Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill

The Committee, having dealt with the purposes and interpretation in Part 1, now comes to the body of the bill—the largely operative clauses; the bulk of this legislation—and I look forward to this being the first of my four calls on this part. I expect that, given the substantive nature of this part of the bill, many members on this side of the Chamber will be looking for multiple calls on this particular part of the bill in accordance with the Standing Order that provides for such multiple calls.

Part 2, which deals with the actual validation of expenditure, is, of course, the crux of the matter. National, as the Committee will be aware, is opposed to this bill, and in particular we draw members’ attention to an amendment in the name of Christopher Finlayson to insert new clauses 5A and 5B. I know that Mr Finlayson will be anxious to speak to this amendment himself, as he has spent a considerable amount of time drafting it. At the risk of putting myself in the same legal league as Mr Finlayson, I will begin National’s contribution to Part 2 by outlining some of the provisions proposed in this amendment.

The most important thing about Mr Finlayson’s amendment to this part is that it essentially requires that before validation can occur, repayment must have been made. In the modern lexicon we would refer to the clause as the “New Zealand First clause”, because under this clause—if it is accepted by the Committee, and I am sure it will because it is a sensible clause—validation of spending will occur only in the event that repayment has been taken and receipted. We know from the media this morning that all political parties, except New Zealand First, have now agreed to repay. But this clause requires that no validation will occur until repayment is made. There is an incentive for that course of action in Mr Finlayson’s proposed amendment, under clause 5A(2), which states: “If any party neglects or refuses to pay back [money] … which was outside the scope of an appropriation … together with interest thereon, on or before 31 December 2006,”.

So those parties that are proposing to set targets for repayment by some vague date in the ether that may or may not be met—depending on the public’s reaction to this issue if this legislation passes—must pay. Otherwise, if payment is not made on or before 31 December, “then that party will become liable to pay a penalty of $500,000, which penalty must be paid on or before 30 June 2007.” So this is a carrot and stick amendment for legislation that actually does not require the repayment of the moneys. The legislation validates the spending, but this amendment will require the repayment. That is quite a big difference from the parent legislation’s suggestion.

At that point, if repayment is not made, together with interest and penalties, by 30 June 2007, Mr Finlayson’s amendment provides that the Speaker will have the power to sequester the assets of the party that has not made the repayment, the power to institute bankruptcy proceedings against any or all of its parliamentary representatives, and any other powers exercisable by receivers and liquidators. In other words, parties must pay by the due date.

If a party does not pay by the due date it will be penalised by half a million dollars, which must be payable by 30 June. If the payment plus the penalty is not paid by 30 June the party will lose assets, its members will be sued personally for bankruptcy proceedings, and it must submit as well to any other powers needed by receivers or liquidators.

Well, this is the missing clause in the parent legislation. This is the clause that gives teeth to the validating legislation, and requires the repayment. The original bill does not require repayment. Darren Hughes knows that. He is happy about having to write out a cheque for seven grand. He will be pleased about that, but not as pleased as a first-term MP.

I want to take a short call on this part to describe and explain the Green Party’s vote on the various amendments to it. We will be voting in favour of the Minister’s amendments to the bill, and we will also be voting in favour of one of Mr McCully’s amendments to it. Of National’s many—impressively many—amendments, we will be supporting Mr McCully’s addition of clause 6A, which states: “Nothing in this Act prevents political parties repaying any expenditure identified by the Controller and Auditor-General as being outside of the appropriation for any financial year.” I think it is important to state that in the legislation, because it is the Green Party’s view that parties should pay the money identified as being unlawfully spent. We have said clearly and repeatedly that we do not believe we have breached the rules, at all. Yet the Auditor-General does, and in respecting his office we will concede to his view on the matter. But that does not mean we agree we actually made a mistake. So it becomes a moral obligation on political parties to do the right thing in the eyes of the public and for the benefit of Parliament as a whole.

That is one reason why we will not be supporting Chris Finlayson’s amendments, which are very detailed and which involve penalty payments, interest, enforcement, and all those sorts of things. This is not about making a legal obligation; in fact, a moral obligation on political parties is actually much more potent. It is about the decision, then, of political parties to do the right thing without being forced to—to do the right thing because it is the right thing to do. We think it is much more important for the public to understand that there are parties prepared to make that decision, for their own benefit and for the benefit of the community as a whole. So we will support Murray McCully’s amendment, but that is all, and we will vote against all other National amendments.

We were interested in the idea of the reporting aspect in one of Chris Finlayson’s amendments—that the Speaker would report at some stage on whether parties had paid back all the money. It is an interesting idea, and one we would not necessarily oppose, but we certainly do not agree with the exposing of all the details of the expenditure, which, unfortunately, his clause includes. That is unfortunate, I think, for Mr Finlayson, because it is good to have transparency in the process, and that, in and of itself, is not a particularly evil thing.

It is very important for the public to remember that the Greens support the legislation, insofar as it is a clear enunciation of the rules. It also has to be made clear that it is a temporary enunciation—an enunciation until the rules can be sorted out properly and effectively. We think it is important to take the time to make sure the rules are effective, clear, and workable for the public and for politicians. But that is where the Auditor-General has dismally failed. He has dismally failed to provide any clear direction for MPs and political parties in Parliament as to how they might then proceed.

I refer to some of my own ads that have been ruled unlawful—for example, an ad inviting the public to a section 59 repeal bill meeting during the election period. The meeting concerned legislation that was before the House and that was a matter of intense public interest to the community as a whole, but because I put a little weeny tiny ad in a little community newspaper inviting people to come and talk to Sue Bradford about that legislation, the Auditor-General ruled that to be unlawful electioneering. That is one of the mistakes he has made. His interpretation has been wrong, and he has not given me any direction as to how I might then advertise public meetings about legislation that is relevant to the community. So any attempt at this stage to clarify those rules is absolutely essential. I cannot now communicate legally to the constituency of interest and to the constituency of locality that I represent and am involved in, because I do not know what is legal now. Will I have to send all of my ads to the Auditor-General, for him to ascertain their legal validity, before I place them? If that is what the Auditor-General wants, I am most happy to do that. I am sure it would take up enormous amounts of his own resources if every MP was forced to do that in order to make sure we were spending our money lawfully.

So the rhetoric and hysteria coming from some Opposition benches I think is extreme and unnecessary, and is failing to clarify other important issues for the constituency and the public. The public wants us to do our job, to do it right, and to do it properly. The Auditor-General has not enabled us to do that, so we must find the mechanism. This bill is a temporary mechanism, and the Greens will support it to that extent.

As always, I listened with interest to what that honourable member said, because I value her views, so I thought it would be helpful if I tried to put in context what exactly I am seeking to do with my amendments to Part 2. I have quite a number of amendments, and on this call I want to focus on my proposed amendment to insert new clauses 5A and 5B, because there is a yawning gap in the legislation as it is currently drafted.

Clause 5 seeks to validate expenditure under Vote Parliamentary Service, but there is no mechanism for repayment of unauthorised expenditure, and there is no way in which the public can be satisfied that moneys have been paid back if honourable members do the right thing and act—as Mr Copeland said yesterday they would do—on the moral imperative to repay. So new clause 5A seeks to introduce a repayment clause, and it is limited only to the expenditure under Vote Parliamentary Service for the financial year 2005-06 that was outside the scope of an appropriation.

The key provision in subclause (1) provides that the expenditure that was unauthorised must be repaid on or before 31 December 2006. That gives political parties a couple of months to get their act in order. It also provides, in paragraph (b), that the funds are to be repaid with interest. Where is the harshness in that? If people do not pay on a judgment given against them, they are required to pay interest under the Judicature Act. If people do not pay their fines or their terminal tax on time, they are clobbered by the Inland Revenue Department. If they do not pay their credit card debt on time, they get an interest bill component in their next bills, or they get their credit cards taken away from them. So it is only fair that there should be an interest component, and rather than going for some of the higher rates of interest—which I could have done, and I have come under some criticism in my own caucus for being too soft, I must say—I have picked the interest provision under section 87 of the Judicature Act, which is at a rate simply of 7.5 percent—

💬 Darren Hughes: Ha, ha!

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON:—and I am sure that the boy wonder from Ōtaki could afford that.

The second point is that if unauthorised expenditure is not paid back by 31 December, it will attract a penalty. The penalty is to restore confidence in this institution, and it is for $500,000. That penalty has to be paid on or before 30 June 2007, but at the same time people are not exculpated, if you like, from having the obligation to repay the expenditure with interest. So that sort of concentrates the minds of the miscreant parties, and makes them focus on their obligations to this place and to the political process if they do not pay by 31 December 2006. If we face continuing disobedience, in respect of what the Auditor-General said, after 30 June, then the Speaker may appoint a manager who can take whatever steps are considered necessary to ensure that unauthorised expenditure is repaid to the Parliamentary Service. That will include some of the matters set out in my proposed new subclauses (4)(a) to (4)(c). Subclause (5) simply states that “the liability of any Parliamentary representative for that expenditure shall be joint and several.” That is the first part of my amendment.

The second part is new clause 5B, which concerns the reporting function. This is an extremely important clause, and I am grateful that the Green MP indicated at least some interest in it, because it is fundamental to regaining the respect of the public. People are entitled to know that those sums have been repaid, but at the moment there is no mechanism for ensuring that that is the case. As we know, the Parliamentary Service Commission is not subject to the Official Information Act 1982, so how are people in the general public to know that the sums have been repaid? This proposed new clause attempts to address that. It also addresses both the amount paid and a detailed breakdown of the way the amount was calculated. That is really what this critical clause is about, but I do not think I have time on this call to go further.

I have amendments to Part 2, and they relate to saving and allowing the courts to hear the case of Darnton v Clark filed earlier this year. What is Mr Darnton seeking? He is seeking the fundamental right of all citizens to hold the Government to account. We do not do that just through elections. As citizens, we also want to know whether Governments and parliamentarians are lawful—whether they obey the law.

That is one of the fundamental checks in our democracy, and there is no more powerful a case on that than Fitzgerald v Muldoon when, back in 1975, the Government of the day sought to overturn superannuation by a non-legislative procedure. The courts were absolutely emphatic that one cannot do that—that one must pass law to establish the law of the nation. In essence, the same principle arises here, does it not? Surely it is the right of Mr Darnton to know whether the actions of the Labour Party last year followed the law—whether it breached its Appropriation bills or whether it did not. Surely that is a fundamental right of citizens in holding the Government to account. So what does the Government say? The Government is saying: “No, we don’t want the courts to judge our actions. We’re going to pretend”—because that is what we are actually doing today; let us not fool the public here—“that what was unlawful is now lawful, as if it never happened.”

The public will not be fooled by that. The public will judge the parliamentary Labour Party and its followers, the New Zealand First Party and United Future, harshly for that. They know that the fundamental right of citizens is to have their cases heard and to have judgments from the courts that in essence ask whether these actions—the actions of the parliamentary Labour Party last year—were lawful. It is a fundamental right of citizens to know that.

💬 Darren Hughes: And the National Party.

I might say to the junior whip on the other side that there is a case in the court. The court is adjudicating on whether he obeyed the law. Surely citizens have a right to know whether that was the case. But this Government is saying that it is going to take a high-handed approach and remove the right of citizens to know whether the Government’s actions were lawful, as if there were never an issue in the first place.

I find that reprehensible, because Western democracies—countries we model ourselves on—are, we say, countries of laws. Our actions are judged by independent courts. But in this case the Government says no. It is going to reduce this country to the level of a Third World democracy, where courts are routinely browbeaten by the lawmakers of the day, and that is, of course, what this legislation does. The Government is saying to the courts and to the citizens that their rights do not matter. It is saying that it has absolute power and will use it ruthlessly to its own end. Well, I say to Mr Deputy Prime Minister that the public will judge it harshly for that.

That is why I have this amendment today, which I ask the Government to actually vote for so that citizens are allowed to have their cases heard and judged to determine, simply by a declaration, whether those actions were lawful. If those members are true to their word—if they believe in the rule of law—then they will be willing to be judged. They will be willing to have their actions submitted to an independent test of the courts. They can make their submissions to the courts. They have, in fact, filed a statement of defence. They can have the judges of the High Court, the Court of Appeal, and their Supreme Court adjudicate to find out whether this Government, this parliamentary Labour Party, actually obeyed the law. Surely that is a fundamental right of all citizens.

I rise to take a call in respect of Part 2, “Validation of expenditure and interim meaning of ‘funding entitlements for parliamentary purposes’ ”. I will start by reminding people of what we are debating today. First of all, in 2002 the Auditor-General put out a report saying he had some concerns about the way political parties—he did not identify any particular party—were using taxpayer funds, Parliamentary Service funds, for political activity for which those funds were never intended to be used. That is the first point. We should bear in mind that our democracy exists on the basis that politicians do not use taxpayer funding for political party campaigning. That is one of the fundamental principles of our democracy in New Zealand, and it is one that works in most of the Western World.

Then the Auditor-General came back to the Prime Minister of New Zealand, in April 2005, and said to the Prime Minister, through her staff and her advisers, that he had some concerns about the road that Labour was starting to embark on. He said he had some concerns about the credit card expenditure and other expenditure that the Labour Party intended to go forward with in the upcoming election. The Prime Minister refused to see the Auditor-General. How did that happen? How can that happen in a democracy? Where in the world would that ever happen in a Westminster-based democracy? Nowhere. That is the first point that all of us need to remind ourselves of in terms of why we are having this debate today.

The Labour Party proceeded with the credit card anyway, promising all sorts of things—things it claims it delivers but never does—and it spent something like $450,000, or thereabouts, on that campaign activity. It spent a huge amount of taxpayer money on that campaign activity—blatant campaign activity. Labour said it was not campaign activity; it was policy. It said it was about what Labour was offering. It said it was not illegal—and we went through months of debate on that. It said it had not overspent and would not pay anything back. In fact, Labour’s great strategist, Pete Hodgson, went on television and radio, saying that Labour would not pay it back—end of story, no more discussion. Then we read that Labour would pay it back, and that all the MPs in the Labour Party have been requested to put their hands in their pockets and front up with between $8,000 and $15,000, depending on which article we read and whether the members are Ministers or back-benchers. Well, which is it? Is the spending illegal or not illegal? Are they meant to pay it back or not pay it back? Did they get it wrong in the first place, or not? The public will not be as easily fooled as that.

Here is the greatest tragedy of this whole scenario. We had an election campaign, and we can witness the outcome by the votes in the Chamber today: Labour 50, National 48. That was the outcome. The whole direction of the country, the Government, is decided on the basis of a political party’s ability to convince the voters as to where to put their votes. That is how it works in a democracy and that is how it should stay. But we have found that Labour spent money illegally to win votes—buy votes—and the outcome of the election was decided, potentially, on that. So I just say to the Prime Minister, and to the Deputy Prime Minister—the Minister in the chair—that when they are elected to this place they are elected to exercise their judgment on what is right and what is wrong. When they knowingly take taxpayers’ money, having been warned by a senior Government adviser that to do so is wrong—when they ignore that advice—they are not exercising that judgment. The public of New Zealand will judge them harshly on that.

We have heard all sorts of debates about what it was that the Auditor-General may or may not have said. But I have a few of his statements here, and I think it would be interesting to advise the Committee about them at this point in time: “Some MPs and parliamentary parties have said that I have acted unlawfully by ‘changing the rules’ after the event. I have not changed any rules.” That comment comes from page 30 of the Auditor-General’s report. “I deliberately decided to publish my 2005 Report before the Election to provide a clear signal…”.

I first of all draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that there is literally a small technical amendment to be made to clause 7(1)(c) and (d), which involves simply a matter of getting the technical terminology correct, and we come back now to one or two key points. First of all, let me make it clear that the Labour Party accepts the Auditor-General’s view is that unlawful appropriations occurred, and that they occurred across all parties except for the Progressive party. But one thing that appears to be now established is that the National Party is the only party that claims it did so knowingly; all other parties claim they engaged in unlawful expenditure unknowingly.

As we respect the person who determines the rules around this matter, we will be refunding the expenditure involved. If the National Party were in the same position, of course, it would not do so, because it shows its contempt for whoever is the referee almost daily, if not hourly, within this Chamber. The challenging of the Speaker’s authority is more than an hourly occurrence; it has taken sometimes all of an hour, continuously in this House. But Labour does believe that the Auditor-General’s opinion is wrong, and that it is certainly unworkable.

Even Mr Brownlee, this morning in the Parliamentary Service Commission meeting, finally began to understand what the implications were—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: You weren’t told.

It is not a select committee; I am sorry. It is not bound by the rules of privilege.

💬 Hon Member: You can’t talk about it.

I can talk about that, and I am going to. Mr Brownlee had it explained to him, with the General Manager of the Parliamentary Service and the accountant present, what the implications were of the Auditor-General’s ruling and what it would mean if he went to a meeting in Auckland. If questions started being raised about National Party policy and he answered those, that could render invalid the expenditure of the money engaged entirely in that visit.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I think it is worth pointing out that Dr Cullen was not at the meeting this morning, and that the situation he outlines was a most absurd and preposterous suggestion put to the commission by Mr Mark Burton, the “justice Minister extraordinaire”, who is behaving as if he were some sort of sycophant to the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General. In no way does this reflect a reasonable approach to the Auditor-General’s report.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. That was not a point of order, and the member knows it was not a point of order. It is a matter for debate.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. You simply cannot sit there and condone Ministers of the Crown getting up and purporting to give an accurate report of meetings that they have not attended. That is misusing the parliamentary process.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Mr Brownlee, I should warn you that I have ruled on that point of order. It is clearly a point of debate. There is no way that the Chairperson can know about the content and be in a position to rule on that matter. It is a point of debate, as are all the things that you raised.

I also come to this point. The extraordinary claim made by Mr Ardern, who appears to have inhaled the tractor fumes rather too much recently, was that somehow or other no parliamentary funding is ever used for political activity. I ask whether he would care to explain to me what paid for National Party billboards in 2002, what paid for National Party billboards on the foreshore and seabed legislation in 2004, what paid—this year—for questionnaires with politically leading questions being put out by National Party MPs around the country, and what paid for their pledge advertising in 2002.

And when Mr Ardern finally realises that all that funding came from the Parliamentary Service, could he tell us something else, because yesterday I challenged National members and I have not had an answer. What did they spend their leader’s budget on in the few months before the 2005 election? What was it spent on? Was none of that money to do with the election at all? It was all about flower arranging, was it, in what was purported to be Ms Bennett’s office when she finally got here after the election? Was it nothing to do with Bryan Sinclair, nothing about polling, nothing about anything else? [Interruption] Oh, they are not going to commit themselves to saying that—because we know.

The point is that the Auditor-General did not look at it, and he said himself that he is aware of other practices that could be unlawful but did not have a sufficient audit trail. Well, why not?

If we look at the National Party’s own advertising contract, and I have in front of me the report, we see no written arrangements were entered into for conducting the advertising campaign, despite the amount of money involved—nearly $1 million a year spent. A contract was entered into without a written agreement, so the police could not pin down who overspent with the GST. So the National Party escaped prosecution. [Interruption] Well, I will quote it to the member; I thank him for that. “The issue for police is to establish, in the absence of a written agreement, what each person communicated to and understood from the other party. Police cannot attribute responsibility for the GST overexpenditure to either the New Zealand National Party or their advertising agency Rainmakers, and are not therefore in a position to charge either person.” That party deliberately made sure there was no documentary trail, in the same way that there was no audit trail on the spending of its leader’s budget.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I think you should ask Michael Cullen to come back to the point of the bill, because at the moment he is straying into the area of election spending from funds that this Parliament does not have to have any account of, and he is trying to confuse two things. The reality is that we are here because the Labour Party misspent Parliamentary Service funding, not because of anything to do with the National Party election campaign or otherwise. But I would now seek leave—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. I want to rule on the point of order before you seek leave. I say to Mr Brownlee that certainly the first part of the debate was wide-ranging, and the points Dr Cullen has brought into the debate are ones that members have brought in all morning, and they continue to bring them in. Therefore, I caution members about keeping to the clauses of the bill, but I do accept that every member has brought in those points in a wide-ranging debate.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Thank you for your ruling. It probably explains why this particular process is taking so long. I seek leave for the bill in the name of Don Brash that would allow National to pay the GST to be introduced to the House immediately upon the vote on this bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): We do have a problem with that, because it is not actually within the competence of the Committee to do that. So the member has to put that to the House.

When that leave is sought it will be declined, because we are not letting that party off being convicted and fined for overexpenditure, which is what the import of its bill is. The only reason National members want it is so they are not convicted and fined. But I note that they cannot tell us what they spent their leader’s budget on, because they know it was spent on campaigning. They had their feet in the till and they are criticising us.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I make this point because I think that no one who is taking any time to listen to this debate should be left under any false illusion. The Auditor-General knows full well what the National Party spent its leader’s budget on. All of those accounts were made available to him by the Parliamentary Service, which pays out all the money for the leader’s budget—which is why the Labour Party is in trouble.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Mr Brownlee, I just warn you again that those are all points of debate.

I am delighted to rise in opposition to the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill, which all National Party members have spoken out against wholeheartedly. It is interesting to hear Dr Cullen’s comments, because he wants to create the impression that somehow all parties are in the same boat, and that all parties have erred equally. Well, I would like to hear him explain why he runs that point, when the Labour Party spent some 14,000 times what the Māori Party spent unlawfully. Dr Cullen overlooks the fact that the Labour Party spent 70 times the amount spent by the National Party. Dr Cullen wants the public to believe that this is somehow about validating Parliamentary Service expenditure. Well, it is not. It is about validating Labour Party expenditure in the last election. It is about validating the expenditure on the pledge card.

When Kiwis got their pledge card in the mail, most did not think for one second that they had paid for it. Most Kiwis thought that it would have been paid for by the Labour Party. The Labour Party was told that it was an electioneering expense, and we have heard Pete Hodgson confirm that it was an electioneering expense. So this bill is all about validating that expenditure and opening the door for the Labour Party to do it again in the next election. Well, I do not think there is a member of the public who thinks that is a good use of parliamentary time. I do not think there is a member of the public who believes that is the reason we are here—to pass legislation that makes up for the Labour Party’s mistakes.

One other point is that Dr Cullen also overlooks the fact that if one looks at the major area where there has been some debate, one sees it is in the area of the leaders’ budgets. While he calls on the National Party to expose what we spent our leader’s budget on, I do not see him offering to the public information on what Helen Clark spent her leadership budget on, other than the pledge card. Well, we know that the pledge card was unlawful, and this is all about validating the pledge card so that Labour can do it in the future.

It is also about heading off a court case. Although members on that side of the Committee might be feeling delirious and slightly sick at having to get out their cheque books and write personal cheques, this is all about ensuring that they do not have to have their day in court. It is typical Labour Party behaviour—when the chips are down, it will change the law to suit itself. It is quite obvious that Helen Clark has misjudged this situation. For months she kept saying that this was an issue that was not of interest to anybody past the beltway. She ignored the fact that every single paper did an editorial slamming her position. She ignored the fact that talkback ran hot day after day, calling on her and the Labour Party to pay it back, and proving to her that it was not an issue just for the beltway.

I turn my attention to some of the fine amendments put up by my colleagues Chris Finlayson and Wayne Mapp. I would like members of this Committee to stand up and explain why they will not allow an amendment to be inserted that would require parties to pay the money back. Peter Brown is sitting there. I have not seen him take a call, but I would like to hear why New Zealand First is trying to wriggle out of its obligations, and why it will not support an amendment to ensure that the money is paid back. The way this bill reads at the moment, once it is passed and becomes an Act all expenditure will be validated and will not be required to be paid back. In fact, some members—it will not matter what they have done with their budget—will not be required to do anything, because it will all be valid expenditure.

We have seen some spurious contributions from the Labour members. They want us to believe that everything they have done was kosher. Well, it was not, and four different independent Government organisations have told them that it was not. They were told before the last election that they were to include the pledge card in their election expenses. The amount that they overspent on the election—frankly, buying the election—is an issue that should be dealt with separately.

We are debating Part 2, which is the part of the bill that the National Party needs. We have just heard the member Katherine Rich speak. She is, by streets and streets, one of the smarter and more considered members of the National Party. Notwithstanding that, there were two or three factual errors in what Katherine Rich said that we need to correct now.

The member Katherine Rich said that if this bill was passed into law it would all relate to the 2008 general election. This part contains a sunset provision of 31 December 2007 to allow the parliamentary parties, working with the Parliamentary Service Commission, to come together with a proper and legal definition of “parliamentary purposes” so that no political party gets back into the situation that all parties—with the exception of Progressive—were in before the last election.

This is the part about the National Party that I cannot understand. National members are quiet in the Chamber only when they are asked a question. When they are asked a question they have nothing to say, because they cannot understand the inconsistency of their own position. When they are not debating that, when they are not answering questions, they yell and scream because that is what they are expert at. But here is the point: the National Party is saying that it is somehow without any fault or sin here. How come it had to pay back $10,000? National members’ argument here is that because they did not get it wrong too badly, they are therefore perfect, but everybody else, because they got it wrong by more, therefore did something wrong.

Nobody accepts that as a point of logic. Nobody accepts that as a point of fact. The National Party is caught by that in the same way that all parties have been. That is why we have introduced Part 2. And that is why there is a sunset provision in there, which Katherine Rich did not refer to. She got it 100 percent wrong when she said it was about the 2008 election; it is not. There is an opportunity in here for the parliamentary parties to get this put right.

Let me now ask members of Parliament this. What page of the Auditor-General’s report clarifies what “parliamentary purposes” means? What page number is that on?

💬 Mark Blumsky: Page 27.

Mark Blumsky is giving us advice. He says it is page 27. Knowing Mark Blumsky’s command of detail and fact, I am not even going to check page 27—I know Mark Blumsky is wrong. So we will put Mark Blumsky to one side in that regard—in terms of credibility—and say that the Auditor-General did not come back and report to us last Thursday with a clear definition of parliamentary purposes. That is why we need Part 2, unless the National Party proposes to spend none of its leader’s budget between now and 31 December.

Let me ask National Party members another question. What law currently exists that requires money to refund the money misappropriated, that would be changed by Part 2?

💬 Hon Tau Henare: No it won’t.

I am asking Tau Henare a question and he answers me by saying “No it won’t”. That is not the answer. What law exists right now that requires the money to be refunded, that is altered by Part 2?

💬 Hon Tau Henare: That’s why you’re scared.

No, I am hearing nothing from Tau Henare. I ask the shadow Attorney-General what law changes with Part 2 and he points to Tau Henare, and Tau Henare points to Mark Blumsky, and pretty soon we have the parliamentary National Party. So National members have no answer for any single question the Government is trying to ask, as we debate Part 2. The only answer they have is for anything apart from Part 2. So I ask National members to join the debate on Part 2, and to give us the examples rather than the abuse and the “Tau Henare, I’m still in talkback land” kind of swagger, which does not pay a single dollar back. I also ask them to explain to us why $10,000 was misspent, when the National Party said it knew what the laws were around that issue. I ask National members to answer me this question. Why did the National Party spend the money if it knew the rules had changed? Labour did not know they had changed, New Zealand First did not know they had changed, and United Future did not know they had changed. Even the Māori Party, which has been lauded by the National Party, got it wrong as well.

I accept the amounts of spending are different. What I do not accept is that somehow parties get away with it if their amount of spending is different, and that therefore they understood what the rules were. They did not understand the rules, and National members have to come up with some sort of clear argument against Part 2 if they are going to vote against it. I want to know, first, when they found out that the rule had changed; second, what law is altered by Part 2—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Sit down and we’ll tell you.

Tau Henare tells me to sit down so they can tell us. Will Tau Henare yield if he gets it wrong? Tau Henare will argue the National Party position—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member cannot shout continuously like that. That is not an acceptable interjection.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I just want some clarification. When I am continually named in the debate and the member who was on his feet is asking me for a reply, is it within the bounds of the Standing Orders that I do reply?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No, the member knows very clearly that—[Interruption] I will rule on the point of order. The member knows that reasonable interjections are tolerated—six barraging calls in a row are not.

💬 Peter Brown: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I do not want to interrupt the member who is on his feet any longer, but I draw your attention to the fact that Mr Tau Henare is sitting in the wrong seat. He comes out with these rather loud insults from time to time, and I think he should be at the back of the Chamber where he belongs.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Can I just clarify that.

💬 Hon Dover Samuels: What about Gerry Brownlee?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Silence! Points of order are being dealt with. The point is that the member has not moved his seat for an advantage. He has been sitting there for a long time, and that is acceptable.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairman. Throughout this debate, from its beginning, members have been warned on several occasions not to interject on points of order. Some members have even been thrown out of the Chamber, and for the right reasons. During that point of order, Dover Samuels interjected. I am not asking you to throw him out or do anything. I leave it in your hands.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member is quite right. I have not given a general warning today, but certainly a general warning was given yesterday. I warned members earlier and there have been a number of interjections, so I really think the member should leave, because he should not interject during points of order or when points of order are being dealt with. I ask the member now to leave.

Hon Dover Samuels withdrew from the Chamber.

How much time do I have remaining in this speech?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): About 16 seconds.

Sixteen seconds leaves me just enough time to mention Murray McCully and validating legislation. That man over there, with his $56 million Tourism Board fiasco, required validating legislation in this House. I know that none of the new National MPs have any history of their own party, but I say the man who is their strategist cost us $56 million.

I rise to oppose Part 2 of the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill. I want to make it quite clear to anyone listening to this debate just how significant this bill is. It is significant not so much in terms of the actual wording, which is designed to look innocent enough, but in what it says about Labour and how Labour views the political process, how Labour thirsts for power and control at any cost, and how Labour is even prepared to pass retrospective legislation to validate its misdeeds and its wrongful expenditure under Vote Parliamentary Service.

As a new MP, fresh from the real world of work, kids, respecting the law, and paying my own way, and who was not here during the last election, I would like to think that I have an uncorrupted take on the issue. But coming into Parliament and watching this Labour – New Zealand First Government at work, I have learnt a few lessons.

Lesson 1: there is one rule for us and one rule for Labour. As National candidates, it was drilled into us just how important it was not to overspend during the election campaign. We were told horror stories of MPs who had won on the night and who had lost their seats for the sake of overspending a few of their own dollars. We were all very, very careful. And then the worst happened. Bob Clarkson was accused by Winston Peters of overspending and of buying the election. Mr Peters instituted a very nasty, very stressful, and very expensive court case, which, of course, Bob Clarkson won. It was a classic case of Peters using bully-boy tactics while, all along, he and his Labour mates were rorting the system and using taxpayers’ money to underpin their own campaigns. Labour members believe that there is one rule for them and another for poor old honest Joes like Bob Clarkson. That is not the sort of behaviour the public of New Zealand wants or expects.

Lesson 2: one who thinks one is all powerful can treat electoral officers with contempt. On 30 August David Henry, the Chief Electoral Officer, in his role of monitoring spending, rang Mike Smith, the general secretary of the New Zealand Labour Party, and warned him that it was wrong for the Parliamentary Service to pay for the pledge card. David Henry said it did not matter who paid for it; it did not need to call specifically for the party vote to be considered electioneering. On 2 September David Henry clarified his warning in writing, citing sections 221 and 214B of the Electoral Act 1993. On 6 September Mike Smith wrote back arguing the case, but on 12 September David Henry wrote again asking Mr Smith if there was any reason why this matter should not be referred to the police for investigation of an illegal practice.

Forced to answer, Mike Smith wrote a long letter arguing the case, but he finally agreed to accommodate David Henry’s concern, saying: “I would be happy to include the cost of the material in the return furnished by the New Zealand Labour Party.” So far so good; it was all sorted. David Henry had done his job. We should remember that this was on 14 September, nearly 2 weeks after the issue was raised and days before the election itself. We can imagine David Henry’s surprise when he received a letter from Mike Smith on 5 October that stated: “I have now had the opportunity to reconsider the matter and I wish to advise that I withdraw my offer to have the amount expended on the material in question counted as an election expense.” So lesson two is that if one thinks one is all-powerful, one can treat electoral officers with contempt.

Labour agreed to the rules before the event, then deliberately and cynically changed its mind when it thought it was too late for the officials to be able to do anything about it. The New Zealand public is lucky that it has a public servant of the calibre of the Auditor-General, Kevin Brady, who refuses to be cowed and bullied by Labour.

I rise to speak to Part 2, “Validation of expenditure and interim meaning of ‘funding entitlements for parliamentary purposes’ ”. In particular, I would like to comment on a number of amendments I have to this part, especially to paragraph (b) of clause 5. There are four Acts that I would like to add to the list of Acts in that paragraph. They are the Income Tax Act 2004, the Proceeds of Crime Act 1991, the Public Records Act 2005, and the Declaratory Judgments Act 1908. In addition, I have an amendment to subclause 7(4), where I would like to omit the expression “31 December 2007” and substitute the expression “20 April 2007”. I would also like to spend some time on clause 7(4).

But before I talk about that I want to focus on subclause (2) of clause 7, which describes exactly what “electioneering” means. It is defined in that subclause, which really says that if this shoddy, shaky, shabby Government collapses and there is a snap election, then the Labour pledge card would be paid for by public funds. That is absolutely appalling! That is why my amendment proposes to bring the date forward by 6 months. It is to limit the time that this shabby, shaky, shoddy Government, if it does call a snap election, could use the pledge card and pay for it out of public funds. I tell members, quite frankly, that that has been termed currently a “corrupt practice”. But if this bill is passed it clearly will not be a corrupt practice; it will be part of electioneering, and New Zealand will be going backwards. I certainly hope that my amendment will get the support of the Committee.

I also support the amendments to this part in the names of Chris Finlayson and Wayne Mapp. There is an unsung hero in all of this shabby, shoddy, shaky mess the Government has caused, and that is Bernard Darnton from the Libertarianz. He has a lawsuit against this shabby, shaky, shoddy Government—Helen Clark and her caucus. If this bill is passed in its current form, it will mean that Bernard Darnton’s lawsuit will certainly not proceed. He issued a press statement yesterday in which he basically said that the Government’s changing the law to escape charges against it was something he would expect from a Third World dictatorship, and that, sadly, New Zealand has no constitutional protections to prevent that type of abuse by a Government that is quite literally out of control.

I could not agree more. We have a banana republic. It is a Mugabe-type Government. This Government is trying to ram through legislation without allowing public comment and without having a select committee process. One would think that maybe the public is not interested but, believe me, the public is very interested in what is happening. People will not forget. They will have long memories about this shabby, shaky, shoddy Government and what it is trying to ram through this Parliament, under urgency, to pass a law to validate its overspending in the election campaign. It is doing so because Labour members are self-interested, cynical, and out for everything they can get.

💬 David Bennett: They’re corrupt.

Exactly. The public interest in this case is very high, and when 81 percent of the public said “Pay it back.”, and when 75 percent of Labour supporters said “Pay it back.”, Labour was finally shamed into saying that it would pay it back. But there is a catch. We do not know when it will pay it back or, indeed, if it will ever pay it back. This bill, in its current form, gives no time line. It gives no guarantee that any party that has outstanding money will pay its money back. Helen Clark talked about a target. What does a target mean? It is a pretty nebulous term and there is no guarantee that any money will be paid back. We know that Labour MPs are having to write personal cheques, but when will we see the colour of their money? When will taxpayers be refunded? Even New Zealand First is trying to duck and dive. It is in cahoots with this shoddy, shaky, shabby Government.

💬 Darren Hughes: Read it again.

I say to Darren Hughes, the marginal member from the marginal seat of Otaki, that I do not have to. Mr Hughes will not be here in 2008, because my colleague Nathan Guy—

Can I start by clarifying—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the member but there are two members, one each on either side of me, interjecting. They are not permitted to interject when they do not have the floor.

I start this call on Part 2 of the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill by clarifying for members opposite that there is every difference in the world between, one, accidentally overspending, realising it, admitting it, and paying the money back straight away; and, two, blatantly and intentionally overspending by $800,000, denying it ever happened, trying to hide it within the beltway, shooting the messenger who dared to disagree, then attempting to legislate under urgency to make lawful what was unlawful and to validate actions, having still not paid back one solitary cent.

We have heard in debates today that this bill will make legal what was illegal, but the moral obligation to pay back the money that was misappropriated remains. How on earth do we enforce this moral obligation? How can we be expected to believe that this Labour Government, which blatantly ignores its legal obligations, will now conscientiously subscribe to some moral obligations? If Labour’s legal obligations have not been obeyed in the past, what suggestion is there that its moral obligations will be obeyed in the future?

I refer to the amendment proposed by my learned colleague Mr Finlayson to insert new clauses 5A and 5B, which addresses the fact that there is absolutely no legal obligation, under the proposed bill, to repay any money. Mr Finlayson has rather eloquently imposed an obligation to pay the money back. The public expects the money to be paid back. The public expects a legal obligation for it to be paid back. The public will not trust the Labour Government to obey some moral obligation to pay the money back. We urge support for this amendment. What is wrong with a proposal that states that the parties will pay the money back? After all, that is what they said they would do What is wrong with a provision in clause 5A(2) to impose interest, as an incentive on a party to pay the money back? What is wrong with imposing a penalty for not paying the money back, when we have already heard promises that parties will pay the money back? What is wrong with having provisions to appoint a manager to take whatever steps are necessary if the money is not paid back, and what is wrong with the manager having the power to sequester the assets of a party and to initiate proceedings, and having all the powers and authorities exercisable by receivers, to ensure that this wonderful moral promise by the Labour Government is, in fact, honoured?

I urge the Committee to support the amendment proposed by Mr Finlayson. As an addition to that, as provided for in the amendment to include new clause 5B, it is only common sense that members are made aware exactly when the money is paid back, so that it cannot be just swept under the carpet and “moved on”.

I would also like to address the amendment proposed by Dr Mapp to insert new clause 6A. This addresses the process. I will talk about the process for a minute, because we have been told that this is an urgent matter. Nobody has yet enlightened us as to where the urgency is that is being demanded of us. The money has already been misappropriated. Whether the bill passes today, tomorrow, or next year will not change that fact. Even if we accept that clarification of the rules is required, there is no desperate urgency that the clarification be codified now, today, tomorrow, or even this year. Dr Mapp’s amendment, in fact, suggests that nothing in the Act shall affect the existing High Court proceedings, which seek a judicial declaration as to whether the expenditure was lawful or whether it was misappropriated. Why not wait until the Darnton case is judicially determined? Why push this through under urgency?

I am delighted to take a call on this bill. Yes, there is urgency about it, and yes, I am glad we are sitting in urgency, because this Government has taken the responsible position and will clean up the situation, following the recommendations that came from the Auditor-General. The Opposition is failing to acknowledge the steps that went into the Auditor-General’s report to the Minister responsible for Vote Parliamentary Service. That Minister reported to the House, as we were told, that seven parties breached the spending rules at the last election, including National. National members, on their high horse, say that it was just a little breach, so it was all right. But the Opposition did breach the electoral spending rules, and this bill will validate that overspent electoral spending. It is fine for National members to get on their high horse about this matter, but the public out there are pleased to know that we are getting this validating legislation passed. We will get the issue cleared up, and the validation will lapse at the end of next year.

I want to talk about one of the amendments in Part 2 of the bill that has come from the Hon Bill English. He wants to omit clause 7(2)(a) and substitute the following: “encourages or persuades or appears to encourage or persuade voters to vote for a particular person or persons:”. Well, let us get that cleared up, for once and for all. Who paid for the National Party candidate in the electorate of Rotorua to put billboards up 6 months before the election? The report on overspending looked at the communications spend in the Parliamentary Service only for the 3 months from the date of declaration of the electoral campaign. But for 6 months before the election, National Party billboards were up in our electorate, telling us who to vote for. “Who is Gilbert Stehbens?”, they asked. Then, before the 3-month spending period had even begun, a little van drove around Rotorua, saying “MP Rotorua”. The candidate was not the MP for Rotorua. Who paid for that, prior to the 3 months of the electoral spend that the Auditor-General has looked at?

And who paid the salary for National’s candidate, who was absent from his job in Auckland as a marketer and a cosmetic dentist—the one who fixed up Dr Brash’s teeth? Who paid for him to come to Rotorua and go door to door, telling everyone what a lousy local MP they had, and that she was so unsuccessful she was not even in Cabinet. Who paid that salary? It was probably paid for from the Leader of the Opposition’s spend, which is unaccounted for line by line, because the Leader of the Opposition spent all his allocation up until the election. What did he spend it on? National has no accountability at all on that. But we knew the spending was something we had never seen before. It was absolutely unprecedented. There was no party machine helping the wannabe candidate in our electorate—but the whispering campaign had begun.

The Opposition also chooses to ignore the $110,000 overspent on GST. How can Opposition members say they did not break the spending rules, leading up to the last election?

I am pleased about this validating legislation. We should get this spending cleaned up, and then we should get into the review that will look at the rules on overspending.

I do not buy a word of what MP Steve Chadwick has just said. I do not buy a word of what the Deputy Prime Minister said today. I do not buy a single, solitary word that has come from any member on that side of the Chamber on this issue, and I will tell members why. When I look at the Order Paper that we should have been addressing this week, I see the heading “Business before the House”, and I see a number of bills under that heading that should have—and would have—been debated in this House this week or the next, were we not in urgency. What are those bills? We have bills like the Sports Anti-Doping Bill, a disabled persons bill, a bill to do with children, young persons, and their families, the Criminal Procedure Bill, and the Education (Establishment of Universities) Amendment Bill—and what do all these bills have in common? They have come before the House to benefit the people of New Zealand. The fact that we may or may not support them and vote for them is irrelevant, because the intent behind the bills is to benefit the people of New Zealand.

I turn to the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill, which we are debating today, and I ask who it is designed to benefit. Is it designed to benefit, as those other bills are, the people of New Zealand? No, it is not. Of course it is not. It is designed to benefit the Government of the day. There is the difference. This bill is designed purely to get the Government out of a very, very tight spot, and I do not buy a single, solitary word of it.

The then Chief Electoral Officer wrote to the Labour Party and told it that if it put out the pledge card, then it would breach the spending cap. Let us just leave aside the fact that the Labour Party used taxpayers’ money and our money. Labour was warned that the use of the pledge card would be regarded as election spending. We badly need to know—and I would love an MP from the Government to take a call on this question—whether Labour had been informed in advance that the use of the pledge card would be regarded as election spending. If Labour had been informed of that, then it knowingly exceeded the spending cap.

Bob Clarkson was challenged about exceeding the spending cap. Bob Clarkson spent a considerable amount of time and money to prove that he had not exceeded the spending cap. Had Mr Clarkson exceeded the spending cap, he would have lost his seat—but not the Government, because the laws of the land, obviously, do not apply to the Government. The laws of the land that apply to me, my colleagues, and my party do not apply to the Government.

So we have Government members sitting in the Chamber with a worthless piece of paper, hoping they will get away with it, and hoping the people of New Zealand will have forgotten about it by the time of the next election. But we will not have forgotten about it. We have a Government that knowingly and willingly breaks the law. So what did the Government do about that? How did it put that right? It introduced a shonky piece of legislation called the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill, which is just a whole collection of words designed to make legal what is illegal.

What arrant nonsense we have just heard about accusations that we breached the spending cap. That party received over $1 million of expenditure from its friends in the Exclusive Brethren—the same people who had private detectives tailing me and other members of Parliament, and who took part in other disreputable practices—of which not one cent was included in its election return.

The nonsense we heard about the so-called clarity around what is a parliamentary purpose is just beyond the pale. It is absolutely clear that the National Party used its leadership funds to promote its cause at the last election. It has not been pinged for doing that, for two reasons. First, the Auditor-General did not look into that matter as thoroughly as he did in relation to directly promotional expenditure. But of perhaps more concern was the comment of the Speaker of the House that those who had been criticised were those who had records, and those who did not have records had escaped scrutiny. She criticised that situation, and asked what sort of a way that was for Parliament to conduct itself. The answer to that question is that that is no way for this Parliament to conduct itself.

There most clearly is uncertainty here, as we have seen from the fact that every party in this Parliament except Progressive got the rules wrong, according to the rendition that the Auditor-General now believes is the correct one. For those reasons, we have said we will refund the money, but it remains abundantly clear that the very grey line that is left as to what is and what is not a parliamentary purpose must be fixed, as has previously been said. I ask whether it was a parliamentary purpose when Dr Brash went to Nelson to sign up a new member—Mr Ewen-Street, the former Green member—and use political profile in order to encourage people to vote for the National Party. That was paid for out of funds that come through the vote that is meant to be for parliamentary purposes. That is no less an electioneering purpose than the things we have been criticised for.

It is arrant nonsense to suggest that one can separate parliamentary purposes from things that have an electioneering aspect. Just about everything we do here has the dual purpose of promoting good policy for the betterment of the country, and encouraging people to vote for us. That is what democracy is about; it is a contest of ideas. When we promote our ideas, the Opposition promotes its ideas. Through that promotion of ideas, and the different ways those ideas are promoted, those parties are encouraging people to vote for them. It is the essence of democracy that parliamentary purposes include encouraging people to vote for a party.

This amendment in Part 2 is absolutely necessary. Otherwise, the National Party, like every other party in this Parliament, will not be able to go about its business in the way that has happened for decades and decades. We have a sunset clause in the bill because we actually need to take a wider look at this legislation between now and the next election. But until we take that wider look, we need to make proper what we all do and what we always have done. Thank you.

I rise to speak to Part 2 of the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill with a sick feeling in my stomach, because I know that the public of New Zealand will right now be deciding how this Parliament should be judged.

There are vast differences in the ways we should be judging the various parties that are caught up in needing this validation of their expenditure. I start by referring to National. National overspent by approximately $10,000. It got it wrong, put its hand up, and paid the money back immediately. How different that approach is from that of some of the other parties! First of all, I need to say that the Progressive party was not guilty. The Green Party, the ACT party, and United Future were a little slower to act, but they put their hands up to pay the money back. Then we come to New Zealand First. New Zealand First members still say they will pay back only what they think they legally must pay back; we know that this validation bill will probably result in their not having to pay a single cent back, so some may say that is quite wise on their part. Then we come to the Labour Party members, who have been bleating on about confusion. They think that the signs about whether they should have spent the money on the pledge card were not clear.

I quote from the Auditor-General’s report, in which he refutes the claims made that he changed the rules: “Some MPs and parliamentary parties have said that I have acted unfairly by ‘changing the rules’ after the event. I have not changed any rules.” He continues: “I deliberately decided to publish my 2005 Report before the Election to provide a clear signal to MPs and parliamentary parties about the need to be careful during the pre-election period.” It seems the Labour Party ignored that advice. I can tell members that the public of New Zealand are wondering what this is all about. I hope they are not bluffed into believing that we are simply sorting out some sorry mess. I hope they understand that what we are doing today is trying to validate the behaviours of Labour Party members in particular, who, it seems, would be happy enough to be compared with the likes of Mugabe in a mutual validation society. Is that what we want the New Zealand Government to be compared with around the world? I think not.

I know that some hefty sums will need to be paid back, and I am greatly distressed to hear about some of the ways those sums will be paid back. I suggest to Heather Simpson that if she feels she needs to contribute in some way, she should pay a visit to a Timaru supermarket, where she will find Labour Party people approaching customers and asking them whether they would like to make a donation.

💬 Hon Member: It’s shameful!

How shoddy and shameful is that? Labour Party people in Timaru supermarkets are asking customers to please make a donation to Labour. Maybe that is one way that Heather Simpson can make a donation to this campaign. We have heard about TradeMe—about all the various things that are being offered for sale in order to pay this money back. Everything we hear from the other side of the House muddies the issue. But the public of New Zealand are not as stupid as that: 81 percent of them have said that Labour should pay it back and get on with it, and stop talking about all the other stuff that Labour members think validates their behaviours.

Labour has pretended for so long that this is not a problem. For months and months—

💬 Hon Member: 13 months.

For 13 months, Labour has pretended that this is not a problem. Then its strategist, Pete Hodgson, said Labour would not pay the money back. Well, it seems he got that wrong. Pete Hodgson, the strategist, got that wrong, because now Labour says it will pay it back. Alarmingly, Labour seems to be helping its partners in Government—New Zealand First—to avoid having to pay it back. Why would New Zealand First bother? Once this bill is passed, the money will not have to be paid back. There have been weeks of obfuscation by Labour about whether it would pay it back. For months there have been denials by Labour that it knew about the pledge card funding before the election but intentionally carried on with it. That means Labour breached the spending cap. Section 214B of the Electoral Act states that one cannot spend over $2.4 million. Labour’s spending of $800,000 on top of that means it is in doo-doo.

💬 Shane Jones: What about GST?

Oh, it owes more! So Labour overspent during the election campaign. In my maiden speech I used a quotation from Václav Havel, little knowing how soon in my parliamentary career this quotation would be reflected on.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I call the Hon Tau Henare.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Oh, no!

I see the goons on the other side are laughing. Let me say something about the goons on the other side and, also, about the goon who is presently sitting in the Minister’s seat. The member from Gisborne said: “Why don’t you go and live in Zimbabwe?” Well, I tell members that I have stayed a little time in Zimbabwe and there are similarities between the two countries in terms of the leaders. It is scary to think that in Zimbabwe, where they live a funny little life, and make rules and break them, the President—the little fellow with a moustache—validates everything that he has done wrong. This piece of paper in my hand shows what it looks like when one compares Clark and Mugabe, as the caption, “Mutual Validation Society”, shows.

When Helen Clark does things wrong, she does two things: she blames other people and says a law will be made that says that we did not do anything wrong. I know that, because clause 5 states: “To the extent that any expenditure under Vote Parliamentary Service was outside the scope of an appropriation or was not made in relation to an appropriation,—(a) the expenditure is validated;”. What does “validated” mean? It means that before being validated, it was illegal and unlawful. Those members stole; they are corrupt. This is all about making right what they did wrong. But in whose eyes? It is in the eyes of the members of the Labour Party caucus, because people out on the streets, when they have been reading about this in the newspapers and watching television, are saying around the fire: “Mum, I think they’re a pack of crooks.”, or, “Dad, I think those guys have taken us for a ride.” That is what this bill is all about.

Then Darren Hughes stood up and prattled on about Labour wanting to pay it back, and so on. Well, this amendment in the name of Chris Finlayson is the mechanism to pay it back. It will make sure that everybody in the House pays it back—even the people to my left, from New Zealand First, who have said they will pay “whatever” back. They have not even figured out that they owe $160,000-odd. That is what they owe and that is what they should pay. They should not make a point of standing in this Chamber and saying they will pay, when they know full well that the passing of this legislation means they will not pay.

None of the people who have said they will pay are going to pay. Helen Clark says she has picked out a target. Well, where is the target? Where is the bull’s-eye? Members opposite are all quiet now, because the truth hurts. It hurts that this is a rort on New Zealand’s political system like never before. This is a corrupt Government, which needs a spanking, and it will get that spanking at the next election.

I say that, come the next election, this item will be the major item. It will be about honesty, it will be about credibility, and it will be about reliability. The fact of the matter is that if Labour members took the time to read my colleague’s amendment, and I hope they have, they would see that if we had something like this in law, we would make real and significant progress. It would make people think before they go and spend what is not theirs, and then try to get away with it by bringing in legislation—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: What’s it called?

I do not know what it is called. In my language, I call it theft.

I seek leave to table a report with the headline: “Goff out of line on election spending”.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.

I seek leave to table a report headed: “Clark’s pledge card argument falls apart”.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. [Interruption]

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): There was comment from both sides.

Ah, different rules, eh? I seek leave to table a document headed: “Herald has own ‘spin’, says Cullen”.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.

I seek leave to table a Radio New Zealand - Te Reo Irirangi o Aotearoa report headed: “National Party to oppose spending validation bill”.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.

I seek leave to table a Radio New Zealand - Te Reo Irirangi o Aotearoa report headed: “Parliament goes into urgency to consider validation bill”.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.

I seek leave to table a Radio New Zealand report headed: “Auditor-General’s report on parliamentary election expenditure”.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.

I seek leave to table a report headed: “New Zealand First will pay when convinced” that they have something to pay.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.

I seek leave to table a document headed: “Why Labour must repay taxpayers”.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.

I seek leave to table a New Zealand Herald report headed “The election spending row” in question and answer form, beginning with “What do Parliament’s rules say?”.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.

Thank you, Mr Chairperson, for the opportunity to speak, because I know that many of my colleagues are very keen to contribute to the debate. I will speak specifically to the amendment put forward by my colleague Chris Finlayson. The amendment, in the main, talks about the need for payment to be made before validation. I stand to speak specifically to this because that is what the public want us to do. This is what the public want to see happen.

The public do not have faith that the current bill, as it stands, will deliver on their expectations, and, in particular, New Zealand First is creating an illusion, maybe, of the fact that it is looking to escape from the need to pay the money back. I think, therefore, the only confidence we can give the public is to make sure Chris Finlayson’s amendment is supported.

The tragedy of all of this though, at the end of the day, is the fact that we are standing here, putting amendments forward, because we have not given the public the opportunity to make a contribution. There is real anger and frustration in the New Zealand community at the fact that this process is going through the House at speed. I had the opportunity last night, with leave, to visit a fund-raising promotion for a hospice. There were a couple of hundred people there, and the talk in the main was very much focused on the fact that this was happening in the House. A lot of people were concerned, a lot of people did not understand, a lot of people do not have the trust or the faith that we are getting it right, and a lot of people were commenting on the fact that they are not being given the opportunity to have their say through this process.

I regularly take Winston out for a walk in the morning. I put him on his leash and take him for a walk through the streets of Wellington. I came back in this morning just after 7 and, lo and behold, on the TV one of the Ministers of this Government was standing up and saying, with great gravity and in a serious tone, that this bill is righting 17 years of supposed wrong. A Minister of the Crown was talking about how this bill is righting 17 years of what is supposedly wrong. Heck me days, wowee! Is it so urgent that 17 years after the wrong supposedly started, we have to right it tomorrow—in fact, that we have to do it today? We cannot wait one more day, one more week, one more month for this process to occur, to allow the public of New Zealand to have an involvement in what is a very serious issue.

One would think, from listening to the Cabinet Minister on the TV this morning, that the world was falling apart and that this legislation was the most urgently needed legislation in the world because for 17 years things have been wrong. Has the world fallen apart? No. The only thing falling apart is the Labour Party polling, and it is falling apart and falling down at a great rate of knots because the public of New Zealand understand exactly what is happening in this Chamber today. The only reason we are in urgency is that the Labour Party wants to put a stop on its slide now. Labour senses, quite rightly, that the public are incredibly concerned and worried about what they have seen from the Government in this House over the last few months. Labour members have said to themselves: “How can we stop this slide?”. There is no better way than to pick it up and put it before the House as quickly as possible, in the hope that by next week the public will have forgotten.

The public will not forget what Labour has done here today. The fact that there is no public submission through this process, and that there has been no opportunity for the public to have their say, is just an indictment on the sort of Government we have. It is sending a very strong signal to the public of New Zealand that the Government does not want to hear what the public is saying. The reason the Government does not want to hear it is that it does not like what the public is saying.

I move, That the question be now put.

It is a tremendous privilege to be able to stand in this Chamber. It is a tremendous honour to be able to be here to represent constituents. But I find that there is an amazing sense of history here, as we sit and watch events unfold today. The Government took nearly $800,000 from its leader’s budget and applied it to electioneering purposes, and that money is now being laundered through the parliamentary process.

The only problem with sitting here and watching these events unfold today is that faeces splatter. Every one of us, in time, will recount the process that we have been going through over these days and hours as we sit in this Chamber now. Some of us may recount this process over a glass of whisky, and some of the really honourable members may recount it in black and white print as they write and publish memoirs. But every one of us will have to recall this process, because what is happening here today is a salient point in the history of this country.

It will be interesting, too, to note members’ various responses to this process. I will be able to stand, sit, or whatever and say: “Yep, I was there. I remember the day.” I will be able to say I voted against this legislation. Other people sitting around the Chamber today will have various explanations as to their part in this seedy business, as well. Dr Cullen will be able to say: “Yep, I was there, and it was my idea. I moved the bill.” I wonder how that will be received by those who are listening to him. Maybe his grandchildren, when they are talking to him in years to come, will ask him why he moved the bill. He will have to fess up and say: “Because we were in the poo.”

The people who are new to this House consider it a privilege to be here. The people who want to push through this sort of legislation are arrogant and believe that it is their right to do so, as they money-launder their way through this legislation. I cannot understand why this legislation is not an amendment to the Crimes Act. That is exactly what it should be.

It will also be interesting to note the explanations of other members who are sitting in the Chamber today, including those of Mr Brown and other members of New Zealand First, and members of United Future. They will be able to look their grandchildren in the eye, or whoever is asking, if they are interested, and say: “Yeah, I was there, and I witnessed this seedy legislation go through. I voted for it because my leader said I should, and I was happy to do it at the time.” If we cannot justify supporting this legislation now, will we be proud to have done so in 20 years’ time? There are other people sitting in this Chamber now who, in years to come, will have to say: “Well, I sat there on my hands and did nothing.” Those people are the Green Party members, who have decided to abstain from voting in respect of this legislation. But they will be tainted, as well. As I said earlier, this stuff splatters.

It is interesting to watch the body language and the jumping up and down of members on the other side of the Chamber. I have interviewed a lot of guilty people in my time—people whom one is suspicious of. It is interesting to look at the body language of those people. They cover themselves, they keep pulling their clothes together, and they stand with their hands on their heart. The ones who are really guilty deny and deny—“It wasn’t me; it didn’t happen.” They protest and carry on, and they say it never happened. Then they move to the next stage, which is: “Oh yeah, well it happened, but it wasn’t my fault. I didn’t know.” They are the guilty ones. What about the innocent ones? What do they do? The innocent ones turn round and say: “Oh, gee, I made a stuff-up and here’s the money. I will pay it back.”

Those are the two different responses in respect of overspending that we are hearing in this Chamber today. I find it hugely ironic to see the former member for Otago jumping up and down and waving his fingers at this side of the Chamber.

I move, That the question be now put.

I am very pleased to take a call on Part 2 of this legislation, although in the end this is a total disgrace. This whole debacle has been a total disgrace, led by Helen Clark and her Labour Party. This party has run fast and loose with taxpayers’ funds, and it is now running fast and loose with the parliamentary process. The public out there know this. In fact, other than that, they probably expected that at some stage this Government would move to validate the unlawful spending and the overspending. The public made their judgment on this debacle long ago—weeks ago—and they have judged the Labour Government and the Labour Party guilty as charged. It has been fast and loose with the public’s money, and now it is fast and loose with the democratic process.

Here we are in urgency. The bill was introduced yesterday and it will be passed today, thanks to parties who really should not be supporting it, but are. The fact of this bill’s passing will cement this in the mind of the public; they will not forget this. It may be 2 years until the election, but there comes a time when a Government takes one step too far. This Government has done so with this debacle here. If there are lessons that Labour Government members should learn—and they probably will not; their record to date has shown that they do not learn from their stuff-ups—the first one is that they can run but they cannot hide. Or, maybe, it is that they can ride but they cannot hide. Helen Clark did her best to ride roughshod over the issue until she realised, finally, that the Government’s poll ratings were taking a dive. Government members can run, or ride, but they cannot hide; they need to learn this lesson.

The other lesson they need to learn is that the public will not tolerate an arrogant Government. The public, in a sense, have been reasonably tolerant; I do not know why they have been willing to give this Government the benefit of the doubt notwithstanding the number of stuff-ups over the last 6 or 7 years. But, on this one, the public will not forgive the arrogance that has been shown by Helen Clark, her party, and her Government in the way they have dealt with this matter.

I am absolutely grateful that we have an Auditor-General who has acted without fear while under huge pressure from the Government to do something different from what he did in the end. Sure, in the end he found that unlawful appropriations occurred across all parties, so, in a sense, we all have a lesson to learn from what has happened—I do not deny that. But no one, no party has been as arrogant as Helen Clark and her Labour Party. That they think that their pledge card was lawful is so arrogant that I cannot describe it, quite honestly. As I say, the public have made their decision. They have made their judgment; they made it long before today. This bill just cements in their minds what an arrogant Government this is.

I am grateful that the Chair gave me a small call. Before my time is up, I want to refer to Murray McCully’s amendment to insert new clause 6A, which states that there should be “No effect on political parties wishing to repay monies”. I hope the Committee will support that amendment. With this legislation and the validation of that spending, there will be parties—and maybe the Labour Party might even still change its mind—that still might not repay the money.

I move, That the question be now put.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. As the vote was taken I listened very keenly, and I noticed that the Clerk was not calling for the ACT vote. Mr Chairperson, can you confirm that those members have disappeared or are not voting, or whatever?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): It is not a point of order. I confirm that the member is quite entitled to come to the Table to look at the votes.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Gerry Brownlee be agreed to:

to insert the following new clause:

5A Publication of electioneering material

Any expenditure captured by clause 5 which resulted in the production of material deemed to be electioneering by the Controller and Auditor-General in the report entitled Advertising expenditure incurred by the Parliamentary Service in the three months before the 2005 General Election must be published by the Minister in charge of Vote Parliamentary Service to ensure that validating legislation of this kind is enacted in a fully transparent context.