sort we are currently dealing with—and the second is one when there is income revenue to the Government or taxation which would deal with matters of refunds. At the moment we are dealing with an appropriation and therefore it makes no difference to whether refunds are made. Therefore members cannot possibly have a financial interest in it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Mallard. It is up to members individually to declare whether they have a financial interest. It does not relate to individual members. I understand that the matter has been dealt with in a previous sitting. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You pointed us to Speakers’ ruling 57/3 on interjections and I notice here that the rule was originally made by Speaker Statham in— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: 1923. 
Gerry Brownlee 
:—1923 yes. It was upheld by Speaker Barnard in 1936. It was further upheld by Speaker Barnard in 1936 and there have been no updates since. So this is a 70-year-old Standing Order. Things have moved on a bit Mr Assistant Speaker and I think there is an opportunity here for you. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: You have everybody laughing Mr Brownlee. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: No I think Assistant Speaker Robertson could well find himself making the 2006 ruling. It would be quite a contrast—1936 with 2006. I was fascinated that you obviously are very aware of it because you called our attention to it without reference to the book. You are well aware of the importance I suspect of the interjection process. Goodness the whole House would be asleep most of the time if it were not for interjections. I just say one more time that you really do need to think about updating that particular Speaker’s ruling. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Brownlee. I have taken note of what you said. I call the honourable member Peter Brown. 
PETER BROWN 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. How long do I have left? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Just under 3 minutes. 
PETER BROWN 
: I seek leave to start at the beginning and go through it all again because clearly members opposite do not understand the issue. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The House is the master of its own destiny. The member is perfectly entitled to seek leave if he so wishes. 
PETER BROWN 
: I seek leave to start again right at the beginning and go through the whole thing in one hit. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. The member will continue.  
Hon Members 
: Ha ha! 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Let us give Mr Brown the courtesy of being heard colleagues. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There has been a misunderstanding. The “Yes” was in fact an affirmation that we would like the member to start again. Put the leave again. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Would the member please continue. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think that what Mr Brownlee is saying is that there was no objection from the National caucus to leave being granted and that there was a misunderstanding. Everyone was so enthusiastic to hear Mr Brown’s speech uninterrupted from the start that an involuntary exclamation was emitted. I think the House actually—and I am relying on the previous Speaker’s ruling that it is the intent that is important—intended that leave be granted and I think it was granted. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: You cannot seek leave for somebody else. 
Eric Roy 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The House sets precedents for itself. The very last time that my colleague Dr Worth sought leave the very same thing had happened; there had been an error of judgment from within the Labour caucus and Dr Worth sought that the leave be put again. I think it is totally appropriate that it be put again. The same mistake has occurred on this side. There is a precedent. We would certainly encourage Mr Brown to put his leave again. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. The thing is that the issue is in the hands of Mr Brown. 
PETER BROWN 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. If I have one serious thing to say about this afternoon— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have two points. The first is that again I am having trouble hearing the member. The second point is that in the racket he might have missed the point that everyone wants to hear his speech again. But only he can seek leave for that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Mallard. I just say that the practice of members engaging in barracking is intolerable in this Chamber. I call Mr Brown to continue his speech. 
Rodney Hide 
: Point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No I have dealt with this issue Mr Hide. The member is to continue his speech. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not think you understood what I said. Maybe I did not communicate it very well to you. My point was that leave had actually been granted. It does not need to be put again. The House granted Mr Brown leave—that was the intent of the House—to start his speech again. Leave has been granted. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Hide. That is not the intent I got from Opposition benches. We have all been in this House for a long time and know that when somebody says “Yes” when leave is put he or she is objecting. That is the normal practice and has been ever since I have been a member of Parliament which is nearly 20 years. I will put the case back in the hands of Mr Brown. It is his call. He is the man making the speech and he is the only one who has the right to ask for leave. If he chooses not to do so that is his decision.  
Judith Collins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I put my hand up and say that I said “Yes” but it was a “Yes Mr Brown! We’re going to hear it again!”. It was an affirmation. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member but it is up to Mr Brown. I have already ruled. Please continue your speech Mr Brown. 
PETER BROWN 
: I would have thought it appropriate for the Auditor-General at least to have advised the Parliamentary Service in clear concise terms what he was going to do. When New Zealand First had our pamphlets our brochures checked off they were OK’d by the Parliamentary Service. On page 54 of the report—if anyone in the National Party wants to read it—the Auditor-General makes it quite clear that he sees that one of the remedies is that the Parliamentary Service should sign off any proposed spending. That is exactly what we asked for. We think this bill is essential in order to clarify the circumstances in which we operate in Parliament. 
In conclusion I have to say that I have never seen such childish behaviour in my life. If this is what the National Party has become then God help it.