Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill

This will be the last debate in the Committee stage. It is a shame, is it not, that this Government, using its majority, is ruthlessly putting through validating legislation. Government members seem to think that this legislation is absolutely vital for the health of the nation and, indeed, for the lawfulness of this Government. What arrant nonsense that is, I have to say. Government members have come in here with the completely facetious argument that everything that has been done back to 1989 urgently needs validation—so urgently that no member of the public can make a submission. That is a completely outrageous lie that is being perpetrated on the voters of New Zealand.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member cannot use the word “lie”. He knows that is out of order.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I certainly know that one cannot accuse any member or, indeed, any party of a lie, but it has certainly never been the case that one could not describe legislation, or something of that nature, in those terms. The rule about the use of the word “lie” relates to individuals and parties, and to their personal and party motives, not to legislation.

Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Dr Mapp, the previous Chairman, Mr Robertson, has advised me that the Committee was in the middle of a point of order before the lunch break, and that you had been asked to withdraw and apologise for the word you had used. So could you do that, please?

I did not withdraw and apologise, because I did not accuse anyone, or any party, of a lie. I simply said that the legislation was a lie. My understanding of the Standing Orders and the rules of this House is that that could not be a breach of the Standing Orders. Therefore, I have nothing to apologise for.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The word was not used against a person or a party?

No, it was not, and, indeed, the Deputy Prime Minister knows that to be the case.

This is a tawdry little bill. It is unneeded and it is unwanted. I say to those parties that are going to vote for it, the Labour Party, the New Zealand First Party, and United Future, that they will be forever stained with it. They will be judged in the court of public opinion, and they will be judged at the next election. There will be an accounting. That accounting will be in the ballot box, and it will not be favourable.

I want to say this. When a party deliberately uses taxpayers’ money towards its election expenses in excess of the spending limits, that is judged to be a corrupt practice under the Electoral Act. That is the case, and that assertion has been made many times in this Chamber and has never been denied by the Government. The Labour Party ought to live with its guilt. If one speeds, one pays the fine. That does not obviate the crime; the fact is that the record of one’s guilt remains. Someone who had done that does not come to Parliament and try to change the law, saying: “I never sped. At all stages I was within the law.” But that is what this Government is trying to do now.

The Labour members say there has been validation legislation in the past. But it has never been for a political party in relation to its own malfeasance. That is what this bill is actually about—the deliberate use of taxpayers’ money to Labour members’ advantage, in order to turn the election in their favour. Now they want this Parliament to say that is OK—that it is permissible, and that the public of New Zealand ought to forgive them. Well, the public will not.

I say this very, very clearly to the Labour Party. It has committed a corrupt practice under the Electoral Act. Labour members should not be asking this Parliament to let them obviate the consequences of doing that and pretend that the unlawful is now legal. That is a fiction, and a patent fiction at that, and the public know that. That is why, on talkback radio and in letters to the editor, the Government is being judged very harshly. People see naked self-interest. That is the difference between this form of validating legislation and any other validating legislation in New Zealand’s history. This Parliament has never passed law for the naked self-interest of members of Parliament; that has never happened before in the history of our land. That is why this bill is such a travesty of fundamental democratic constitutional principles.

The Labour members do not care about that. They are just riding completely roughshod over the foundations of our democracy, and they expect the public to understand that. Well, the public will not, and Labour will be judged accordingly.

In speaking to the title of the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill, I want to go back a bit to what is being validated here. The Controller and Auditor-General identified $1,173,598 of illegal spending. A large hunk of that related to Labour’s pledge card, so I just want to go back a little over that pledge card. It was not the New Zealand Labour Party’s idea. In fact, it was an idea it copied off Prime Minister Blair from the Labour Party’s campaign in Great Britain. The pledge card in Britain proved to be very, very successful; it was a very, very successful election strategy. So what Labour did in 1999 was to copy, as Helen Clark often did, what Tony Blair had done for the Labour Party in the UK. The whole third way approach of this Government was a sort of copy of Tony Blair’s approach in Britain.

In 1999, when Labour first used a pledge card here in New Zealand, it was congratulated on what an effective election campaign strategy the pledge card was. I want the Minister in the chair, the Hon Dr Michael Cullen, to tell us who paid for the pledge card in 1999, when Labour itself took credit for how effective it was—it was the centrepiece of Labour’s campaign in 1999. I ask Dr Cullen who paid for it.

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: That would have been announced publicly.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: So the taxpayers of New Zealand paid for it?

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: That has been said frequently.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: I just want to make sure that Dr Cullen acknowledges that the taxpayers of New Zealand paid for it.

The reason why I believe that is important is this. When Labour gets caught like that, it tries to muddy the waters. No honest New Zealander could possibly have thought, in 1999, that that pledge card was not electioneering. No ordinary, honest New Zealander would have ever, ever assumed that it was not electioneering. So in 2002, when Labour’s funding was also hidden, no honest New Zealander would have dreamt that anyone—anyone, no matter how dishonest—could consider it not to be electioneering.

The reason this is important is that the Auditor-General did not look at technical, difficult reasons in making his decisions about what was illegal. He states, in paragraph 4.9 on page 35 of his report: “I took a common-sense approach based on what I considered a reasonable member of the public would think …”. And any reasonable, honest member of the public would have treated that pledge card, absolutely and clearly, as electioneering. Dr Cullen, who is always very clever, seems to think somehow that it was not electioneering, because it did not ask for a vote.

What makes this issue even more despicable is that the Minister responsible for Vote Parliamentary Service has been dragged into that dirty, dirty muddying of the waters by this Labour Government—by Helen Clark and Michael Cullen. The Speaker of our Parliament has been brought into disrepute in her role as the Minister responsible for Vote Parliamentary Service. This report of hers is a disgrace. The report of the Minister responsible for Vote Parliamentary Service on the Auditor-General’s report is a disgrace. As a longstanding member of this Parliament—22 years in this Parliament—I am ashamed that our Speaker should be involved in that kind of tawdry cheating of the public purse of this country.

There can be no honest consideration of that pledge card that treats it in any other way than as electioneering. There is no possible honest assessment of that pledge card that could treat it in any other way than as electioneering, and Labour knows that.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Earlier this morning the Chair of the Committee warned the Minister in the chair, Dr Cullen, that his microphone was live and that any comments he made were being carried. I have just come down from my office, where I was listening to the Hon Lockwood Smith in the debate, and I can say that Dr Cullen’s voice was coming through the radio louder—quite a bit louder—than that of Dr Lockwood Smith. Dr Cullen had been warned about that this morning—he actually chose to leave the chair because of it. I suggest, Madam Chair, that you give him another and final warning that if he carries on while his microphone is live—[Interruption]—yes, there was some pretty choice stuff coming through, actually—you will ask him to leave the chair and have another Minister do the job.

I apologise for making a comment in response to the member saying he had been standing in this Chamber for a long time. In fact, I left the Chamber this morning for a Cabinet committee meeting.

That was Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith PhD in full understatement mode, taking a moderate and balanced view in his speech. What he showed was a really important distinction. As I said this morning—and I say again—the Labour Party does not accept that the Auditor-General’s views are correct. But we accept that he is the referee, and therefore we are paying the money back. I note that Dr Lockwood Smith did not agree with the referee’s decision in terms of the Speaker’s report, so what did he do? He attacked the Speaker and attacked the report.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: As the Minister responsible for the Parliamentary Service.

Oh, what a fine distinction he tries to make now, having been caught out booting the referee because he did not like the referee’s decision on this matter. Is that not just typical of the National Party—the born-to-rule Government it would like to be? When one does not like the referee, one boots the referee. We on this side of the Chamber are digging deep into our pockets, even though we disagree with the referee.

I note that not a single person opposite has yet picked up my challenge and quoted a single sentence from the 2005 Auditor-General’s report that states that the interpretation of the rules then current was wrong. Such a sentence is not in that report. Indeed, what the Auditor-General said in that report was that advertising is broadly defined, leaving scope for the inclusion of considerable political content. That is a pretty clear warning to people that what they are doing is wrong, is it not?

Worse than that, the member forgot his own party’s record. He went on to ask who paid for the pledge card. He has asked that publicly so many times, that it is a wonder he has not heard the answer. It came out of the leader’s budget, which is why we argue that in 2005 there was no change, because we had done that in two previous elections. Having described all that as—what did he say—“despicable, dirty, dirty electioneering”, he forgot something. The National Party in 2002 placed an advertisement in the newspaper stating: “My pledge to you”. That was Bill English’s pledge—paid for how? By the Parliamentary Service leaders’ vote. Who paid for Bill English’s billboards in 2002? The Parliamentary Service vote. Who paid for National’s billboards on the foreshore and seabed issue in 2004? The Parliamentary Service vote. Who is paying this year—when National members say they knew that the rules had changed completely—for party political questionnaires, clearly designed to support the National Party, that are going out in electorate after electorate? The Parliamentary Service vote.

So now Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith PhD is struck somewhat dumb. He has now described his colleagues, his former leader, his current leader, and the National caucus as engaged in despicable, dirty, dirty electioneering.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Just muddy the waters further.

He calls this muddying the waters. I do agree—if one throws a Tory into the water, it does tend to make the water look dirty. But that has nothing to do with what the Labour Party did.

I challenge Dr Smith again: what was the National Party leader’s budget spent on in the 3 months leading up to the 2005 election? We have still had no answer on that point from the National Party. The last thing National wanted was the Auditor-General to look into that. We wanted him to, but he declined to go beyond the issue of communications. He declined to go back to 2002, and he wonders that we are somewhat critical of his report appearing somewhat partial as a consequence of that. I make no apology for saying that. We do not believe that we did anything wrong, but, the referee having blown the whistle, we will refund the money. In the same way, a week or so back my soccer team got a penalty it should not have got. Thank God we won the game, because it was the first time we had won for a number of weeks, and we are very grateful for that. National is very grateful for the fact that we have to spend a lot of money, but, by golly, it wants the second part of this bill to pass. We have already heard that one member has had his Christmas card expenditure questioned under the rules the Auditor-General has now set. Who paid for Dr Lockwood Smith’s Christmas cards last year?

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: I see you—

See, see, see! Dr Lockwood Smith should answer the question. Who paid for his Christmas cards last year?

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Just muddy the waters.

Ah, just muddy the waters!

I am keen to discuss the title clause, the commencement clause, and, in particular, the amendment I am proposing to clause 2. Clause 2, “Commencement”, currently reads: “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” I am proposing, by way of amendment to clause 2—the amendment having been tabled—that to give this bill the necessary teeth it requires, and, in particular, to ensure that New Zealand First is left in no doubt about the nature of what this bill should do, the bill should come into effect “the day after the date on which the Controller and Auditor-General reports to Parliament that he has received confirmation that all political parties have repaid … the amounts listed in Figure 2 and Figure 3 on pages 33 and 34 of the report …”.

The point of this amendment is straightforward. It is that validation will occur only in the event that all parties have repaid the moneys owed. I have heard Dr Cullen tell members on several occasions over the last couple of days that the Labour Party will repay the money, so I am sure he will have no objection to the validating legislation coming into effect once that repayment is made. The Greens, the Māori Party, National, ACT, and, yesterday, United Future have all indicated that they also will repay the moneys. So I am looking forward to their support on this amendment, which requires that repayment to be made before validation occurs.

There is, however, one political party that has not made that commitment, and I ask Peter Brown, as deputy leader of New Zealand First, to stand during this part of the Committee stage debate and reassure other politicians—but, more important, the public of New Zealand—that the moneys owed by New Zealand First, as listed on pages 33 and 34 of the Auditor-General’s report, will be repaid. It is a very simple statement for the member to make. Once he has made that statement—and because he is an honourable member, I am sure he will make it—then he too, like Dr Cullen and the Labour Party, should have no objection to my amendment, which simply states that once repayment has occurred, the validating legislation will kick in. It is pretty straightforward.

The danger in not voting for my amendment is that political parties such as New Zealand First will take the gamble that the New Zealand public will see this issue disappear into the ether. As a result, when the validating legislation passes, the legal requirement for New Zealand First to repay will disappear at that time. The obligation will then simply become a moral or political obligation.

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: There’s no legal requirement.

I say to Dr Cullen that that is my point. That is why we need the amendment—to create the obligation for repayment to be made before validation can occur. On that basis, a perfectly reasonable, straightforward, and simple amendment should enjoy the support of all parties that have agreed publicly to repay the moneys owed as identified by the Auditor-General.

Frankly, New Zealand First should take the opportunity now to take a call and reassure the public of New Zealand that it will repay the moneys owed and vote for my amendment to ensure that validation of the appropriation occurs only once that repayment has been made. In fact, I cannot think of a good reason why any political party that has agreed to repay the moneys owed would not vote for this amendment. It actually makes no material difference to its position in respect of the validating legislation currently before the House. It is a serious amendment. It is an amendment that is straightforward and makes sense, and I look forward to its support by all parties, because it actually makes a fair bit of sense. I also look forward to contributions from my other colleagues who have made amendments on the title and commencement clauses.

I have come down to the Chamber to speak having listened to this debate on the radio and wondered whether we are in real land or in some gaga time. If there was any argument against the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill, it could have been laid out point by point, rather than our having the abuse, the overstatement, and the chuckles we are hearing. Examples could have been given of current spending that is uncertain and should be validated. This is why I speak to the title and commencement clauses.

I ask members to take, as an example, a member of Parliament who drives around in a truck with his name and the parliamentary crest on it, and also a logo and advertising slogan that have nothing to do with parliamentary business. Should that be paid for by the parliamentary budget? Is it advancing policy, or is it some form of ongoing electioneering? It seems to me that use of that truck, parked prominently at an airport, with, no doubt, the parking costs being paid for by the Government as well, comes outside the parliamentary vote. I am very sure that members who have trucks with advertising slogans on them parked in airport car-parks at parliamentary expense—the slogans are not advocating policy but are promoting the members; they are politicking—will be glad that this bill goes through and validates expenditure back to the last election. Because if it does not, there is further trouble afoot and further uncertainty.

That uncertainty will go through to Christmas, because members of Parliament who continue to run businesses will put out advertising circulars for their businesses with their names prominently displayed in a way that overlaps their political advertising. Of course, we would not encourage that, because one should not profit from one’s actions as a member of Parliament. But when one appears prominently on a phone book cover in relation to one’s business activity, with one’s “MP” sign alongside one’s name, on a similar advertising slogan in a similar place, the confusion is very easy. The confusion is now profound because no one knows where the cut-off point is. [Interruption] Listen to the brays! We have to have some clarity; otherwise, we could again have Lockwood Smith disporting his body for the world to see on his Christmas card or his calendar. I do not know what the point is in displaying the body perfect of Lockwood Smith on his calendar or Christmas card, but I am sure that if he had a photograph taken of himself with his logo on his chest, and put it on his calendar, then it would be approved. At least, his chest would carry something of merit.

Anyway, I support this bill. I support the title of the bill. I support its immediate commencement, so that we will all know where we stand, and will spend our money legitimately—not confusing our political activities with our business activities, not trying to rip off the public by spending money illegitimately to make private profit. If we are going to spend parliamentary money, let us have clear rules, let us know where we stand, and let those rules start tomorrow. I support the bill.

I rise to speak to the title and commencement clauses of the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill. It surprises me that the term “money-laundering” is not in there, because that is exactly what is going on here. Here is money that has been unlawfully appropriated and we are putting it right by passing this legislation today—I am expecting it will be passed, given the voting record of those who have shown their flag earlier in the day, and no doubt it will happen again.

Let us look at ways other people appropriate money—in the Crimes Act, for instance. There used to be a crime called theft by misappropriation. That was when people were given money for a certain purpose and they used it to do something else. That was a misappropriation. Well, some people would say if we are given money to complete our duties as members of Parliament and we use if for something else—campaigning, maybe—that is theft by misappropriation. There was another crime called theft as a servant. That was where someone employed by an organisation or a person used money, without authorisation, to do something else that was not in line with the immediate task. In 2002, the Crimes Amendment Bill renamed this to “theft by a person in position of trust”. I think that pretty clearly defines what has been going on here.

It was interesting to hear Steve Chadwick, the member for Rotorua, say that the public are calling out for this validating legislation. I challenge her—or any of her colleagues—to name one member of the public who is not a card-carrying or pledge card - carrying member, or a relative of a member, of the Labour Party, who actually wants this legislation to go through. It is my contestation that nothing that this legislation does is wanted by the public. It will not change the public’s perception of what has happened here at all. If members look at the New Zealand Herald website and some of the letters to the editor received by that newspaper over recent times, they will see that this point is made very, very clearly. Nothing that is done in this House today will do anything to enhance the public’s perception of what goes on in this debating chamber.

Here is a reader’s view: “This is an absolute outrage! This corrupt, desperate Government who’s only interested in retaining power at all costs has no option but to call a fresh election. If not, its a sad day for democracy. The worry is, is what spin will they put on this to weasel their way out of it.” I thank Mr John Middleton for that contribution. Here is another: “Holding another election is what is needed now. Enough of all the ‘spin’ - which is really another name for lies and deceit. Obviously, the Government, trying to be very clever, has us down as being totally naive easily manipulated.” Bang on, I say to Mr Ian Findlay from Auckland.

The point is that once members have been sitting over on the Government benches for as long as that Government has, they tend to think they have a right to be there and that they can bend the rules any which way they want in order to ensure that they can stay there. I ask members to look at the two different ways that the overspending has been received by the various parties in this House. On this side of the House, there was a cock-up. We said “Oops”, we had made a cock-up. We self-reported it and paid the money back—just like that. What happened on the other side of the House? Members on the other side said: “No, we didn’t, we haven’t broken any rules, and stuff you, Jack, we’re not going to pay it back.” But what happened then? Now they are saying: “Oops, well, we will, but the reason why we overspent was—hang on, a minute—no, it wasn’t, it was that reason there.” It was everybody else’s fault but the Government’s.

Let us see what Mr Ron Bruce has to say about that: “To over-spend $760K of our taxpayer money to get re-elected the Labour Party has to be either stupid or crooked. In either case, it’s not fit to continue running the country - we need someone in capable in charge.” That is a really good point. Someone has to be naively stupid or malicious to do what this Government has done. When an innocent person makes a mistake, what happens? The person says: “Oops, sorry about that, I’ll pay for the damage I have done and I’ll try really hard not to do it again.” What this legislation does is try to make right something that can never be put right.

I rise to take a call on the title of the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill. It was interesting to note that my colleague from across the floor Mr Fairbrother was having a crack at me about the current spending in my electorate. I go back to last year’s election campaign, because the rules were made clear to me. As a new candidate coming into the election process, I was told from day one that the rules changed 90 days out from the election. After that time one could not spend over $20,000 at all.

So what happened? I got into a seat that in 1999 had a Labour majority of 11,800 votes. In 1999 the loyal member, Mr Geoff Braybrooke, had a majority of 11,800 votes. Then what happened? Anne Tolley came along in 2002. Despite probably not the best performance from National over a period of time, and a party vote of 20-odd percent, Mr Fairbrother’s majority dropped from 11,800 to 4,500. I thought that at the 2005 election, after his being in office for 3 years, the result would be interesting.

On the Thursday prior to the election Mr Fairbrother was asked in a radio interview whether he was confident of retaining the seat of Napier. He said: “Yes, I am confident. I will retain it with the margin of 4,500.” Anyway, when it came around to Saturday, what happened?

💬 Paula Bennett: What happened?

Well, unfortunately, he lost. The majority is now 3,600, give or take a few. It would have to be one of the all-time excellent performances from a Labour candidate, to go from an 11,800 majority to a 3,600 vote loss—a turn-round of 15,400 votes inside 3 years.

Let me tell members how fair it was going into the election. Did I have a painted office when I went into the election? No. Did I have three staff paid by the Parliamentary Service working for me? No. Did we have a parliamentary budget of $60,000 at that point in time? No. Did I have the benefit of 3 years in office? Did we have the Deputy Prime Minister of the country living in our electorate? [Interruption] We did, yes.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: But that’s not an advantage.

Yes. On top of that, we now find out, down the track, that this party across the Chamber had an additional $14,000 per electorate put into it to help it win the seat of Napier. That is a fact.

I will tell members what happened a number of times out at the Eastern Institute of Technology campus. What were Labour’s people handing out by the hundreds?

💬 Dr Jackie Blue: Pledge cards?

Well, they were handing those out, as well. It was red pens—as referred to in the Auditor-General’s report—with the Parliamentary Service logo written all over them. There were hundreds and hundreds of them, and that is a fact. But it was not only that; there were also the newsletters put out in the electorate by Mr Barker and Mr Fairbrother.

Electioneering is about being fair. I accept that there are rules leading into the last 90 days before the election. In the last 90 days before the election we were allowed to spend $20,000, and we stuck clearly within those rules. Members opposite broke the rules and that came home to roost with a change in the seat of Napier. I remind Labour members, because their colleague is keen to stand again at the next election and to front up and take me on, that in 1999 their majority was 11,800—

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: To Labour?

To Labour. In 2002 there was a majority of 4,500 to Labour. In 2005 it was a loss to Labour of 3,600—a turn-round of 15,400. Do we know of anyone else in the history of the Labour Party who has been able to achieve that feat?

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Imagine how well you would have done if they hadn’t cheated.

Exactly! Thank you.

Madam Chairperson, it was impossible to hear your call or your comments. I say to the Committee this afternoon that the pledge card money that the Labour Government has stolen from the taxpayer simply represents the pollution of politics.

💬 Jill Pettis: Hallelujah, brother!

I think it is time that Madam Pettis went back to Wanganui, where the people voted her out. She should stop wasting their money because, along with her party, she has done nothing but tread water this year. It is time that the Labour Government’s mocking of the Auditor-General ceased and that, instead, the political establishment acknowledged the realities of our community. My phone has been going hot all of this week with calls from Dannevirke, Eketāhuna, Porangahau, Ngawī, Greytown, Martinborough, and Masterton. The phone has been going red hot and people have been saying: “John, ask the Governor-General to dissolve Parliament, because the Labour Party and its supporting parties are thieves. They have stolen our money and we want to see the back of them.”

💬 Peter Brown: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I do not mind what the member on his feet actually says, but if he starts calling people thieves he is inviting trouble. I object, I take offence at it, and I ask him to withdraw and apologise.

Speaking to the point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No, please be seated. As that member has taken offence at being called that, will the member please withdraw and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise, but I would just like to say to you—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No, please be seated. I remind the member that when a member is asked to withdraw and apologise he does that alone and nothing else.

I withdraw and apologise. The people of my electorate consider the governing party of this country to have stolen their money. Their view is backed up by the Auditor-General. In any Oxford Dictionary, taking someone else’s money is called theft, and that is what has been going on here. So I call on the Labour Government to resign and allow a new election because that is what the people of my electorate want.

I am reminded of the words of Oliver Cromwell when he addressed the Rump Parliament on 20 April 1653. He said—[Interruption] I would like Mr Duynhoven to have the decency to listen to me. Oliver Cromwell said to his Parliament, and I am repeating it here because it has major application today: “You have sat for too long for any good you have been doing … Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!”. That is what my electorate is saying to the Labour Government—just what Oliver Cromwell said to Parliament in 1653.

Of course, our Prime Minister disagrees with this view. She claims that allegations of corruption are intolerable in a Western democracy. What my electorate is concerned about is the way in which Helen Clark and her administration have tried to shut down dissent: through shouting from the former member for Whanganui, through intimidation, and through vilification of their opponents. She has tried to put down the Auditor-General and she has tried to intimidate him. I congratulate him on standing his ground and I congratulate my colleagues on supporting him. Ultimately, honesty will come through in this business.

The Labour Government has tried to move the argument from issues around whether it took the money and spent it improperly; it has tried to blame the Exclusive Brethren. Hitler did that with the Jews and it was a very totalitarian policy to follow. I have to say, sitting in this Chamber, that there is a whiff of totalitarianism in the air and I will stand against it. Trying to silence the critics of this Government by shouting at them, or by trying to portray them as illegitimate or illegal, is in my view a very stupid thing to do.

There is huge resistance in my electorate to what this Government has done. People want the Government to be held accountable. They want an election now, and they are completely flabbergasted at the action that we have been engaged in over the last 2 days. Parliament is being forced to pass retrospective legislation to allow an amount of $760,000-odd to be justified. None of the people in my community, if they break the law, can go to a court or to a parliamentarian and ask that the law be changed because they made a mistake.

I have listened to the debate with interest on the radio and here in the House today. I heard Dr Mapp talk about a speeding fine. He said that if one gets a speeding fine, one pays the ticket. It is interesting to consider that analogy a little further, because here the true analogy is that the traffic has been driving on the road since 1989, thinking that it knew what the rules were. Everybody on the road thought he or she knew the rules. Then, suddenly, the people charged with enforcing and interpreting the rules came out with a new interpretation.

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague, but the last speaker objected stridently to the noise in the Chamber. We are getting a barrage of noise from members on the Opposition side, including noise from people who are not sitting in their own seats, and the member who just spoke is himself one of those who are being very noisy right now. I wonder whether you could pull him back to order.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The noise level and the interjection level were certainly too high during the last few minutes of that speech. I just ask members to be considerate of, and respectful to, the person who is speaking.

So we found that the drivers of all the vehicles on the road, except for the Progressive one, were unable to say that they had complied with the rules.

In that situation, the analogy that Dr Mapp has used is actually quite a useful one. What does one do when the enforcement agency changes the rules that everybody thought they understood, and all but the Progressive party did not manage to comply with those rules, according to the new and novel interpretation of them? Of course, one goes back to the rule-making body and gets some clarification. One makes sure that protection is provided for the staff of the Parliamentary Service and of Ministerial Services, and for MPs, who, in good faith, have been following since 1989 the rules as they understood them. One provides some protection for those people so that they are not liable, having acted in good faith and having tried to interpret the rules that everyone except the Progressives got wrong at the last election.

In light of the novel interpretation of the rules, of course we need to have validating legislation. Of course we need to say that people who followed what they understood to have been the rules since 1989 will not incur civil liability. That is the way to go. Otherwise, we would create an untenable situation for the people who have acted in that way since 1989. They cannot, and should not, be blamed for having obeyed traffic rules that were suddenly changed on them. That would result in chaos, and it would be stupid. The bill takes account of the reality that the laws were changed while people were driving, and that that put at risk everything the drivers are doing now. Let us face it, not only is the bill necessary to validate what has been done since 1989 but also it is needed to make sure there is clarity as to what we and our staff should be doing now. We should not put them in the gun and at risk through the novel interpretation of the rules.

The bill validates the actions taken in good faith by MPs and their staff. It is the appropriate way to go. It gives 14 months for there to be a proper, an open, and a transparent consultation as to what the rules should be, going forward. It means that no one ought to be in this position at the next election. Instead, there ought to be a proper and well-understood set of laws for people to follow. That will be a very good thing.

The traditional objection to retrospective legislation just does not apply here. The traditional objection to retrospective legislation is, of course, that it has the ability to impose penalties on people who did not know that what they were doing at the time was wrong. That is why retrospective legislation is objectionable in principle. But this legislation does exactly the opposite of that. This legislation provides that people will not be liable for following what were thought to be the rules at the time by everybody except the Progressives. It saves people from liability. It is an appropriate exercise. This is one of the rare occasions when it is appropriate to legislate retrospectively, because instead of trying to impose a liability the bill removes one, for the avoidance of doubt. And it provides for a period, going forward, in which we can actually get the rules right, so that this sort of situation does not arise again.

This is very good legislation, and I commend it.

I move, That the question be now put.

I am delighted to be able to take a call in this debate because I think the Labour members have been missing one very important point. Actually, they have been missing the truth the whole way through, but here is the key point. They are claiming they did not know. They are claiming they went along with the rules the way they were. They thought it was OK and now it has all turned to custard.

Actually, that is not right. The Chief Electoral Officer, David Henry, both phoned and wrote to the Labour Party several weeks before the last election and said that if it went ahead with the pledge card, doing it on the leader’s budget would make the spending illegal—although I do not think David Henry was too fussed about that side of it—and it would be accountable expenditure. He told Labour very clearly not to do it. So when Labour members come into this House, shedding all the crocodile tears they can and saying they did not know it was wrong, as it is how the rules have always been, why do they not mention David Henry’s letter? David Henry has gone. I would not be surprised if Kevin Brady were not around for much longer, either. Labour will get rid of anybody who stands in its way. But that is what David Henry said. I challenge the Minister in the chair, Dr Cullen, to say whether that letter existed and whether that was what Labour was told. There is not a mutter, not a murmur, not a whisper.

So Labour members should not come into Chamber shedding crocodile tears and saying they did not know. They did know, and they went ahead and did it anyway. They stole the election. They became the illegitimate Government of this country, and now, like some Horn of Africa flight lieutenant who has taken over a country, they have decided to pass some legislation to legitimise their illegitimacy. It is absolutely unbelievable. It is unprecedented in the history of this country.

Then we have the member for Rotorua running what I think is the best line I have heard. This is a Tui ad. She says that the public want this legislation. Let me share with my colleagues the latest numbers from the Stuff poll. Here is the poll question: “Should a bill validating illegal spending by political parties be passed?”. Members should listen to the numbers. First, 13.8 percent say “Yes”. That is probably the Labour Party membership plus a few of its cronies. How about this number: 84.7 percent of the public say “No”. So we have the “in touch with the public polls” Steve Chadwick telling us that the public want this. She is right—13.8 percent of the public do, and 84 percent think that this bill is legitimising corruption, cheating, and crookedness. I do not know why members on the Labour side of this Parliament have not learnt the first law of politics, which says—

💬 Hon Dover Samuels: The first law is “Don’t listen to Maurice Williamson!”.

I say to Dover Samuels that he could really learn from this one. The first law of politics says: “When you are in a hole, stop digging.” So when Kevin Brady came out with his initial draft, Labour members could easily have deflected it. They could have said that they had a draft that suggested there may be some problems, that they would watch with interest until the final report came out, and that if the final report stayed with that finding, then they would most certainly comply. That is the way they could have handled this situation, and there would have been almost no ammunition from this side of the House to fire at them.

But what did the self-appointed strategist Pete Hodgson say? He said: “We won’t pay this money back.” I saw him on TV and heard him on radio saying that. Members will love what Mr Hodgson said next: “I was not authorised to say that.” He was the chief strategist, he was put up by Helen Clark, and he said he was sent there by Helen Clark to represent her on breakfast TV. But then he said he was not authorised to say that. So every time we hear him answer a question in the House from now on, we will have to check with the Speaker whether the member was authorised to answer it.

This is an absolute outrage. Labour knows it, and it should have done something about it.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I refer you to Standing Order 85(1), “Disorderly conduct”. It states: “The Speaker may order any member whose conduct is highly disorderly to withdraw immediately from the House during the period (up to the remainder of that day’s sitting) that the Speaker decides.” On a number of occasions I have been booted out of the Chamber and not allowed back in until the following day—it was most probably my own fault. Having said that, I point out that one of the members of this House was asked to leave the Chamber earlier on today, and that member is now back in the Chamber. I ask you for some direction, Madam Chairperson. Did you allow that member to come back into the Chamber, or is there a new Standing Order?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No, there is not a new Standing Order. The member is quite incorrect. The Chairperson makes a decision about when a member will come back. That decision is communicated to the Serjeant-at-Arms, and the whips ask when that will be. So the member can ask his whip at any time when a member who has been sent from the Chamber can come back.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I will not dispute your ruling. Am I right in saying you have allowed the Hon Dover Samuels back into the Chamber after he was kicked out?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member can check with his whip about this matter. That is the correct procedure to find out when, as decided by the Speaker, a member who has been sent out of the Chamber can come back. Obviously, all circumstances differ. Yesterday the members stayed out for only half an hour, because of the circumstances and the point that Mr Brownlee raised.

I have been in this House for a number of years, but I do not think I have ever heard so much hypocrisy spoken in this House for so long. A few facts need to be laid on the table. The Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill validates expenditure that the Auditor-General has deemed to be illegal. The question is which parties spent illegally, according to the Auditor-General’s report. If we listened to the garbage coming from the National Party members, we would think that they did not spend outside of the law. They did. If we listen to and accept the Auditor-General’s report, as we have done, we find that that report says the National Party spent money outside the law, in the same way that every party, other than the Progressives, did. So this bill will validate money spent by the National Party, by New Zealand First, by the Greens, and by the Labour Party—all the parties in this House except for the Progressive party.

I have a couple of questions. It is not good enough for National Party members to say they did not sin; the Exclusive Brethren might tell them to say that, but National, like every party in the House other than the Progressives, spent money illegally. The question is what did National members do. Well, they were the first ones to admit guilt, because, after a leaked report, they rushed to pay back money they had spent illegally. Labour Party members gave due consideration to the process, and awaited the outcome of the Auditor-General’s final report. We got the report, and we have committed to paying back the money, in the same way that the National Party did. However, the facts are that the money was spent illegally—according to the Auditor-General— because of confusion. We need to move to clarify the confusion, because it might lead to further spending of this nature in the future.

I need to ask a couple of questions. Why did the National Party spend so little, when other parties were confused in the same way National was, and Labour spent a lot more? Well, National members will say that they knew the law better than Labour Party members did, and that they were far more astute than we were. Well, if they were more astute, and if they did know the law better, the question I have for Dr Don Brash is why he did not work out that GST was due on National’s broadcasting budget. Dr Don Brash probably provided tens, if not hundreds, of reports to Governments that related to GST and its effect in this economy. Yet Dr Don Brash says he knew the law better than the Labour Party did, and that is why National spent so little. But I say to Dr Brash that National spent the money illegally though, did it not? Yes, he admits it. His party needs this bill as much as any party in the House does. The question is why the National Party spent so little when other parties spent so much. It is because National had money from the Exclusive Brethren—it did not rely on this money.

I understand that National is expecting interest to be paid on the money parties are to pay back. Well, the next question is whether National paid interest on the money that it paid back. The other question I have for Don Brash is whether National not only paid the interest on the $11,305 but also paid the GST on it, or did Don Brash forget about the GST in the same way he tried to kid us that he forgot about GST when it came to expenditure on the broadcasting budget? Let us see some consistency.

💬 Dr Don Brash: Get the facts right.

The facts are that this bill validates expenditure by all parties in this House, including that of the National Party, and it will provide us with a clear way forward so that MPs spend money legally, and so that we know the guidelines and the parameters for that expenditure.

I move, That the question be now put.

The following amendments in the names of Dr Jackie Blue and Paula Bennett to clause 1 are ruled out of order because they are not serious amendments. The next two amendments in the name of Jo Goodhew are also ruled out of order because they are not serious amendments. The following amendments, in the names of Jacqui Dean, Nathan Guy, Craig Foss, and John Hayes, are all ruled out of order because they are not serious amendments.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Could you please explain why my amendment has been ruled out of order.

If the member refers to the Standing Orders and Speakers’ Rulings, he will see the rulings that have been given on the title clause.

The amendment in the name of Chris Auchinvole to clause 1 is ruled out of order because it is not a serious amendment.

The next amendment is in the name of Simon Power.

💬 Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I have two amendments to clause 2 in my name. Just as a point of clarification, is the Committee to vote on the amendment that would require confirmation from the Auditor-General that moneys have been repaid before validation? Is that this clause?

I will read the first amendment. This clause 2 amendment is to omit the words “the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent” and substitute the words “the day after the date of the return of the writs in the next general election after the date on which this Bill receives the Royal assent”, in the name of Simon Power. That is the first one.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Simon Power to clause 2 be agreed to:

to omit the words “the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent”, and substitute the words “the day after the date of the return of the writs in the next General Election after the date on which this bill receives the Royal assent”.

The next amendment to clause 2 in the name of Simon Power is out of order. It refers to an indeterminate event, not to a specified time.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. This is a sincere point of order—not that there is any other sort of point of order. How is the date on which the Auditor-General reports to the House that all parties have paid back the moneys they owe before the validating legislation takes effect, an indeterminate point in time? That is a very determinate point in time. The point in time is when the Auditor-General reports back to the House.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): If the member refers to Speaker’s ruling 106/6, he will see that it talks quite clearly about amendments or parts of amendments that are too vague and therefore out of order. This amendment has been ruled out of order.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Speaker’s ruling 106/6 refers to amendments or parts of amendments that are too vague. I would have thought that if the amendment required the moneys to be repaid prior to validation, then indeed, in my submission, it would be a vague amendment. This amendment requires the moneys to have been repaid, and for the Controller and Auditor-General to have reported to Parliament that those moneys have been repaid, prior to validation occurring. There is nothing vague about the requirement of that amendment. In fact, it was drafted very carefully to ensure that a specific act triggered a point at which validation could occur, for the very reason of avoiding any difficulties of the vagaries that would otherwise have been the case, had the inclusion of the reference to the date on which the Auditor-General reported not been included. I ask respectfully that you take advice and reconsider that ruling.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I urge you to read Speaker’s ruling 106/6 carefully. It provides a good example of a vague amendment, which proposes that local authorities should have “such resources as would enable them to engage adequate services and to operate adequate technical facilities,”, etc. I can understand why that would be ruled out of order for the reason you have outlined in this case. Mr Power, though, has made it very clear that a very precise process is laid out in his amendment. It has been established in that way for a particular reason. I put it to you that it would be quite wrong, in relation to the Speaker’s ruling, for you to rule it out of order for that reason.

An example of exactly the same nature immediately leaps to mind. It would negate the view that this particular amendment is vague. How is it that legislation can refer to the date on which Royal assent is given, when no specific date relates to that particular action? The requirement in my amendment that the Auditor-General report to the House that moneys have been repaid before validation occurs, thereby triggering the validation, has the same, if not more, specificity as the act of the Governor-General giving assent to a bill. There is no difference between those two descriptions, in relation to the need to have a specific action or date occur. Thousands of pieces of legislation run through this House with the commencement date of each being “the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent”. This clause was designed specifically with that level of trigger in mind.

In respect of that last point, of course, I tell the member that “when the Royal assent is given” is simply another way of saying “as soon as the formal processes are completed”. The bill has to be checked for consistency and accuracy, and it then goes to the Governor-General for approval—that is, if the process is not held up; that is as quickly as it can be done.

I think the Opposition has got itself into a slight problem. It has been arguing all the way through this debate that it has no assurance about when the money will be refunded. Having stated all the way through the debate that there is an uncertainty about when the money will be refunded, Opposition members are now trying to argue for some certainty about the date on which the money will be refunded.

I suggest that the member Simon Power might care to try his luck with the Committee—given that the ruling is quite clear and consistent with the Standing Orders—by seeking leave to have the amendment put, in any case.

I thank the Leader of the House for that suggestion. On that basis, I seek leave for my second amendment, the one the Chairperson has just called, to be put.

Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. As the leave has been denied by the person who suggested that leave be put, I now require you to rule on the point relating to the Governor-General’s assent being a similar trigger to that described in my amendment.

The member’s previous amendment provided a particular time. There will be a general election, and the date will be fixed for the return of the writ—that is clear; there is a date there. But no such fixed event can be associated with this amendment; there is no requirement for the Auditor-General to report on those matters and, therefore, no determinate time.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I seek your further clarification. Is there a requirement that the Governor-General assents?

Since 1707. I think I can say it is pretty well established now, yes.

💬 Simon Power: Is there a requirement? No, it is only a convention.

It is a convention that has lasted now for 299 years. I think it would be an extraordinarily brave Governor-General who broke it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): And it is covered in the Constitution Act, Mr Power.

I move, That the Speaker be recalled to give a ruling on the matter.

Motion agreed to.

House resumed.

Speaker Recalled