Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:629;Page:1137] 
2.  
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement that “A functioning society which provides its citizens with liberty and dignity needs to be built on the values of political accountability”; if so does she believe that she has been fully accountable to the New Zealand public? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes and yes. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Is she accountable for the pledge card that carries her photo her signature and her commitments; if so will she now pay back the money she took from the public purse to pay for it? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am accountable for every pledge on that card all of which will be fulfilled just as the last two cards have had all the pledges fulfilled. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is the Prime Minister familiar with this pamphlet headed  
What National Stands For 
 which has the parliamentary crest on the back suggesting that it was paid for by Parliamentary Service and which does exactly what the pledge card does—say what National stands for and indirectly therefore encourage people to vote National? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am indeed aware of that leaflet. I am also aware of a statement made by the Leader of the Opposition this morning in which he absolutely denied that any brochures paid for from the public purse were put out by the National Party in the election campaign. I would really like him to explain why that leaflet was in this National Party package that was freely handed out throughout the country by the National Party during the campaign—that very same leaflet. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does she have any reports suggesting that we model our society on the values of the National Party—that is the National Party’s idea of political accountability—values that allow it to rack up over $100000 in unauthorised election advertising values that had its leader initially denying any knowledge of the work of the Exclusive Brethren church despite his subsequently admitting knowledge of its half-million dollar campaign on behalf of the National Party; if so what do those reports say? Sorry Rodney! 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am advised that when a complaint went from the Labour Party about the Exclusive Brethren’s advertising not being attributed to the National Party that party’s response to the Chief Electoral Officer was that because it had not known anything about them or authorised them they could not be attributed. That of course runs directly contrary to Dr Don Brash’s final admission when he was forced to admit that he knew about it that he not only agreed with the brethren that the leaflets were a good idea but further said they were tremendous and encouraged the church to print them. I say that is attributable expenditure and that the Exclusive Brethren’s expenditure which is known to have been in the region of half a million to a million dollars should have been attributable to the National Party. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is early in the year but we surely do not mean to go on with that braying series of antics from National Party members which rose to a crescendo during that answer. They simply should not be allowed to get away with bellowing out like that just because they do not like the information they are getting. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his comment. I have noticed there has been a lot of bellowing in this House in the short time that it has been in session and in future there has to be order in this House. Members have a right to be heard whoever they are. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does the Prime Minister have the slightest evidence at all that the Exclusive Brethren paid one dime to the National Party’s campaign and has she seen any pamphlets issued by the Exclusive Brethren that suggest that voters should vote for the National Party? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Those are coming in from all over the country but I draw the member’s attention to one I have in my hand where the leaflet—part of a campaign and agreed to by the leader of the National Party—states: “It is urgent that the current Labour Government is changed.” That is why it should be attributable. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Why when the Prime Minister knew that the Auditor-General had forced the Government to reduce its Working for Families ad campaign had undertaken a major review of spending from the leader’s budget and had taken the unusual step of asking the Prime Minister to meet with him to discuss that report did she then embark upon spending $440000 of taxpayers’ money on Labour’s election campaign in flagrant breach of the Auditor-General’s recommendations? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is worth pointing out that the Auditor-General took the unusual step of wanting to discuss a draft report with only two parties—Labour and National. Labour believed that that was inappropriate and that the draft report should come out for all parties. If the member is as pure as driven snow as he likes to pretend why was Katherine Rich’s spokesperson circulating letters just before the election on National’s policy on tax and superannuation? I put it to you Madam Speaker that the reason was that the parliamentary rule has always stated that that money is to promote policies and that is what all parties have done. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. While the Prime Minister is in the mode of pointing fingers perhaps she might like to explain where David Benson-Pope managed to get all the addresses of State house tenants in order that they might receive Labour Party propaganda during the election campaign. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order.