'No view' on law change

Helen Clark

Auditor-General Kevin Brady has contradicted the Prime Minister's claim that he backs Labour's plan to pass a backdated law validating unlawful spending in last year's election campaign.

In a rare move, Mr Brady yesterday denied Helen Clark's suggestion that he had privately told an unnamed party leader that this was the course to take.

"I would never say that," Mr Brady said when contacted by the Herald.

"That's not my decision to make, or even get involved in."

He acknowledged retrospective legislation was an option, but said he had no view on what should happen.

"I don't even have that view, let alone would say it."

Helen Clark's office last night stood by her claim, and said Mr Brady's denial was "completely contrary" to what she had been told by a party leader, whom she refused to name.

United Future leader Peter Dunne refused to say whether he was the person who gave the information to her. His office said only that he would not comment on private conversations.

A spokeswoman for the Greens said her party's leaders were not involved, and National said it was not Don Brash.

Act leader Rodney Hide and New Zealand First leader Winston Peters are out of the country.

Progressives leader Jim Anderton said it was not him, and a spokeswoman for the Maori Party could not say if it was either of its co-leaders.

The contradiction is another incident in the difficult public relationship between the Auditor-General and the Beehive.

Last month, Helen Clark expressed surprise that Mr Brady had given an interview to the Herald before he had completed his final report into the legitimacy of taxpayer-funded political advertising in campaigning for last year's election.

She has also suggested that her party and others were smeared by Mr Brady's draft view that much of the spending on that advertising was unlawful.

Mr Dunne yesterday said the process under which Mr Brady had conducted his investigation was "a mess".

Last month, Mr Dunne said the way Mr Brady and former Solicitor-General Terence Arnold, QC, wrote their reports on parliamentary election spending had besmirched MPs' reputations.

The public exchange between senior politicians and the Auditor-General's office is highly unusual.

The Auditor-General is an independent officer of Parliament, and is usually considered beyond criticism.

But Mr Brady has been in the spotlight since his draft view about election spending was leaked last month.

Yesterday, he said he was not taking any of the criticism personally.

"I'm just doing my job," he said. "I don't take too much notice of what happens outside the appropriate forum, which is discussion between parties affected and myself."

Mr Brady said he remains in consultation about his draft findings, and expects his final report to be tabled in Parliament around the time its recess ends, on October 10.

Asked if he had lost credibility because he had changed his mind on whether some election spending by Act and the Greens last year was unlawful, he said he had no problem with that happening.

His draft view was based on the information he had at the time.

If political parties felt he did not have the full story, he was "more than happy" to listen to them. "In no way am I feeling hellbent on protecting something in the draft report just because it went public."

Labour is thought to have the highest potential liability in the election spending wrangle.

As much as $800,000 of its spending is believed to be under question.

All other parties except the Progressives were also cited in the Auditor-General's draft report.

National, the Maori Party and the Greens have paid the money back or have said they will do so.

* Helen Clark last night told the Otago Daily Times she would not back off her attacks on National and Dr Brash.

She was determined not to let National MPs get away with the language, such as "corruption", they had used about election funding.

"If, when we go back to Parliament in two weeks, they are still chucking that stuff round it will continue to be an unpleasant environment," she said.

"We can discipline our members who get into personal lives.

"But if they [National] have declared war on corruption, we will be retaliating with what we consider is the real corruption - the way in which their election is funded," she said, referring to donations made anonymously through trusts.