Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) Link to this

I move, That the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill be now read a third time. This has been an interesting and mildly lengthy debate. I think it has been to convince us that the National Party logo of the big “N” should be replaced by a big “H”, because throughout this debate National members have failed to answer some pretty important challenges.

First of all, having been challenged time after time, they refused to tell us what the leader of the National Party’s budget was spent on in the 3 months or so before the 2005 election. What was the leader’s budget spent on? Does it meet the Solicitor-General’s test of not being spent on electioneering in any shape or form, because any of it being spent on electioneering takes the whole of it outside the parliamentary processes.

The second point is that they failed to explain a whole set of details about other National Party spending. We have had all sorts of wonderful speeches. We had Murray McCully lecturing us about morality and Nick Smith lecturing us about obeying the law and the rule of law. The only man in this House who has been convicted of contempt of court lectured us at length about the rule of law. Then we had Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith forgetting to tell us certain things in a speech in which he got so carried away that he ended up calling his own previous leader, in effect, a dirty, dirty cheat. He said that expenditure on the pledge card in 1999 and 2002 was somehow cheating, forgetting completely—

Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) Link to this

In the last 24 hours we have heard Government speaker after Government speaker trying to defend the indefensible. Professor Bill Hodge of Auckland University has just made it clear that this bill tries to backdate further than any other bill in New Zealand history. He describes it as legally bad, politically bad, and morally bad. That is what he describes this bill as. What we know is that if this bill is passed, there will be no legal obligation on anybody to pay back anything. The Labour Party has said it will pay the money back. But we have seen other commitments by the Labour Party broken and broken again. Helen Clark says that Labour will try to pay it back this financial year. Well, she said that she would try to get New Zealand into the top half of the OECD in a decade. New Zealand First is even worse. It has said it will pay back what is ultimately found to be unlawful. Well, if this bill is passed this afternoon, nothing will be found to be unlawful.

We attempted to move an amendment making the effectiveness of this bill conditional upon political parties paying back what they owe. As members of this House know, we were denied the opportunity of getting that amendment through. So there will be no legal obligation at all on anybody to pay back anything if this bill is passed. Furthermore, when this bill is passed there will effectively be no limit at all on what taxpayer funds can be used for in electioneering.

This bill makes it clear that one has to ask explicitly for a vote, ask explicitly for money, or seek explicitly a party membership for one to be electioneering. The pledge card would not qualify as electioneering under that definition. Yet even Pete Hodgson made it clear that of course the pledge card was electioneering. As he said, if it had not been electioneering, Labour would have put out the card the day after the election, but it was put out before the election. The main Labour political strategist said that the pledge card was electioneering.

This bill effectively overrides the Auditor-General’s report. The Labour Party has argued that the rules are unclear. We know, from a press statement issued by Pete Hodgson himself on 14 February this year, that “the Auditor-General had met extensively with Trevor Mallard and the Prime Minister’s chief of staff in the process of drafting a report on government and parliamentary party advertising.”, in the first half of 2005. The rules were very clear, and the Labour Party knew the rules. [Interruption]

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) Link to this

I do not know whether I am the only one in the House who noticed that this is a third reading debate. The third reading is when Opposition members who have fought their way through the dark of night and are now on their last lap come down to the House. It is when they have done themselves proud and are pumped up. Their leader comes down from his or her office and strides into the House. He or she leads the Opposition into the trenches. The leader gets up and makes a rousing address in the third reading debate, and usually what happens is that the Opposition members feel a little pumped by all that. They feel a little bit like they have done a good job. But I do not know whether I am the only one here who noticed that during that speech by Dr Don Brash it was almost like the life was being sucked out of everybody in the Chamber.

As we tried to listen to a speech made by someone who looked a little like a constipated meerkat, as he bobbed up and down and tried to get some energy into his speech, we could see the leaders-in-waiting working quietly on their own. Bill English had his head down, quietly working, bathing in the praise from Michael Cullen. Mr English was the only one to make an impact during this debate. He did his bit, he led the way, so he could quietly sit and do his work and wait for the day.

Next to Bill English, with his body turned slightly away from Bill English, was John Key, who has not done a great job in his audition over the last day and a half. He has not passed the audition. He is slightly worried at the success of Bill English in the last day and a half. On the other side of Dr Brash we have beaming Gerry Brownlee, who knows, in a way, that it does not actually matter who is leader, because he will end up OK. Gerry is acquitting himself well, as a person who does points of order and jumps up and down. He knows he will come through when Don goes.

I tell members on the Opposition side of the House—and I challenge members of the National Party to get up and deny this—that that was a life-sucking performance from the National Party’s current leader. Maurice Williamson is like a picture of what goes on in the mind of the National Party. He was sitting there thinking: “Oh my God, this man has to go.”

The reason National members really needed a good speech from Don Brash was that they have been desperate to run this issue in the last day and a half. I have sat here and wondered why they are so desperate. What is the desperation and hatred for? Why is Gerry so angry? Why has Bill taken extra lessons in being “Mr Angry”? What has been driving those members for the last day and a half? Then I thought to myself: “I know why.” [Interruption] I say to Mr Clarkson that I know why. The reason is that the last time National Party members went through this situation, they were trying to character assassinate a number of people in the House. They put extraordinary energy into it. They worked for months on it. They tried so hard to bring people down. But the tactic did not work, so that behaviour stopped. They turned round like some sort of drunk after a party and realised that all that effort had come to nothing. They had put in everything to try to assassinate people’s characters, they had made no impact on the polls at all, they still had the wrong leader, they still had no policy, they were in a position—

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) Link to this

I ask members whether they have noticed that neither of the last two speakers attempted to offer any justification for this legislation at all.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections) Link to this

I would like to take the brief time I have to put a few facts on the table, because I think the public will be somewhat confused if they have just turned on the radio and listened to the National members. This validation bill, as my colleague said, allows us, following its passage, to clear the decks and clarify some of the rules around the spending of the Parliamentary Service money that comes to each and every MP in this House. I do not want to go back too far and try to rewrite history, as the National Party has been doing, but I think it is important to put a few facts on the table.

This Appropriation (Parliamentary Validation Expenditure) Bill validates spending by every party in this Parliament, including the National Party. It validates spending by every party except the Progressives. Its passage is necessary, for legal issues, to allow us to move on.

I find it strange because Mr Brownlee was educated at the same school as I was and he has been brought up in the same religion as me, and I would have expected him to have the same principles and understanding of what is the truth. He should be able to understand the facts and understand what he is obliged to do. In spite of his being a Catholic and being able to go to confession and seek absolution, the reality is that he should tell the truth. The truth is that the National Party spent money deemed by the Auditor-General to be outside the legal appropriations.

The National Party has been saying right throughout this debate that it did not sin, and that it is clearer, cleaner, and whiter than the driven snow. National members say they did not sin. That might be an expression used by their funders—“We did not sin.”—but the reality is that if mistakes are made, big or small, sometimes we call them a sin.

Mr Brownlee may seek absolution through confession. It will not remove the reality that the National Party spent $11,305. It spent that money in the same way that the Labour Party spent $800,000. We did not have access to a leaked report from the Auditor-General. The National Party did, and it rushed to pay back the money in order to seek absolution—probably guided by Mr Brownlee in the hope that his confession might remove the reality that he had sinned. But if the Auditor-General deems the money was spent illegally, then Gerry Brownlee did sin.

This bill seeks to validate the spending by National, Labour, New Zealand First, the Greens, United Future, and ACT. Each and every one of the parties in this House spent money in a misunderstanding of the rules around the appropriation.

If the National Party was so much smarter and understood the rules clearly, why then did it get it wrong with its GST payment? Why has it refused to pay back $118,000 in GST? National members think that they were so smart and knew the rules—or maybe they knew something else. Maybe they knew that they did not need to spend money through the Parliamentary Service appropriation. Maybe they knew that they had secret backers.

The question is what they would have done for the $1.2 million spent by the Exclusive Brethren backers of the National Party to offset the money other parties spent by way of the Parliamentary Service appropriation. It is the question that I have had to ask through this whole debate. Maybe the National Party, when we pass this bill, will be able to move on and explain. Maybe it will pay back the $118,000 worth of GST it owes, explain to us what it did for its $1.2 million, explain to us how a group that says it prays for the Government—and that would obviously pay for a Government—

TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party) Link to this

There is a lesson in all of this for all of us. Mr Brady was doing his job, which was to point out the need for tight controls in order to establish the legal legitimacy, let alone any moral authority, of Government and Parliament. This concept of doing the job is something that has resonated throughout the debate. We in the Māori Party have been very keen to learn the ropes—mahia te mahi. We understand the importance of the rules. We know that it is expected of us if we are to be the best representatives we can be for our constituency. The best is to act with honesty and integrity and to uphold the notion of collective responsibility—that we must all take ownership of our performance, our practice, and our behaviours. Collective ownership—the ability to think of the good of the team, over and above the individual impact—brings with it additional obligations and responsibilities.

I acknowledge that the concept of collective responsibility is hurting many MPs today, who are now in the position of paying for mistakes that they may not have played a part in. The cost of making mistakes is far less for the Māori Party in terms of dollars and cents, but like the other parties in this House, we made a mistake. We stand here today knowing that with the exception of the Progressives, no matter the amount involved, there has been a misuse of public money by all parties of this Parliament, including ourselves. We do not need to point the finger at each other, or add further to what one paper called our “day of shame”. No one is absolved of blame. Indeed, I recall the words: “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”

Having an eye to history, however, means we can learn from our past and ensure we never go down that road again. If there is one clear outcome from the Auditor-General’s report, it is the hope that we all, as a Parliament, be focused on our application of parliamentary purposes. There is a greater waste of public money on a daily basis when the public and those of us in this Chamber are subject to the constant free-for-all erupting in the House—the name-calling, MPs being labelled a bunch of fruit cakes, a pack of crooks—and the general bluff and bluster that some people erroneously perceive as doing the job of an MP. We have had days, weeks, and months of abusive tirades and accusations of corruption, profiteering, leadership crises, and stolen elections, and now reports that confirm illegal activity, unlawfulness of parliamentary spending, and inappropriate and misappropriated expenditure.

It seems to have been a contest of wits. Who can call each other the worst names? Whose crime is the greatest? The debate has at times bordered on desperation—an air of hysteria is apparent as politicians scramble to denigrate each other. There is no reason why the value of robust debate has to be sacrificed by the constant barrage of personal abuse.

This whole issue has been about protocols, processes, and rules. We knew from day one that members must not use parliamentary resources to solicit money, votes, or membership. We also knew that as a Māori party we would be under higher scrutiny than the others, because this is our experience in the community. We have to be twice as good and twice as clean as others. We have been generally appreciative of the clear guidance we received from Parliamentary Service, the Members Services Committee, finance, and the parliamentary staff, who work so hard to create an environment that engenders respect. I would hasten to suggest that the rules of the job simply require some common sense.

My colleague Mr Harawira referred yesterday to the description from the Clerk of the House, who defined the role of members as encompassing “a considerable amount of legal freedom”. With freedom comes responsibility, and with responsibility comes discipline. A critical issue that has arisen as a result of this whole debacle has been the recommendation that Parliamentary Service will be required to immediately institute controls and processes to pre-approve expenditure. Dr Cullen himself has stated that this is to be a “significant change from current practice”.

This is one of the most critical issues in this legislation, and it is central to our opposition to the bill. The proposed changes raise a raft of constitutional questions around the very way in which democracy will work. Who will decide what expenditure is to be approved, and who will police the processes to make the critical judgments about what is a parliamentary purpose and what is electioneering? It is being said that the Controller and Auditor General’s view threatens long-established conventions on how we do the job of an MP. I want to make it explicitly clear that the Māori Party absolutely supports the need to be accountable, and to be seen to be exercising responsibility in our use of the public purse. It is essential that we restore the public confidence in this regard.

But respect does not flow on as a consequence of prescriptive rules; it follows from the proper exercise of responsibility—of kaitiakitanga. The high standards we follow in working within the legal freedom of an MP’s role must be balanced by the application of common sense. I want to raise the issue today that although Labour has been the party most under the spotlight with this legislation, all parties in this House are equally open to scrutiny that may be defined as unlawful, whether or not we were aware of it at the time. The key issue for moving forward as an MMP Parliament is that we must all take ownership and all participate in the process of a broader solution. If we are all part of the problem, then let us all also be part of the answer. If there are to be significant changes, they must be signed up to equally by all the political parties, regardless of size.

As the debate raged on, last night, I came across a letter from the Congregational Leaders Conference of Aotearoa, which represents the Catholic religious brothers, priests, and sisters of our country. I want to share their comments, because there is a message inherent in their words that we should all consider: “We prize and respect our democracy and the values that underpin it. At this time we wish to express our distaste at recent events in the political arena. Not only are the character assassinations, innuendo, details of the private lives of politicians etc causing untold personal distress to politicians and their families, they also bring our democratic process into disrepute and are a misuse of taxpayers money”.

It is no wonder that the faith of congregational leaders has been sorely tested. But all is not lost. I recall the advice of Te Ururoa Flavell in the first reading debate to move from a situation of paybacks—revenge and punishments—to a philosophy of pay forwards, which means investing in our future. We need to invest in honesty, integrity, and accountability. I welcomed the words of Gordon Copeland last night in explaining that United Future would pay back its debt because it was a question of public perception and moral judgment. These sentiments were also expressed yesterday by the Greens co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons, who described the obligation as a moral one—as did Metiria Turei this morning—to do the right thing because it is the right thing to do.

We need to pay forward with consistent moral standards, upholding best practice, and abiding by the rules in pursuit of kotahitanga. We also need to value the capacity of the public service to deliver free and frank advice, and we should demonstrate the maturity to consider the advice in the spirit in which it is given. The Māori Party wants to be part of a Parliament that New Zealanders can indeed look at with admiration, so that they can tell us that they prize and respect our democracy and the values that underpin it. At this time of such turmoil and disrepute, we need to invest in a Parliament that can, once again, earn back the respect of the people whom we are elected to represent—a Parliament not for politicians or for the public purse but a Parliament for the people, doing the job in the best way we can.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) Link to this

I rise on behalf of the Green Party to follow up on what our co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons said in the first reading debate. We will be abstaining on the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill, and I want to explain briefly why. It is for two reasons. The first reason is in terms of the content of the bill itself. The bill has many good points that help in looking forward and the process of clarifying what is appropriate expenditure on MPs’ parliamentary business. But we are also concerned that the bill as it stands may convey the impression and the feeling that MPs can relieve themselves of the responsibility for spending money inappropriately. The Auditor-General, as the referee, has determined that that is the case, and we do have respect for his office in this parliamentary system in our system of government, whether he is right or wrong or whether or not some of the expenditure was misspent. In our case some of the money was wrongly spent, but in some cases, of course, we challenged that finding.

We will also be abstaining because we have a confidence and supply agreement with the Labour Party in Government, and that is an agreement to abstain on motions deemed to be those of confidence and supply—which this one has been defined as. I would like to point out quite clearly that the Green Party will be repaying every cent of the money deemed by the Auditor-General to be inappropriately spent. It is not easy for the Green Party, as a small party with six MPs in Parliament, to do so, just as it is not easy for some of the other parties to do so. But we will do our duty in that respect. We will keep our faith with the process.

We will also be working constructively with other parties in this House to clearly refine the laws on MPs’ expenditure—what parliamentary business actually is, etc., etc.—because the report of the Auditor-General has put all MPs in the very uncomfortable and untenable position of not really knowing what is acceptable and what is unacceptable at any point in the electoral cycle. It is particularly problematic for small parties that are mainly made up of list MPs. For instance, in one of my own portfolios I am the foreign affairs spokesperson for the Green Party. Most of the subjects I speak on, like North Korean nuclear tests, have nothing to do with legislation in this House, but those subjects are just as important for the people of New Zealand and the people of the world, in both a political and a parliamentary sense. So the Green Party, in promoting the Green attitude on North Korean nuclear testing—on which we have been very critical and on which we have tried to put forward some constructive solutions—deems that very much to be parliamentary business. Also, of course, I in my role and other Green MPs in their roles want to get our views out to as many New Zealanders as possible—to all New Zealanders, if we can—so there should not be any restraint on our ability to do that in terms of it being deemed to be a parliamentary purpose.

So these are the sorts of things that we want to clarify as the discussions continue with the Parliamentary Service Commission, the parties, and the Speaker, and with proper legal advice as we go through. The Green Party will be very much a part of that process.

We also hope there will be a much clearer definition not only of what is appropriate for election spending but also of money coming into the coffers of political parties for the financing of elections. We want a very clear definition in order to get away from these big anonymous donations, which can skew the electoral process. In a number of respects, problems have been identified with large anonymous donations and the way they are put into trust accounts—particularly by donors to the National Party. Third-party spending is also quite a vexed question. We do not want to stop groups outside political parties from engaging in the democratic process, but we do not want it to be a cover for parties to in fact lift their spending caps through third-party campaigns and donations. So we want to be part of the process of defining that matter.

This whole issue has been very difficult for all of the parties, but, in another way, we should look on the positive side. It has forced us to grapple with the issue of parliamentary spending, to grapple with our accountability to the public of New Zealand, and to grapple with election financing by parties and third parties. With that positive perspective, the Green Party abstains from voting on this bill.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future) Link to this

The Auditor-General, as is well known, decided that some expenditure by United Future in the 2005 election was electioneering expenditure, and he therefore concluded that that expenditure was unlawful. He did not say it was criminal and he did not say it was illegal. The word that he used was “unlawful”. Anyone in this House, as has happened in this debate, who claims that this expenditure was criminal and that it represented thievery is simply guilty of politically motivated slander. That is the simple truth. Anyone who says the expenditure was illegal is plainly wrong. The correct term is that it was “unlawful”.

Madam Speaker’s report to the House stated that “reimbursement is not legally necessary”. She went on to say, however, that reimbursement “must be considered seriously if public confidence in the Parliament is to be maintained.” United Future took those words—and, I would suggest, that challenge—from Madam Speaker very seriously indeed, because this is a very serious matter. We gave serious consideration therefore—as we were asked to do—to the whole question of whether we should repay the money deemed by the Auditor-General to have been unlawfully spent. Accordingly, we made a public declaration that we will repay the amount deemed to have been unlawfully spent.

I need to say that reimbursement comes at great personal financial cost to our small team of three MPs. I did the numbers and probably, on a per capita basis, the greatest cost will lie with the New Zealand First MPs, and we are No. 2. Why? Because we had eight people in Parliament when the money was spent, and now we are only three. Nevertheless, we are determined on that course of action because it is the right thing to do. I must say that for me personally it is not an enjoyable experience. But at least I have a clear conscience, in relation to any wrongdoing on my part or on the part of my party.

United Future acted in good faith throughout the 2005 election, and we carefully considered every expenditure we undertook, as to whether it fell within what we understood clearly to be the rules. Those rules have been substantially unaltered since 1989—hence this validating legislation goes back to that date. We asked Parliamentary Service—pretty much on a case by case basis, ahead of committing the expenditure—whether it deemed that the expenditure fell within the rules. The Auditor-General himself conceded to United Future’s leader, the Hon Peter Dunne, that at least our party—I am not speaking for others—acted in good faith throughout. That is very important to me; it is very important to United Future. To break the law inadvertently is one thing; to break the law deliberately is quite a different matter. There is a huge moral difference between those two situations.

We are also, as is well known, voting to validate the unlawful expenditure. We are doing that because, firstly, Treasury advised that we need to do it in terms of the Public Finance Act 1989, and, secondly, because it is part of our confidence and supply agreement with the Labour-led Government. It is a supply matter, it is a budgetary matter, and it is part of the budgetary cycle. Let me tell the House that United Future keeps its word. We are keeping our word with the Labour Government. If it turns out that, in 2008, we are working with another party, such as National, we will keep our word then, as well.

So we now come to the third reading of the legislation that will pass today to validate this unlawful expenditure. We now have the challenge before us as a Parliament to come together—well before the sunset date of 31 December 2007—and sort out the rules that are going to apply for the future, particularly for the 2008 elections, in terms of what is, and what is not, lawful electioneering expenditure. That is the challenge now placed before this House.

I agree with Madam Speaker, Tariana Turia, and other people, who correctly point out that public confidence in this institution has been badly shaken. We have to work across parties on a fully consensual basis, if we are to see that public confidence restored. I do not think any party in this House is free of blame in terms of the erosion of public confidence. Yes, the facts as I have outlined them are what they are, but it does not do the process any good, either, if, for political gain, people exaggerate the situation, cry “criminality” when none is involved, and cry “thievery” when none is involved, particularly in situations when they know perfectly well in the heart of their own conscience that they did exactly the same thing in previous elections. That is not debatable; that is simply factual.

It is time we moved away from that situation, because we are talking here about public confidence in this institution. This Parliament has had a proud tradition for 152 years. We are judged—in all the polls—to be the second-least corrupt nation on the Earth, next to Iceland. We have never, in 152 years, had a serious corruption scandal in this Parliament, to my knowledge. We have never had fisticuffs. We have never had a coup. I would say that we can lay claim to be the world’s oldest democracy, because we gave the vote to the tangata whenua in 1867 and to women in 1893. We were therefore the first nation in the world to have universal franchise. We have a lot to be proud of.

In summary, United Future has acted honestly and openly throughout this process. We have faced the need to repay the money that was unlawfully spent, even though we acted in good faith. Here we stand. We can do no more.

HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) Link to this

I stand to speak on the third reading of the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill. Few things have generated as much media coverage as this issue. We should not lose track of the principle that lies behind it. We should be aware of the perversion of democracy that is taking place here today. A good Government is one that can win a battle of ideas. A bad Government forces through its dictates at all cost. Kiwis should have no doubt what kind of Government is facing us today. Societies become less democratic when their Governments become less transparent, less accountable to the public they are supposed to serve, and make laws for their own preservation.

Today this Parliament is passing, without any public consultation, retrospective law to validate Parliament’s own spending. There will be no sending this bill to a select committee and no chance for the public to submit their opinions. As we opened our newspapers or turned on our televisions this morning we saw the crisis of confidence that is developing for Parliament and the Government in this country. This bill might pass a confidence and supply vote in this House, but Kiwi communities have no confidence in the politicians who pass it. No individual citizen and no company is in a position to change a law to suit itself. The Labour Party can, and is. Smaller parties frequently find themselves excluded from decisions, and often from parliamentary debates. Some MPs have hardly said a word in this House since their maiden speech. Government departments pay off whistleblowers to keep them quiet. Public servants are fired or suspended for asking questions that are unpopular or for speaking out.

Since last year’s election we have seen heavy-handed select committee chairmen tear up letters from committee members who raise serious concerns. For the first time in 103 years a Crown-owned company has been fined for contempt of Parliament. In 2003 the Government suspended an electoral law so that a Labour MP who had sworn allegiance to another country did not lose his seat or his salary. Again, this was done under urgency.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) Link to this

I found that that was an unusual contribution from a member of a party whose leader for 12 weeks went dancing in fancy frilly shirts, whilst she spent some weeks wearing camouflage—and it was all at the taxpayers’ expense.

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) Link to this

I seek leave to make a personal explanation in light of the comments made by the ACT member Heather Roy, who preceded Mr Brown in speaking.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) Link to this

Yes, this is Harry’s second time! Let us just come right back to what lies at the heart of this debate and this legislation. What lies at its heart was a deliberate action taken by senior figures in the Labour Party in order to spend, during an election campaign, half a million dollars of taxpayers’ money on a pledge card that—as Dr Brash pointed out—broke two rules: the rules of this House, in respect of the appropriation of parliamentary money; and the Electoral Act, in respect of the cap on expenditure on an election.

The Labour Party has not answered one simple question right through this debate: was the pledge card electioneering? You see, we have heard every other kind of distraction about what the Auditor-General has done and what the rules might or might not mean, but Labour members have never answered that question. Well, I did a little investigation. I went back and looked at the launch of the Labour election campaign for 2005 by Helen Clark.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) Link to this

In December 1776 the great American revolutionary Thomas Paine published his pamphlet, The Crisis, which stated: “These are the times that try men’s souls … Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered;”. And I know how Tom must have felt, for these are indeed dark days for our democracy.

A few days ago a very important report by the Auditor-General on unauthorised expenditure was presented to this House. The Government ensured that no opportunity was given to debate that report, which I would have thought was in the public interest. Instead, the Government moved to introduce the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill and force it through all its stages, without giving the public the opportunity to make any submissions. I would have thought it was in the public interest that the public make submissions.

I have a number of objections to this bill as it has emerged from the Committee. First, it is unnecessary. Secondly, it is incomplete. Thirdly, it is odious. First, as to necessity, the bill, as we know, contains two parts. It validates expenditure under Vote Parliamentary Service for the last 13 years and allegedly clarifies rules on an interim basis until the end of 2007. Yet the validation goes beyond the appropriations found to be unlawful by the Auditor-General. Secondly, it is unnecessary to use legislation to change the rules in the interim—a point that has never been addressed by any Labour speaker in response.

I said in the Committee stage that the Auditor-General’s concerns arose from the Speaker’s directions issued under section 8 of the Parliamentary Service Act 2000, and the directions’ definitions of “parliamentary purposes” and “electioneering”. All that needs to happen is for new directions to be issued substituting new definitions. There is no need for clarification by legislation.

My second objection is that the bill is incomplete. Significantly, there is no obligation for miscreants to repay any unauthorised expenditure; nor are there any reporting requirements. That is why I moved a number of amendments to Part 2 of the bill during the Committee stage. Those amendments sought to introduce provisions ensuring that unauthorised expenditure would be repaid with interest and penalties if the sums outstanding were not repaid by 31 December. It is notable that although some members emphasised the moral commitment to pay, they were not prepared to support provisions that would have made that moral commitment a legal commitment. Those provisions would have gone some way to improving this bill, but Labour refused to debate them. It was not prepared to put up any speaker to justify why repayment and reporting provisions were not needed but validating provisions were.

My third objection is that the bill is odious. It does not comply with fundamental common law principles. In 2003 the Legislation Advisory Committee republished its guidelines on good legislation. Part 1 of section 2 asks a very important question: does the legislation in question comply with fundamental common law principles? Let us look at some of those principles. Does this bill satisfy the principle that the citizen is entitled to have access to the courts? Well, no, it does not. It will remove litigation rights in the Darnton case—and this is even before the litigation has been heard in the High Court. Secondly, there is the principle that everyone exercising public authority must act legally, reasonably, and honestly. This legislation grants one standard for the Labour Party and a much stricter standard for members of the public.

Thirdly, there is the principle of the rule of law that no one is above the law. Enough said. This law places politicians above the law, particularly Labour politicians and their cohorts. Finally, there is the principle that all are treated equally before the law. Again, enough said. There is one standard for the Labour Party and another standard for the general public. The rulers have rewritten the rules to place themselves in a superior and privileged position.

This bill does not comply with fundamental principles of the common law; nor, arguably, does it comply with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The Attorney-General never condescended to prepare a report under Part 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, but it is interesting that section 12 of that Act provides that every citizen has the right to vote in genuine elections—and “genuine” is a very important word. How can there be genuine elections in this country when a bill of this kind is introduced that legitimises breaches of the Public Finance Act and the Electoral Act?

What was it about the former Solicitor-General’s opinion, dated 19 April 2006, that Labour found so difficult, thus necessitating its obtaining a contrary opinion from Chapman Tripp—which I contend is an extraordinary thing to do, given that it was the Solicitor-General who gave the original advice? I refer to his opinion, where he set out a number of tests for determining whether expenditure was unauthorised. He said there was a bright-line approach, an apportionment test, or the dominant purpose test. But on any view of this matter, Labour’s unauthorised expenditure was outside the rules. And what was it about the Auditor-General’s actions that the Labour Party failed to understand? The Auditor-General spelt out the rules time and time again. I need not refer to his report, but he urged members of Parliament to be cautious even before the 2005 general election.

So there we have it: there is one rule for the Labour Party and another for the public, who are held to much higher standards. It is no wonder that this place is held in such low esteem. I myself was disappointed that other parties did not support my amendments. I did not expect the lost souls in the Labour Government to support them, but I had hoped the Green and United Future MPs at least would have considered the amendments. Those amendments would have enabled all MPs to regain some respect in the eyes of the public.

Mr Harawira, in his excellent second reading speech, commented that all members of Parliament are privileged men and women. Those in public life have been given much by the people of New Zealand. But of those to whom much is given, much is expected, and at the end of our time in this place, whether we are to be regarded as successful or as failures depends on whether we are seen as people who have integrity—on whether we are people who are seen to be dedicated to serving the public good and the interests of all New Zealanders. This legislation does not serve the public good. It does not serve New Zealand’s interests.

It is not a question of inadvertently sinning, as was alleged by the member for Waimakariri. By the way, what is inadvertent sinning? It is an oxymoron, just like the Labour Party. In order to sin one has to do wrong. One cannot inadvertently sin. It has to be deliberate, just like Labour’s actions. But instead of confessing, asking for forgiveness, and repenting, Labour has urgently legislated immediate absolution for itself.

The Government’s actions have been opposed throughout all stages of this bill by the National Party, the Māori Party, and ACT. That opposition continues through this third reading. National will fail to prevent the passage of the bill this afternoon, but we will succeed in the end. I can assure the House that I, for one, and, I am sure, my National colleagues, will be zealous to ensure that any party that has not repaid any unauthorised expenditure will be held to account—perhaps not this afternoon, but one day, for sure. I can promise those people that justice will prevail.