Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:633;Page:5278] 
2.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Why did the Ministry of Justice commence work on the validation of alleged unlawful spending of parliamentary funds on election campaign advertising and when did that work commence? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Justice 
: The Ministry of Justice is not currently doing any work on validating alleged unlawful spending of parliamentary funds. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can he deny that at one point at least the ministry was doing such work and can he tell us who instructed it to do that work? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The ministry was consulted by Treasury on work referred to in the House previously but it is not working on validating legislation. 
Tim Barnett 
: Has the Minister considered the need to undertake work on legislative safeguards for election spending to prevent covert funding by extremist groups secret “cash for policy” deals and trust funds hiding large donations from multinational corporations? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am advised that the Minister of Justice is undertaking a review of the electoral finance regime focusing on electoral expenses including whether there is a case for more controls on donations—the kinds of donations undoubtedly that are hidden within the 92 percent of funds that are hidden in the trust fund by the National Party. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is he concerned that the decision to review the way in which election donations are declared is simply an attack on National and a denial of Labour’s own corruption in this matter? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I would imagine that National members would welcome the opportunity to stop having the allegations of corruption swirl around them as they are doing as a result of their relationships with the Exclusive Brethren Church which paid $1.2 million to support the National Party in order to try to steal the last election and National’s own trust fund where those members hide 92 percent of their funding. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Given the Minister’s last answer will he consider making amendments to the electoral law to ensure that funding of political parties is transparent and accountable so that the public is aware when extremist groups fund very large sums of money to parties like National or when large corporates buy influence from parties for “cash for policy” deals—such as the one National entered into in the last election campaign? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am advised that of course the Minister would take such— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. When that question was being asked by Phil Goff there were about 15 people on the National benches all shouting at once which indicates of course that their leadership is not capable of controlling them. I have never seen in my long time in Parliament so many people all shouting at once. Usually it is left to the spokesperson the associate spokesperson or the leader but there were 15 people shouting when Mr Parker was speaking and on the second occasion there were 10. All of those people by the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings should be thrown out of Parliament. That is what the precedent is. When will we have it enforced? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Order! Otherwise members will be leaving the Chamber; I am on my feet. The member referred to when the Minister was answering the question. Certainly I could not hear the question that was being asked by the Hon Phil Goff either. The difficulty has arisen recently that in fact there seems to be a concerted campaign to ensure that some questions and some answers are not heard. It is a matter for members to take on board themselves. I as Speaker could throw out what would be almost the entire House at times. That is obviously ludicrous. It is not from the back section of the House where the smaller parties sit; I concede that. But certainly there have been deliberate campaigns it appears to make sure people are not heard. However it is not on all questions and all answers. I think that that is a denial of the democratic right for people to be heard when they speak in this Chamber. It is for members themselves to take responsibility for that and I ask them please to do so. Of course members can make interventions on both questions and answers because that is also a freedom of speech and members should be able to express themselves here. It is not— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have not finished Mr Brownlee. The point is however—and it is a serious point—when members say that they do not like the answer or do not like the question that is not the point. People have a right to be heard. Then the judgments will be made—when we have heard them. But how those judgments can be made when one cannot even hear the question or the answer defeats me. So that is why I have come to the conclusion that there must be some deliberate campaign occurring to stop people from being heard. Members have to think about that in this Chamber. It would not be put up with anywhere else in this country. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I respond briefly by saying there is no deliberate campaign on behalf of the National Party. We have repeatedly made representations to the Speaker through this Parliament the last Parliament and the one before that about trying to get reasonable answers from Ministers. In recent days Madam Speaker you have been much to the fore in requiring Ministers to stay away from the sort of extraneous matter that they generally like to stray into in their answers to questions. When that happens the House is generally calmer. But when there is the sort of response—or question as it actually was—from Mr Goff that was more of a statement than a question which went on much longer than any of the primary questions on the sheet today would take to deliver then of course this side of the House will get annoyed about that sort of behaviour. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: The question I asked was a question. It started with the question word “will”—that is generally required in this House. I had asked barely five words of the question when as the Rt Hon Winston Peters correctly pointed out at least 15 members of the National Party including its front bench all interjected and shouted in a way that meant my colleague sitting right next to me probably could not hear the question I was asking him. There was once in this House a Standing Order and a Speaker’s ruling that stated that interjections were to be rare and reasonable. There is no way that the barracking from the Opposition side of the House which has gone on all week could be described as rare or reasonable. I ask that that Standing Order and that Speaker’s ruling be enforced. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank members. I accept Mr Brownlee’s statement in this House that the barracking is not deliberate or orchestrated. The effect however is the same. I have called a meeting of the whips of all parties for next week to discuss this issue so the whips have the responsibility also within their parties to attempt to keep order in this House. It is a matter that can be discussed at that point. Of course if members make comments that are irrelevant to the question or answer they will get sniping. But frequently when there is shouting across the Chamber from whatever side then of course whoever is asking the question or giving the answer will respond. That is human nature. All I am asking is that we try to abide by the Standing Orders and to uphold the democratic right whereby people are allowed to be heard in this country and particularly in this Chamber. [ 
Interruption 
] We have a question that has not been replied to. Would the Minister please ask his question succinctly and then we will get the reply. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Will the Minister consider making amendments to the electoral law to ensure that funding of political parties for election campaigns is transparent and accountable so that the public is aware if and when small covert extremist groups or large corporates are making donations in return for policies? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am advised that indeed the Minister will do so and he is sure that he will be supported in taking that course of action—in fact welcomed—by the National Party which these days is deeply deeply embarrassed by the allegations that are swirling around it of relationships with extremist groups and large corporate backers. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Although some members have been given a warning the moment Phil Goff asked the question a second time and came to the end of it that barrage started again. I and my colleagues do not see why certain sections of this House obey the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings on this issue of interjections being rare and reasonable and another group without any care whatsoever for the image of the House carries on—[ 
Interruption 
] There he goes again. He has been here for just 5 minutes and he has all the contempt for the institution that anybody could possibly muster. He will not last much more than 5 minutes longer. But the fact is that I have never seen the likes of it and they should not be allowed to get away with it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. Members can express themselves once the question has been heard and the answer has in fact been given except for as has been said interjections that are rare and hopefully witty—and that has not happened in this House for some time I am afraid because they cannot be heard. So I do not see anything wrong with that—members are entitled to express themselves. What happened however was that when the Minister started to reply it started again. So I certainly did not hear all of the answer. I would ask the Minister to reply very succinctly to the question. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: On behalf of the Minister of Justice I am advised that indeed he will and he is sure he will get backing in that from parties such as National which is embarrassed by the allegations that swirl around it about election spending. 
Hon Bill English 
: Point of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I agree—that was an irrelevant comment at the end. So would the Minister please— 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Oh well—I wanted to deal with that but point of order the Hon Bill English. 
Hon Bill English 
: Madam Speaker you have now said it is irrelevant. The first two times the Minister made those comments you accepted them as being in order and proceeded to then— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I am sorry. Would the member please be seated. I could not hear—that is the point. If I can hear what members or Ministers are saying then I will intervene. But if I cannot I will not so I will not accept criticism under those circumstances. I asked the Minister when I heard what he had to say to withdraw those comments. They were irrelevant to the answer and I hope that in future all Ministers hear what I am saying. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Point of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I would like the Minister to withdraw first. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I withdraw Madam Speaker. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. In respect of this issue you need to bear in mind when you are making your rulings just what is being said. There has been discussion in this House about corruption. That is directly related to provisions of legislation under which the Labour Party has been and is still being investigated by statutory officials. Therefore there is some justification in using the word. None of the allegations made by the Minister has any substance or is subject to any investigation under any law by any statutory officer with regard to the National Party so you are likely to find for the delicate egos like Mr Peters— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is irrelevant too if I may say. That is precisely the problem. Would you please withdraw that comment. 
Hon Bill English 
: I withdraw. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you. 
Hon Bill English 
: You are likely to find that when Labour introduces material of that nature for which there is no justification at all then the Opposition is likely to react to it. I am surprised that Mr Peters is surprised about it because he has been the expert in the last 10 years at raising insubstantial allegations in this House as Labour is— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: There goes the member again— 
Hon Bill English 
: —and we are always going to react to it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: There goes the member again and therefore you get the reaction. 
Hon Bill English 
: An allegation of corruption is a very serious one. You cannot expect a political party to sit here listening while that is made with no response. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: And that is precisely it. Those allegations are going across the House. They are matters of debate. It is not for the Speaker to determine the truth or otherwise of any statement. It is for the Speaker to ensure that members can in fact be heard and order maintained. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. There has been a remarkable change in behaviour in the House today compared with the last several days. For days we have watched equal barrages across the House from the two major parties. The small parties got so fed up with the situation over the last few days that we collectively decided that when it happened today we were going to leave. However one of the small parties decided in the end not to join us in that. Today we have noticed a remarkable change in that the barrage is continuing from one side of the House which has not learnt about the plan and the other side of the House is being remarkably well behaved. I think that is an interesting change. I welcome your very strong direction to the House that the behaviour needs to change and I hope this can be maintained in the future. The small parties have had enough—we really have. We are not prepared to sit here and put up with what has been going on over the last week or so because it is a complete waste of our time. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. It is not a point of order but it is a contribution to what appears to be an informal debate that has arisen. That debate should in fact take place at the meeting with all the whips. I am aware of the frustrations of those who cannot hear and who become almost irrelevant to the proceedings accordingly. This is a Chamber for all members not for just some. Supplementary question Mr Brownlee. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: First I want to say to that member that if minor parties want to continue supporting a corrupt Government— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Mr Brownlee please sit down. That is exactly what causes disorder. If you wish to make those comments as I have already said there is another place and time to do that. This is not a debate. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I know that you witnessed exactly what happened there and Mr Brownlee has done that once before in this House. I ask you to consider Mr Brownlee’s tactic of standing up and using a point of order to make a political statement or a speech and in doing so—[ 
Interruption 
] Madam Speaker I am expecting you to throw those members out because this is a point of order and should be heard in silence. My point is that he deliberately uses a tactic on you of turning his back on you so that he cannot see you—and you know that he cannot see you. When you call him to order he continues talking because he cannot see you. When you stand on your feet he continues. He knows that you are calling him because he can hear you—he is only about five steps from you. It is a direct tactic of his and it is being used to defy you to bring this House into disrepute to actually not comply with the Speaker’s ruling. The— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Mr Mark you have made your point and you have made it at great length and it was not a point of order. That is the point really. [ 
Interruption 
] No I am sorry; that is the point I am making. Please if members wish to make points of order make them relevant. Occasionally they contribute to the House. Can we now have a supplementary question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Has the Minister of Justice the Prime Minister or any other Minister instructed the Ministry of Justice to work on legislation that would amend section 214B of the Electoral Act to validate the Labour Party’s alleged corrupt practice in breaking the spending cap during the 2005 election? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No work has been done as I mentioned in the primary answer on validating legislation. I reject totally any sense of allegation about corruption. The member on that side of the House would know about that because of what National has been doing. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Are you happy with that answer from the Minister— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well allegations of corruption have been made backwards and forwards. It would be much better if they were not made by anyone because there will be a response if they are. In other words one party would be shut down if that were the case. What the Speaker must do is try to make sure that there is an opportunity for everyone to be heard. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. To rule out the use of the word “corruption” is just unacceptable in this circumstance. An Act of this Parliament—section 214B of the Electoral Act—makes it clear that if a person or persons knowingly breach the spending cap during an election they are involved in a corrupt practice. We are hearing that the Government is about to change the legislation around electoral spending in order apparently to get more disclosure. Well we do not need disclosure around this one because the whole country knows that Labour overspent— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: You have made your point. As I said could members please make their points succinctly. I have not ruled out the word “corruption”. In fact Mr Brownlee I thought that was what you were asking me to do. That was the point I was making—that when that word is used there will be a response. I have not ruled it out. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Has the Minister of Justice received any information on how the Exclusive Brethren may have come into possession of the personal electoral enrolment details of New Zealanders given that possession of such information is necessary to conduct the level of phone canvassing and push-polling undertaken throughout the country this time last year by the Exclusive Brethren; and whether or not the Minister has received any such information can he confirm that the passing of such details from a political party to any other organisation is against the law of the land? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am not aware of whether the Minister of Justice has received any information but I can confirm that the activity outlined in that question is illegal. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Would he expect any Minister who was aware of or saw the letters from the Chief Electoral Officer sent on 2 and 12 September 2005 stating that the Helen Clark pledge card and the fold-out brochure should be included as election expenses to take every necessary step to ensure the Labour Party did not commit a corrupt practice under the Electoral Act; if not is that because Labour Ministers and this Prime Minister think they are above the law? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I will not reply to what is a hypothetical question but I would refer the member to the commitments card in 2002 under the name of Bill English and would ask the same question of him in a hypothetical way. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek leave to table the letters of 2 and 12 September 2005 from the Chief Electoral Officer to the Labour Party which make it abundantly clear that the pledge card spending had to be included in the election expenses and would be considered so— 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I seek leave to table the commitments card under the name of Mr Bill English—a commitments card that was used in 2002. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Have Government officials done any work to override or amend the Auditor-General’s powers under section 65Z of the Public Finance Act to direct Ministers to report to Parliament on matters relating to unlawful expenditure of taxpayer dollars? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance and clarification to assist us in maintaining order. I draw your attention to Standing Orders 103 and 85. Standing Order 103 “Members to address Speaker” states: “A member on being called to speak addresses the Speaker and through the Speaker the House.” I also remind you that all members when they receive their induction training here are taught that not only must they address the Speaker and the House through the Speaker but they must face the Speaker. Standing Order 85(1) “Disorderly conduct” states: “The Speaker may order any member whose conduct is highly”—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would members please respect the member’s right to make a point of order? If he would make it succinctly however it would help the House. 
Ron Mark 
: Well Madam Speaker the two paragraphs are very clear and my point to you is that members standing and turning their backs on you is not in accordance with Standing Order 103 and that Standing Order 85 “Disorderly conduct” as I raised with you does give you the power to throw such a member out of the House I would have thought. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I think—[ 
Interruption 
] I do not need any assistance from you Dr Smith. I thank the member for his points. I had noticed that often members in fact do address the person who asked the question or the person to whom they are asking the question. So at times I do not take that as disrespect. Also at times I notice that the positioning of the microphones means that some people’s bodies are in different shapes if I can put like that—leave it there please! Yes it is a matter for the Speaker to determine at what point members’ conduct is unacceptable and they should leave. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Could I ask the Minister— 
John Carter 
: Holiday over is it? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes would the member please— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is Mr Carter exempt from the rules of this House? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. The rules are as I said that members are allowed to make interjections on both questions and answers but members must be heard. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Oh OK. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: You’ve been away too long. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Yes but I never lost my mind like you did. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please members. And may I say welcome back. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Thank you very much Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Now let us have some order please where we just stick to the rules. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Could I ask— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: He always gets nasty. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: There he goes again. That boy is cruising for a bruising I tell you. 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Yeah you are. Could I ask the Minister whether the Ministry of Justice in its examination of electoral spending is aware that in one party’s case of $1.86 million of campaign transfers at the last election $1.74 million came from secret trusts—that is only $12000 came from the party rank and file—and that second that same party was involved in a long protection racket in respect of Telecom and that is why it was given free Telecom services and took a million dollars—[ 
Interruption 
] Those young ignoramuses would not know the facts but I do. They do not know the truth and the sham that is being portrayed in New Zealand today. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I understand that that was meant to be a supplementary question and I am surprised that you did not step in when the member clearly strayed beyond the bounds of the supplementary question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please phrase his supplementary question succinctly. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I am setting out the circumstances of a worthy examination by the Ministry of Justice. The last thing I want to say— 
Hon Bill English 
: Point of order! 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes it is a question Mr English. As I understand it Mr Peters is asking the Minister whether he has any reports of this. He is giving a list of matters and that is not infrequently heard in this House. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. He stood up and said: “I am making out the case …” or “I am doing …”. There was no question word—no indication of a question whatsoever—and you should not be defending that kind of stance. He got up he did not take a point of order he did not ask a question and you let him continue. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I listened very carefully Mr English. We will start again. Rt Hon Winston Peters with a question so that everyone can hear you. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Thank you Madam Speaker. Will the Ministry of Justice in its examination of electoral spending have regard to the fact that one party in the last campaign made $1.86 million of campaign transfers of which $1.74 million came from secret trusts and only $12000 came from the party rank and file— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Mr Brownlee is entitled to be heard in silence on a point of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Quite apart from the fact that members of the National Party can one by one stand up and confirm to the House just how much money the rank and file from their own electorates sent to our headquarters for the campaign—it was embarrassing; many of us had to get trucks in to send it up because people were so keen—it is an utter nonsense for you to allow Mr Peters to suggest that the money came from secret trusts. Everyone knows that every trust in this country annually sends a financial return to the Ministry of Economic Development. There is no such thing as a secret trust I say to Mr Peters. It is a legal entity and there is nothing wrong with it whatsoever. We had heaps of cash; we can tell him how much it was. We know that it is Mr Peters’ day to come back and dig the Government out of a hole but this is not the way to do it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: First of all what was the point of order? The second thing is I did not name any political party but clearly we have already had an admission of guilt! The last thing I want to say to finish off my question to the Minister of Justice is to ask whether the Ministry of Justice will look into the $1 million paid by Fay Richwhite to the National Party in order to buy it absolute protection against proper investigation. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Madam Speaker my point of order was a legitimate one under Standing Order 371(1). If you look at 371(1)(a) (b) and (c) you can pick up any one of those for the words that Mr Peters used there. He of course is prepared to lecture other members in the House on procedure because they have been here only a short time; he has been here quite a long time and should know better than that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well if Mr Peters in his question was asserting those matters as a fact then he can be challenged on it. If it is a hypothesis however it can proceed. As Mr Peters said in relation to the first part of the question no particular party was in fact named. So that part of the question I think can remain but the rest cannot. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I just missed the last part of the hypothesis that Mr Peters put and I ask whether he could repeat it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I want to make it very clear that this is not a hypothesis. The fact is— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well if it is a fact it can be challenged. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: In a past campaign Fay Richwhite did buy itself some political protection in respect of the BNZ and the wine-box inquiry and paid the National Party $1 million. Junior over here has been around for 5 minutes and would not know what day it is! 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Mr Tanczos was seeking because he could not hear that the last part of the question be repeated—was that correct? I ruled the last part of the question out of order so to move on would the Hon Steve Maharey please respond. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The way of answering the question would be I think to draw attention to the fact that the Government is undertaking a review of the electoral finance regime that is focused on electorate expense of course as has been well announced. That would be an opportunity to look at such things as ceilings on advertising expenditure appropriate restrictions on electoral advertising third-party advertising apportionment rules clarification of election expenses whether more controls on donations are needed and other matters as raised by the member. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: As part of this review or examination of electoral spending and in view of the consumer protection legislation in this country will there be any judgment or examination of value for money on the basis of the millions of dollars spent on the National Party and the ACT party—all gone to waste? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: This matter lies outside the delegation of the Minister of Justice but I am sure that the National Party which has these allegations swirling around it would be very willing to comply with— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: We do not need those last comments.