Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) : I move, That the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill be now read a second time. There has been an enormous amount of huff, bluster, and nonsense this afternoon. I want to start with the most obvious—Mr Hide. Only a few weeks ago Mr Hide was complaining to me privately about the stupidity of the National Party and the line it was taking on the Auditor-General’s draft report, and threatening to expose the Auditor-General to serious examination in front of a select committee. Today, of course, it is a totally different story in public from Mr Hide. There is a word for that.

But let us come to National Party spending.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: It is not as bad as the dishonesty of Labour.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Oh, here goes the so-called lawyer from the north, who has become the prosecutor on immigration cases. Let us ask some questions of the National Party. What did the National Party spend its leader’s vote on before the last election? There was no accounting and no scrutiny. Was it spent on staff, on Brian Sinclair, on campaigning? But because it was not communications it was not studied by the Auditor-General, who declined to look beyond, at what might have implicated the National Party. The Auditor-General also declined to look at 2002 and the National Party’s pledge advertising at that point. I invite a National Party MP to get up and tell us what those members spent their leader’s budget on, because it was all spent. No, of course they will not.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: We didn’t break the law.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: If they spent any of it on anything to do with electioneering, as defined by the Auditor-General, then they broke the law and it was unlawful.

But in terms of breaking the law, we know the one party that did break the law by overspending on its broadcasting expenditure. What happened when the police investigated? Steven Joyce, general manager, New Zealand National Party, told the advertising agency named Rainmakers—what a wonderful name—that it was GST inclusive but the Rainmakers person said it was GST exclusive. The police cannot attribute responsibility for the GST overexpenditure to either the New Zealand National Party or Rainmakers and are not therefore in a position to charge either person. How convenient for the National Party!

What did that party want this House to do? It wanted this House to retrospectively validate its overexpenditure on the GST, not so it could pay it back—the party could pay the broadcasters any day—but to avoid a conviction and a fine for overspending on its broadcasting. That is why National wanted leave of this House for retrospective validation. No wonder Mr McCully, the Peter Mandelson of the National Party, does not want to listen to these particular facts.

What about the money spent on travel by the National Party? Was none of that to do with electioneering in the 3-month period? Are we to assume that what we thought about Dr Brash was true—that he wandered around the country in a daze for those 3 months and did not spend a single period of time electioneering on the public expense? But the Solicitor-General’s opinion means that if any of his time was spent electioneering, then, I am afraid, all that expenditure was unlawful.

Poor Katherine Rich, who sent out a letter that was absolutely legitimate within any previous understanding of Vote Parliamentary Service, took the pratfall for the rest of her colleagues. I respect loyalty, and therefore I respect Katherine Rich in that regard. Murray McCully, of course, has always been the first in any coup developing in the National Party. He is telling everybody that Don Brash is gone.

What about the National Party’s involvement with the Exclusive Brethren?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: So what?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: So what? This is the man who accused the Exclusive Brethren of breaking up families for religious purposes.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: That’s right.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: “That’s right.” he says. Well, what was Dr Don Brash doing in bed with the Exclusive Brethren, to the tune of $1.2 million payment to Don Brash for his services in trying to get rid of a Labour-led Government? What was happening in Napier and Hastings when schoolchildren were being used for push-polling in conjunction with the National Party? How come Craig Foss was paying for pamphlets that the Exclusive Brethren could not deliver, to be delivered? Did he declare it in his election expenses? What was going on, in terms of that relationship with a small, extreme group? This is a group that does not believe in defending New Zealand but it condemned the Labour Government for not spending enough on defence, that does not believe in voting but says it should have the right to choose who the Government is, and that is so strange that it does not believe in joining up sewerage pipes until they reach the city council sewer if it is running across a neighbour’s property. What was the National Party doing in bed with a bunch of fruitcakes like that, when in fact it was receiving vast sums of money to do whatever it was the Exclusive Brethren expected of them? That is the reality.

We heard from Mr English. I have to say that Mr English gave the only decent speech on behalf of the National Party this afternoon. I disagreed with it but, by God, it was a powerful speech, compared with “Dr Magoo” at the start, and then the bully rant and rave—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I draw the member’s attention to the fact that he must refer to members by their correct name.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Dr Brash, at the start, was not quite clear why he was in the House, and of course Mr Brownlee has tried just to bluff and bluster his way through, without any understanding of the legal issues involved. But we heard from Mr English about respect for the law. The Labour Party disagrees fundamentally with the Auditor-General’s conclusions but, because he has provided that ruling, we are refunding that money.

What happens when the National Party does not like the referee’s decision? Mr McCully got up only 10 minutes ago and said: “No cooperation with the referee. We don’t like the decision. That’s it. We won’t obey the referee any longer.” That is National Party members on the rule of law. They are all for the rule of law when they are the rulers and they are the law, but, when the law disagrees with them, they do not have any respect for the rule of law, at all. We, however, disagree fundamentally.

Then we had the big king-hit from Mr McCully, who said that the bill is not going to a select committee. I invite Mr McCully to look at the bill; it is an appropriation bill. I invite him to read the Standing Orders. An appropriation bill does not have to go to a select committee, whether or not there is urgency. If we had simply had the first reading today, the bill would have been set down for second reading tomorrow without going to a select committee. [Interruption] That is right, Mr Power—an appropriation bill does not have to go to a select committee. But this is a party whose members complained in the House this afternoon that they had not yet seen the bill, when I had sent one over to them this morning. The problem was that Mr Brownlee does not know where a photocopier is, so he could not run off any copies for any of his colleagues. Yet, strangely, by the time the National members got to the House they said they had already drafted amendments to the bill even though they had not seen it. That is National Party logic for us.

Finally, I ask why the National members hate the pledge card. I do not believe Mr McCully at all when he says that National members did not know it came out of Parliamentary Service funding in 2002; they have complained about that for a long period of time. What they hate about the pledge card is really very, very simple—it breaks the rules as they understand them. In the pledge card we say what we are going to do, and we have done it, three times in a row. The National Party will never forgive Labour—not for being the Government, but for much, much worse. We have ratted on the National Party principles. In Government, we have done what we said we would do.

I draw a conclusion that the National Party will never have a pledge card. We can guarantee that whatever promises its members make they will not keep them—like that of Dr Smith, who was going to remove the toll gate on the road to knowledge by removing student fees, and instead made them much bigger; or like that of getting rid of the surcharge “no ifs, no buts, no maybes”, and so on.

Well, bad luck, the Labour Party will carry on keeping its promises, standing for the rule of law, and, despite my own somewhat low instincts, making sure that the Parliamentary Service’s appropriation is able to support the National Party for the coming year or so—which, without this bill, it would not be able to do.

JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) : That speech was typical of Michael Cullen and the Labour Party members, who just cannot seem to get the order of things right. If we go and ask average Kiwis what they expect, we find they have a pretty simple order of things. The first thing they want from the Labour Party is the money back. They do not want validating legislation that somehow makes them feel good. Michael Cullen was on Agenda on Saturday morning telling New Zealanders that he had to make the accounts be all tickety-boo so he was going to ram through validating legislation. Well, here is a novel idea for Dr Cullen. If he wants the accounts to be all tickety-boo, he should not break the law in the first place. That would be a good start. The second way is to pay the money back. I tell the House that no New Zealander should be under any illusion: we were always going to be here passing validating legislation under haste. We always knew that from the moment Labour members got caught with their fingers in the till, there would be validating legislation. The only thing that changed was that when the public found out the facts—when they really knew what went on—then Labour had to pay the money back as opposed to just passing the validating legislation in the first place.

How ironic, in a party that absolutely polls itself to death, for this bunch of poll-driven fruitcakes to have woken up on 6 September to read a poll that stated that 81 percent of New Zealanders wanted them to pay the money back, and that 75 percent of their own supporters knew that Labour’s actions had been criminal and wrong, and wanted the money returned. I say to the Labour Party: here is a novel idea. To get the order right, the No. 1 thing is to pay the money back. No. 2, how about an apology? How about a bit of regret? How about saying sorry to the people of New Zealand who trusted the Labour Party—trusted it with their taxpayers’ dollars? Labour caucus members went into their caucus room today and moaned and complained about having to put their own money back. Instead of feeling sorry for themselves, they should have felt sorry for the people of New Zealand, the people whom they misled for 13 months. How about Labour saying sorry, instead of rushing with validating legislation?

Something very interesting has happened over the last 13 months. Labour members have come up with every excuse in the book. They have tried the lot; we have heard the lot. This has been a spin extravaganza from the party that has perfected spin. I ask the Labour Party to spare us the spin—we have heard enough.

Let us run through the different spins now. The first of them was that somehow the rules had changed and it was all a bit different. That is not what the Auditor-General actually said in the New Zealand Herald when he was interviewed on 22 August. He made it quite clear that he had warned the Labour Party, that he expected there to be no surprises in its spending, and that he drew a line in the sand.

There was no ignorance of the rules, there was no kind of mistake, and the referee did not change things afterwards. What happened was that Labour Party members who knew they would lose unless they spent one hell of a lot of money in the last 10 days, and who knew absolutely that they would get carted out, said: “To hell with the rules, let’s get the money from wherever we need to get it from.” Now that they have been caught, they have the audacity not to say sorry, and to feel sorry for themselves. Well, we do not feel sorry for them.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the member who is on his feet, but in the barracking the Hon David Benson-Pope accused Mr John Key in a most unparliamentary way, and I ask him to withdraw and apologise.

Hon David Benson-Pope: I withdraw and apologise.

JOHN KEY: The second part of this long and miserable tale that we should not forget is Michael Cullen’s own actions. This is the man who threatened the New Zealand Herald—who said to the and its owners, APN, that Labour would have no hesitation, if it had to, in ripping up the legislation relating to APN. He made a veiled threat that APN knew and understood. That is the level Labour was at with its back to the wall. The message was pretty clear: stop talking about the fact that the Labour Party had been caught with its hand in the till, or Labour would have a closer look at the legislation relating to APN.

As is typical from Labour, as we saw yesterday regarding charities, when this Government does not like anybody, it changes the rules, and it does not matter who is collateral damage along the way.

The third person to get in the way of this Labour Party trying to avoid paying back its debts was the Auditor-General. Helen Clark, with more venom than we have ever seen, attacked the independent person in New Zealand politics, the Auditor-General. She should be ashamed of herself for the way she attacked that man. He is, quite rightly, a superstar in these events. He is not the guilty party—the Labour Party is. That was yet more spin.

The fourth part of Labour’s spin came from Pete Hodgson, who came right out and said that the Labour Party would not be paying the money back. Yet he had the audacity to go out and make a statement to the Sunday Star-Times: “the public would say that it was clearly for political purposes—and for Christ’s sake, of course it is, you know? If it wasn’t we would put out a pledge card the day after the election not before it.” When one issues a pledge card that says “Vote for me and we’ll do these things.”, one is on pretty safe ground to assume it is an electioneering expense.

Steve Maharey knew that. He did not get up and complain in caucus today when he had to front up with his $15,000, because he knew that he was part of a cabal of individuals who were as guilty as sin. That was the fact.

And then the last of the five spin-merchant campaigns came when Trevor Mallard decided he would play a dirty tricks campaign on the National Party and on our leader. So absolutely no one was going to get in the way of the locomotive Labour Party; it went right through, all the way. It was prepared to take out anybody and anything that got in its way. The only minor problem that occurred for the Labour Party was that 81 percent of New Zealanders have woken up to what it was on about; they want their money back, they want a bit of contrition, they want an apology. What they do not want is validating legislation, rushed in through urgency—the kind that makes the Minister of Finance feel happy.

So why are we here passing validating legislation, in urgency? We all know that is because the Labour Party is facing a lawsuit that it does not want to face, and the simple way to get rid of that lawsuit is to pass this validating legislation. The person taking that lawsuit, Mr Darnton, admitted on Newstalk ZB tonight that once this legislation is passed, under urgency—the Government forced by its support partners to do so—that lawsuit will go away, and we all know it.

How sneaky this whole campaign has been. Let us go back and have a look at what really happened in 2002. The Labour Party produced a pledge card that very conveniently on the side of it had “authorised by Mike Smith, c/o PO Box something”. Labour did everything it possibly could to make that card look like an expense paid by the party as part of its campaign. Of course National did not know, because we were tricked as everyone else was tricked. It was only when the crest turned up on the 2005 card—an action the Auditor-General made happen, because he knew that that would alert other political parties—that my colleague Mr Simon Power brought it to the attention of the authorities.

So the Labour Party can never get up and tell the people of New Zealand that it did not know what was going on—that the rules changed, and that somehow it was a little bit different. This Labour Party has been sneaky, this Labour Party has broken every rule in the book, and this Labour Party has been caught with its fingers in the till.

I finish by saying that when a political party comes into office and forms a Government, it does so with the trust of the people of New Zealand. It is expected to use its money, to spend it wisely, and to do that with integrity, authority, and honesty. One thing above all that has been proven over this very sorry saga is that that party will never be trusted by the people of New Zealand again. The people of New Zealand know a bunch of crooks when they see them, and even crooks in the dock have a policy of saying sorry and showing some remorse. So before Labour members get up and force through this legislation, I offer them this bit of a starter: why do they not get their cheque books out, pay the money back, say sorry, and for once in their lives accept they have done wrong.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) : That was the man who, at the present time, is travelling the world and telling people that he will be the next leader of the National Party. He has talked about the notion of restoring trust, but I say to that member that before he can take over the leadership of the National Party, he should say he is sorry about the 1990s. Was there one single promise that National kept in the 1990s? Was there one single thing National said it would do that it actually carried out?

John Key: Say sorry!

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Mr Key may, first, like to say, on the way through to taking over the leadership, that he is sorry about the 1990s, and that if National ever gets a chance to be back in power, this time it may try to keep one single promise. On the way through to the leadership, Mr Key should also have a crack at telling us about the trust funds. What is in the trust funds? How much money is in the trust funds? Who put the money in the trust funds, and what do those people want in return for that money?

Second, now that Don Brash has admitted he did not take the appointments with the Exclusive Brethren out of the diary, can he try to recover a little of his memory and tell us when the meetings were, what went on, what the deal was, what the $1.2 million was for, and why a major party was getting alongside a sect like the Exclusive Brethren, which has a fundamentalist agenda that is being pushed in country after country. Why did the National Party defend those people in advancing their agenda—people who want to send New Zealand boys and girls off to war, yet who are pacifists themselves? That is called something beginning with “h”, I think. I ask Mr Key to let us have Mr Brash clear up the issue of the Exclusive Brethren on the way through to the leadership.

Third, National should have a crack at paying the GST back—at writing out a cheque for $115,000 for the GST. It is unbelievable, I tell Mr Key, that Mr Brash—Dr Brash; whatever he wants to be called—the man who helped to invent GST, did not understand the implications of not paying GST on the broadcasting money. He invented the thing, he sat on the committee, and he is now the leader of the party. He was the person in charge of the National Party campaign, but he did not know about the GST. Well, I say: “Pay it back—pay the money!” It is $115,000. Mr Brash should have his cheque book out here tonight, sign the cheque, hand it over, and not keep on saying there is a legal reason not to pay it. There is not a legal reason. Mr Power, who is one of the few people on the National side of the Chamber I have any time for at all, is a lawyer. He could spend a little time advising Mr Brash there is no legal impediment to paying the money back. So I say to Mr Key to let us have the GST payment, on the way through to his taking over as leader.

If Mr Key apologised for the 1990s, if he told us about the trust funds, if National unpacked the Brethren, and if it paid the GST back, then maybe the New Zealand public would say that Mr Key looked like a person who was a little on the honest side of things. But until that day arrives, the legacy the National Party has is of its members breaking every single word they have ever put on a piece of paper and, today, of sitting here but not paying the GST back. That is amazing.

When I first came into this House there was a man here called Richard Prebble. Richard Prebble used to take us aside when we came to the Chamber to make our speeches, and he would say we knew too much about the topic. He would tell all of us new entrants that that was a waste of time. He said we should want to know nothing, and then we could go in and make extraordinary speeches, because we would not have the impediment of the truth in front of us. And that is what I am hearing from National speakers today and tonight. They have been to the “Richard Prebble School of Politics”. If someone does not know anything about the argument, then he or she can come in here and rave on, as if somehow we live in Zimbabwe and we are about to pass legislation like Mr Mugabe’s. In Zimbabwe there would not be an Opposition to sit in Parliament and talk about passing legislation, but this is not that situation. But if people are of the Richard Prebble style of politician they can get away with ignorance, because they have to have that sort of thing if they are to make an argument.

The argument is extremely simple. People should forget all the stuff that has gone on over the last little while, and the fact that there was a leaked report and a huge debate. The fact of life is that we have just received the final report, and we have just found out what the Auditor-General was actually saying. We have just heard the Speaker’s report from the Chair—[Interruption] Members are becoming very excited here; they should calm down. We have just had those two reports, and now we can begin to react to them. That is what, in our calm, considered way, the Labour Government is doing. We are now responding calmly to the information we know. We know we have to respond to the fact that the Auditor-General has broadened the definition of what it is reasonable to do as a parliamentarian—what we understood about spending money not being allowable unless one was doing just normal things, and not asking for any kind of vote. He has broadened that definition and we will have to legitimise that kind of expenditure.

We know that even if we pay back the money—which Labour is committed to doing; we will refund that money—the expenditure will remain unlawful. So we are passing legislation that will help not just ourselves but every member in the House, Katherine Rich included—a member who, as Michael Cullen said, is one of the few members on the Opposition side we also respect. We say that we understand that in doing this we are helping everybody out, and we will go ahead and do it. We know that the Minister in charge of this legislation has suggested we validate the expenditure quickly. That is what we are doing. We are also going to have an external review. That is what we are doing. In other words, we are making sure that we leave this Parliament in shape so it is able to carry on doing its work.

But what do we hear from the National Party? Its members have gone on and on this evening about an issue that has nothing at all to do with validation. For one person after another—people with the integrity of Murray McCully—it has just been an opportunity. It was amazing to watch Murray McCully rise in the House with indignation. It was such good method acting that it was as though Robert DeNiro had arrived in the House to tell us, with all the moral authority of someone like Moses, that we should all behave ourselves—and that is in spite of the way that member has behaved in this House year after year. Does anybody remember tourism? Does anybody remember what Murray McCully did with regard to tourism? Let us get the situation right, here. This is simply National Party posturing.

I want to finish with this thought for the National Party. The National Party quite clearly started off this term with a plan to character-assassinate people and to run issues that have nothing to do with policy. Do you remember, Madam Assistant Speaker, that it ran a whole lot of that over the summer period? Do you remember what happened? National got nowhere; it went down in the polls. It has done that again. Why are National members so desperate tonight? I will tell members why. They have put all their eggs in the basket of this particular issue. This is the issue they have fought on for months. The whole country has had no policy at all from the National Party. National has a leadership change to come and it has no policy whatsoever. The National members need this issue to work for them. That is why they are so desperate. That is why there is so much venom. That is why there is so much bile. That is why so much hatred is coming through from the National Party. National members are desperate for this issue to work.

I say to the National Party that it will not work. Once this legislation is through, the public will put this issue behind them. They will move on, and they will start to ask questions, such as: “Who can run the Government?”, “Who can run this country?”, and “Who has a vision for the future?”. There is only one party with a vision for the future. It is called the Labour Party. The National Party is in the gutter. It is looking at the stars, but it will never get there.

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) : I start tonight by congratulating someone. I want to begin my contribution to this debate by congratulating the Auditor-General. This is a person who has stood against a barrage of personal abuse and bullying tactics to try to get him to change his view. Attempts were made to discredit him publicly, not only in the media but also in other fora as well, and he stood firm against all of those tactics. Frankly, the only court of opinion that matters on this issue is the court of public opinion, and members opposite would do well to read the editorials of all the major daily newspapers around New Zealand when the Auditor-General’s report was finally tabled in this House. It said one thing. Underneath the detail the Auditor-General simply said he would not be pushed around. It was wrong, and he was going to say it was wrong. He said in his report: “Some MPs and parliamentary parties have said that I acted unfairly by ‘changing the rules’ after the event. I have not changed any rules.”

So who does the Labour Party think the public are going to believe—somebody who said right from the start that he would not be pushed around, or a Labour Party that is wildly spinning the line that the rules have changed? Well, the public have made up their minds. They believe the Auditor-General. The bullying did not work. If the Labour Party—as Steve Maharey said in his contribution—thinks that the public are going to put this issue behind them, I assure him that it will not be the case. If the Labour Party thinks today that this issue will not be raised on the hustings at the next election, it is wrong. If New Zealand First, Labour, and United Future think this issue will disappear into the ether after the legislation gets through the House, and they will not have to pay the money back, then let me assure them that that is wrong.

I must admit that at 11.30 this morning I thought of those first-term MPs in the Labour Party who, 12 months into their job, arrived here to the news that a campaign they had very little to do with—that they had no say in but simply participated in—will now cost them between $8,000 and $10,000 of their personal money. If I were Maryan Street, I would be saying: “Well, the collective is fine, but actually this isn’t my fault, and I am not going to pay it. Maybe Heather Simpson should.”

The question I found particularly interesting is where the senior Labour Party Minister is who has been nowhere near this stuff and has run a mile. Where is Phil Goff? Phil Goff has so much confidence in the Labour Party’s ability to handle this issue that he negotiates separately with the Auditor-General. He wanders off on his own and has a separate negotiation with the Auditor-General, and he sits in his caravan waiting, waiting, waiting because he knows that the opportunity is not far away.

I have to say that over the last 7 years I have on occasion sat on this side of the House and quietly admired some of the political management skills I have seen, but, having been a student of politics before becoming an MP, I was totally disbelieving when, as senior whip, this matter was brought to my attention in September 2005. In the first week of that month I wrote to the Auditor-General after looking at the pledge card, the fold-out sheets, the conference banners, and the like and not actually believing what I saw. I actually did not believe that the Labour Party would have the overwhelming gall to think it could get away with it. In fact, I read the letter seven times before I sent it, to make sure I was not overstating the case. But it was impossible to overstate; it was almost too obvious. My colleague Bill English has spoken about the deep level of cynicism required to actually take an affirmative step to sign that letter to Parliamentary Service and to say: “Pay this bill, or else.”

This was not an accident. This was not reckless, even. This was a wilful step that was taken by senior party officials. Frankly, that level of inherent arrogance was just gobsmacking, if one steps back and looks at it objectively. Even if it could be argued that the expenditure was legitimate, which it cannot be, and even if it could be argued that all parties will pay the money back—and my colleague the Hon Murray McCully has done a very good job, I believe, of summarising the fact that there are parties in this House that have no intention of paying that money back—if all of those factors were legitimate, why are we in urgency? If those factors were legitimate, why not allow the public to have a say? Why not allow the bill to withstand the select committee process? This bill does not have to be an appropriations bill—particularly Part 2. Any normal form of legislation could contain these matters and be dealt with in an open and transparent way.

But let us step back. Helen Clark has always campaigned on her integrity. That has been her No. 1 asset and something, I have observed over the last 7 years, she guards and protects viciously. Fair enough! Well, that has gone. That integrity has gone.

Darren Hughes: No, never.

SIMON POWER: It does not matter for Darren Hughes. He is 12. He can spend some time on this side of the House and go back over to the Government benches in 20 years’ time. It does not matter to him. It is Rick Barker I feel sorry for—no, I do not feel sorry for him. Rick Barker has done his dash; it is time he moved on.

The moral authority that allows the Government to do its business has gone. Its political capital, to use the phrase, is spent, and we will table in the Committee stage a series of amendments that will seek the votes of those in the Chamber who believe validation should occur only in the event that the money has been paid back. I say this to the Greens: do not abstain on that point. Do not become a party of Ashraf Choudharys. Take a stand and decide to vote for amendments that say “Validating legislation is OK as long as the money is paid back.”

There are members opposite in the Labour Party who actually respect, in my opinion, the political process in the Parliament and they know this is wrong. They know this is wrong and it is a big rat for them to swallow before returning to Opposition. John Key made an excellent point when he spoke earlier tonight. If one has done something wrong, show some contrition. At the very least one should front up to the public and say “Hands are up, got caught, made a mistake.” I have had to do it, and, believe me, it is not hard. Just put the hands up and say “A mistake has been made.”, and accept the punishment. Those Labour members should accept one thing: they will be in Opposition in 2008. They should save what little integrity some of them still have, because the winds of change are blowing through the electorate, and I tell the members of this House that Helen Clark’s integrity in this country is nil. Which members opposite want to go down with that ship?

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) : Kia ora Madam Speaker. Kia ora tātou te Whare. Everyone in the House well knows how seriously the members of the Māori Party take their roles as MPs. We attended the induction, we swotted up on the Standing Orders, we read Speakers’ Rulings, and, in fact, we even came in for parliamentary training before the election because we were so sure we were coming into Parliament. We worked our butts off because of our commitment to our people. On the very rare occasions when we have slipped up we have copped the flak and done the punishment.

So with this bill, as with other bills, when it comes to talking about appropriation legislation to validate parliamentary expenditure, we decided to have a really good look into what this was all about. We know that appropriations are supposed to be limited to a specific amount and scope. We know that in this situation there is a serious case to be answered, because expenses were incurred outside the scope of the appropriation, and the Government was warned against doing it before it actually incurred those expenses. That means that Parliament stands in breach of section 4 of the Public Finance Act of 1989—a breach of law, an illegal act, and an unlawful offence that puts Parliament’s already tarnished credibility further at risk. Now I may be only a new boy on the block, but even I know that political parties are supposed to operate according to the law.

The Māori Party made a mistake—no issue. One of our people sent in an account that we should have paid, but it was paid by the Parliamentary Service—a paltry 53 bucks. But it had nothing to do with overspending. In fact, we came nowhere near our spending limit because we did not have enough money. It was a straight-out mistake. We were informed of the mistake and we repaid the bill—end of story.

Then I hear that persons of privilege—MPs—can simply introduce new laws to right any wrong. I guess that is what is meant in the latest edition of Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand, which states: “The office to which members are elected has a considerable amount of legal freedom guaranteed to it, so that members themselves have the capacity to carry out their duties of the office as they sit and, indeed, are able largely to define what the duties of that office are.” I guess that means that in the house of privilege—the House of Parliament—legal freedom means that those who control the House can do exactly what they want to do. That is what really sucks about this bill, because it is about an abuse of the concept of legal freedom. In fact, it is about legal highway robbery.

So I turned to Hansard to see exactly what this legal freedom means, and surprise, surprise, we have already been here before with the 1894 Native Land (Validation of Titles) Act amendment. In case members’ memories do not go back as far as that, that Act, widely known in Māori circles as the “Validation of Invalid Land Sales Act”, has actually come before the House on a number of occasions recently—6 May 2004, to be exact, a day that will remain etched forever in the minds of Māoridom. That is the day the infamous foreshore and seabed legislation came before this House—legislation that the Māori Party is seeking to repeal. Dr Cullen was asked that day to consider the similarities between the foreshore and seabed legislation and the “Validation of Invalid Titles Act”, which legislated away Māori rights to court redress for land taken without their knowledge or consent.

Two years later, on 15 June 2006, my esteemed colleague Te Ururoa Flavell asked a question of the Minister of Māori Affairs about whether the Māori Purposes Bill would legalise decisions that did not have a legal mandate, in much the same way as legalising the theft of Māori land that occurred with the “Validation of Invalid Titles Act” of 1893. Third time lucky, my even more esteemed leader, Dr Pita Sharples, raised the same “Validation of Invalid Land Sales Act” in the context of the Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill.

So there is no doubt in my mind at all about where the Labour Party turned to try to get itself out of this mess, because, as the Speaker has rightly pointed out, without validating legislation the unlawfulness remains. Although she urged parties to pay the money back, her key point was that repayment itself would not change the unlawfulness of the spending. So, hey presto, a new law would be required; a new law based on precedent, based on the validation of imperfect titles, of legal theft, and the justification of banditry from the 1800s. The precedent then for validating unlawfulness was in 1894, when the amendment to the 1893 Native Land (Validation of Titles) Act was passed, in which the illegal confiscation of Māori land was justified, legalised, and validated.

That amendment also created a perception that every bit of Māori land taken from that point on would also be legitimate. George Elliott Barton, the first Validation Court judge said something in 1893 that could have been written for Dr Michael Cullen in 2006. I quote from 1893: “the chief object of the legislature in passing validating statutes has been the validation of all honest and straightforward purchases, whether they are legal or illegal in their inception”. He was saying that the illegal orders that he did not have the power to make as a Native Land Court judge would now be validated. This tells us that it does not matter whether acts are legal or illegal, or whether one has the authority to make orders, all that matters is that one has the power to make one’s thievery legal.

This House has a history of dishonesty, concealment, and conspiracy to deceive stretching back to the very earliest days of parliamentary deception in Aotearoa—a history I have no doubt the learned Dr Cullen, a professional student of social and economic history, has studied in depth. I refer the House to a book written by Dr Cullen himself, called Lawfully Occupied,for clues as to where this Government’s notions of lawfulness and unlawfulness may have been sourced.

Last week we quoted Santayana, who said that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. But given the experience and the intellect of the Labour leadership, we would have to say that this is not the case here. Was Labour’s overspend an accident? No way; this was a deliberate and calculated act. It was a conscious decision to ignore the advice of the Auditor-General and go ahead with an overspend of some $800,000. They have got snapped with their fingers in the cookie jar and this bill is nothing more than legal screaming.

Last week Dr Cullen said that Parliament would need validating legislation to cover election overspending. But honestly folks, who here genuinely believes that in such a close election as we had last year, $800,000 over the top could be seen as anything but a deliberate act of election chicanery? There have been overspends before—$309 million in respect of the Kyoto Protocol, $56 million in tourism, and $12 million in corrections—but they were blunders. They were of a completely different nature to the lust for power we see manifest in this Labour Government’s appropriation legislation.

What sort of example does this unlawful shenanigans give to the nation? Does it say that any Māori on the street can go to jail for pinching a bar of soap, but political parties can validate the theft of millions of dollars of Māori land? That any Pasifika can lose his or her home as a result of being caught in a shady finance deal, but politicians can validate the theft of a million dollars in election overspending? Or that any poor Pākehā can watch their kids suffer because they cannot afford a doctor, while we watch a Government build a surplus of $11 billion?

This is the challenge we face here today. The 1997 Waitangi Tribunal report said that validating illegal transactions was “a very dubious proceeding”, especially where it fails to protect Māori owners from hasty or excessive alienation. The Māori Party strongly opposes any thought that people of privilege should be able to validate their wrongdoings while those in genuine need in this country have to suffer the laws, the police, the courts, and the jails that are so often their lot. “Walking your talk” is the first principle of genuine leadership. Cowering behind a façade of legislation is the domain of thieves and scoundrels. Kia ora tātou.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future) : On behalf of United Future members, I say there is not much else we want to say about the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill, because the ground was very adequately covered by our leader, the Hon Peter Dunne, during the first reading debate. But there are a couple of things I think we should respond to, in terms of some of the information that has been placed before Parliament during this debate. In particular, I want to comment on the—in my view—very simplistic analysis presented to the House by Rodney Hide in his speech.

Rodney Hide suggested that his respect for the Auditor-General and his office, and for that of the Solicitor-General, would, ipso facto, lead to the conclusion that it was wrong for us to pass this legislation, because somehow or other that would be disrespectful to the Auditor-General. He suggested that since the Auditor-General has declared the expenditure to be unlawful, we should leave it for all time to sit in some kind of limbo in the Government accounts as unlawful expenditure. But I point out to Rodney Hide that the House faces a slightly deeper dilemma than that simplistic analysis. It is that in addition to having advice from the Auditor-General on this matter, Parliament has also had advice from Treasury. Treasury has advised the House in its written report, which has been tabled with the papers, that expenses incurred without or outside an appropriation are in breach of section 4 of the Public Finance Act 1989.

Now two wrongs never amount to a right. So I think it is quite illogical and it would really be quite crazy to argue that because a party—and this is certainly the case for United Future, whatever may be the case for other parties—inadvertently broke the rules regarding electioneering expenditure as per the Auditor-General’s report, based upon the opinion of the Solicitor-General, we should then set about to deliberately break the rules and the law, as set out in the Public Finance Act, by failing to validate the resulting unlawful expenditure. Someone has really lost the plot in the analysis of the whole thing, because all that we are doing here tonight is to go with the law—the Public Finance Act 1989, which obliges us to validate the expenditure.

The unlawful or lawful nature of the expenditure, as Peter Dunne so adequately described, has nothing to do at all with the moral imperative of whether the money should be repaid. United Future, as a party, has resolved that moral imperative very clearly, by saying that we intend to repay the money. We will do so irrespective of whether this bill goes through tonight or is defeated. We will repay the money because it is necessary to do so. Inadvertent though the unlawful nature of the expenditure may have been, we acknowledge that there is a case to be answered in terms of the New Zealand public, and that the only reasonable response to their concerns about what has happened through these unfortunate events is to make a repayment. That is exactly what we intend to do. I repeat those assurances tonight to this House and I say that that moral imperative, from our point of view, remains whether or not the expenditure is validated by this legislation. But because it would be wrong to deliberately breach the Public Finance Act 1989, we will continue to vote for this bill through the Committee stage and its third reading.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Finance) : This debate centres on restoring public confidence in the institution that is Parliament. Members of the public who are listening tonight could be forgiven for thinking that everybody has inadvertently been caught by the Auditor-General broadening the definition of what was appropriate—everybody except the National Party. Tonight we have heard a whole lot of invective, a series of auditions by the “super - front bench” of Simon Power and John Key. Interestingly, Katherine Rich has remained—quite logically and smartly—very silent. But people would be forgiven tonight for thinking that everybody had inadvertently sinned, apart from the National Party. I could remind National Party members that they got caught by the same broadening of the same definition to the tune of around $10,000. They got caught by the same definitional broadening as every other party in this House, yet they conveniently sit here tonight pretending they are lily-white, they did no wrong, and everybody else inadvertently sinned, apart from them. Well, there is a word for that.

This Government—it is true—did not act on a draft leaked report. This Government did not have a rush of blood to the head—that is true. This Government did not play politics with the issue—that is true. This Government waited until we had a final report and then reacted to that. Anybody with a logical mind—and I do not include Nick Smith in that definition—anybody with a calm, low-tempered mind, who did not turn red as he or she took a third glass of water, would think that that was a logical procedure to undergo, unless one had a brainwave or a rush of blood to the cranium, as one or two people over that side of the Chamber are wont to do.

When we talk about validating legislation, let us look at some of the past precedents when there has been inadvertent use of appropriations. The “Prince of Darkness”, Murray McCully, came down and, as Michael Cullen quite rightly said, tried to lecture us on what was moral fibre. I remind Mr McCully that back in 1995 and 1996 there was a thing called the Tourism Board. There was a mess-up in appropriations of around $56 million, and the expenditure could not be aligned with the appropriations. So what did National do?

Gerry Brownlee: Call in the medics.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Yes, Mr Smith is nodding in agreement with Mr Brownlee. That member might need a medic or a weight-watcher—one of the two. What did Mr McCully do and what did the National Government do? They validated $56 million worth of expenditure. They validated that $56 million of expenditure because that is the appropriate thing to do, as per the Treasury advice. So they validated $56 million of misappropriated tourism expenditure in 1995-96. Members opposite cannot have it both ways, and that is where Mr Hide’s logic, as Mr Copeland pointed out, falls down. If we have mismatches in appropriations for departments, for instance, year to year, the National Party says: “Leave it. Let it sit. She’s right.” Mr Brownlee says that. That shows how much he knows about the finances and the books. Then the Auditor-General raises it every year, and we look like a laughing stock as a First World economy. That is what validation is for, and that is why the National Government did it to the tune of $56 million in 1995 and 1996.

I say this: if we are going to get the ledger right, and if the National Party is going to portray itself as lily-white in the whole scheme of things, then I ask National members to do this. As Dr Cullen said, Simon Power knows, as a lawyer—I am not; he is—that $112,000 of GST presents absolutely no barrier in respect of the National Party paying that back. If National members want to bring back confidence in this institution, they should tell us what they did with their leader’s budget, because the Auditor-General had a problem. The Auditor-General could find Labour’s records of expenditure, but there was a bit of murk around the National Party leadership budget. He could not quite find the records. I also say this. When it comes to fronting up, as Steve Maharey said: “Tell us about the trusts, Gerry. Tell us about those. Tell us why you hide the money.”

The second thing I say is that, in respect of the Exclusive Brethren, we had the biggest attempted hoodwink in political history, to the tune of $1.2 million. I ask those members to come clean. Will John Key tell us whom he met with that afternoon? If we look at the reruns shown on television, we see that the faces are blacked out. Can he tell us whom he met? He could have given a personal explanation when he protested about the fact he was challenged on it. He could have given a personal explanation, which is unchallengeable in Parliament, and which is also on the record of the House, but he chose not to do so. I also say that National members should tell us about the legal representation that the Brethren have received. I ask the lawyers in the National Party, those formerly from law firms, to tell us about the legal representation that for a long time the Brethren have received, and the connection there. Dare I say, and they know who they are, that there is an untold story that will be told at some point. Tell us what favours were accrued in that respect! Tell us what promises were made!

If members opposite are serious about restoring integrity, transparency, and confidence in what is probably the most important institution in the land, then they cannot debate in this House, hour on hour, and say they did not sin when they did sin, to the tune of $10,000 at least. They were caught by the same rules as every other political party in this House, but that has been conveniently forgotten in the minds of National members. They were caught by the same broadening of the definition as every other party, and that is a fact. Nick Smith accused one of our members of getting in the gutter when that member reminded him of that. I say that Mr Smith has broadened the definition of gutter politics, because now, under that definition, when facts are raised that Dr Smith does not agree with, he hides behind that little, smug definition. I say to the National members that they should front up. They have spent their hours in the House being holier than thou. They have commitments from all the political parties as to where they stand. It is an open sea now.

But the unanswered questions around the last election remain. The unanswered questions are about collusion with a sect that is quite happy, as Steve Maharey said, to send other people’s kids overseas to be killed, but not theirs; that is quite happy to go around the country saying: “We are praying for you all.” As a Catholic, but not such a good one—Mr Brownlee and I would agree on that—I say that National members should front up, that they should not try to hoodwink the public. They should not have a sort of Ronald Reagan amnesia, as Dr Brash did: “I cannot recall.” How many times did he say that he could not remember whom he met with, what he said, what commitments were given, and what he was told? I say to Mr Brownlee—because he and I both know the truth—that, like some other members, he feels exceptionally uncomfortable about that situation.

We now have a bill that opens the whole thing up, but the questions remain on that side of the House. I challenge members opposite to tell us about the trusts, to tell us when they will pay back the GST, and tell us why they validated $56 million of misappropriated expenditure in 1995 and 1996. Then, when they have answered those questions, they can stand up and portray themselves as lily-white. The next cab off the rank is the scone-doer from Tasman.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) : Tonight is a really sad and depressing time for this Parliament. I know of no time in my 17 years when I have seen a bill that will bring this Parliament into as much disrepute as the bill before us. It is a matter of folklore that in 1987, when we had the last Labour Government, an MPs’ superannuation bill was bunged through late at night, through all three stages, that went down in political folklore as one of the great breaches of the public trust. Even this year, the New Zealand public remember that duplicitous act. Well, this piece of legislation—[Interruption] He is just breaking my speech up.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It should be pointed out that the National Party’s voting record on that superannuation bill—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, that is not a point of order.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: They voted—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am on my feet. It is not a point of order. The member has been here long enough, and he knows that. Frivolous interjections or points of order used to break up a speech are themselves disorderly. The member is warned.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I seek leave for my speech to begin at its original 10-minute time to take into account that that was deliberate breach of the Standing Orders aimed at breaking up my speech.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I will consider that, Dr Smith.

Darren Hughes: He’s so embarrassing we agree.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): They are agreeing.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Tonight is one of those sad, depressing times when every member of this Parliament knows that we are bringing this democratic institution, on which the tender flower of democracy is based, into gross disrepute. Why are we passing a bill under urgency to make lawful what Labour had done that was unlawful? We are being asked, simply, to rush a bill through to somehow make Labour’s breaking of the law right. Well, no matter how many bills those members pass, and no matter how many pathetic speeches we hear from the likes of Clayton Cosgrove, the public of New Zealand knows that this is rotten, that it is sick, and that it is the hallmark of a corrupt Government.

I use the word “corrupt” with care and wisely, because the question that no member opposite has answered is this: “Was the pledge card electioneering?”. Well, Mr Clayton Cosgrove has a lot to say for himself. I ask whether he could answer that point for the House, whether the pledge card was electioneering. The silence is deafening, because every member of the public who received Helen Clark’s pledge card knew that it was electioneering, and every Labour Party volunteer who delivered that pledge card knew that it was electioneering, but there are two people—Helen Clark and Heather Simpson—who told the police that it was not. What does that say about the leadership of the Labour Party that it will try to put that sort of porky past the New Zealand Police?

The reason that this issue is so sick and so rotten is that a fundamental part of our electoral law is the spending cap. It limits Labour’s spending at $2.4 million. What the Labour Party did during that election campaign was to knowingly breach that cap, not by a little bit—not by 1 percent or 2 percent—but Labour spent more than it was allowed to spend by $820,000. Under the Electoral Act, that amounts to a corrupt practice in the law. I say to members opposite, who watched with glee as my colleague Bob Clarkson was put through the courts: “If he had got it wrong, would we be having retrospective legislation to make sure that he could keep his seat in Parliament?”. In fact, I know that Bob Clarkson is a member of integrity. He would not have had the audacity to ask for retrospective legislation if he had got it wrong. So I ask how 50 members of the Labour Party can sit in their seats in this Parliament when they know that they were elected through deliberately breaching the Electoral Act and committing a corrupt practice.

Hon Maurice Williamson: They’re illegitimate.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: My colleague Maurice Williamson says they are illegitimate. There is another word for that, but I will not lower the standards of the House by saying it. I challenge the Steve Mahareys, the Harry Duynhovens, and the George Hawkins to tell the House how they can sit in this Parliament when they know that they came here on the basis of a corrupt practice. What sort of moral mandate do they have? How can a Minister of Revenue go to the people of New Zealand and say they should pay their taxes according to the law, when that Minister has broken the law? How can a social welfare Minister in this Government say that those thousands of New Zealanders who claim social welfare benefits should fill out their forms honestly, when that Minister did not do that and broke the law? How can Labour members sit in a Cabinet room passing laws and expect New Zealanders to obey those laws, when they break them, they break them blatantly, and then they introduce a dodgy bill into this Parliament to say that even though they have broken the law, they will just pass a bill retrospectively, under urgency, to somehow make the situation lawful?

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: What did the judge say about you?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It may make it lawful, I say to Mr Cosgrove, but it is wrong, and the people of Waimakariri know that it is wrong. Tonight this Government loses the moral mandate to be the Government of New Zealand. With this bill, it loses the moral mandate to govern this country.

Then we come to the Auditor-General and the disgraceful conduct that this Government has gone down the road of—and for me it was particularly interesting in regard to the Solicitor-General. People may recall that the Solicitor-General believed that I broke a law and, at the time, Labour members said that I had to face the consequences. They said I had to roll over to the High Court and face the music. Would Labour members—who actually passed a law only 3 months later repealing the very law under which I was prosecuted—have accepted a retrospective clause to undo it? Not on your life! Not on your nelly! That is how duplicitous those members are.

Then we come to what is proposed in this bill in respect of electoral spending. This bill will—under urgency—override the Auditor-General’s report. The Auditor-General’s report provides us with complete clarity now about what we can and cannot do. Any members who pretend that there is any doubt now as to what is lawful and what is not are kidding themselves, but has Labour accepted the ruling of the Auditor-General? I know that the people of New Zealand have. I see that the Auditor-General is already being nominated as the New Zealander of the year.

So have Labour members said: “OK, the rules are there now and we will accept them.”? No—what we have in this bill is to provide a new meaning of what funding entitlements for parliamentary purposes are, which basically throws the Auditor-General’s report into the bin and allows Labour to get its sneaky little fingers back in the tin of public money and back to its old tricks of using public money for political purposes.

Let us remind ourselves of just what is in this sneaky little bill that Labour wants to pass tonight. Clause 7 states that the term “funding entitlements for parliamentary purposes” is to include performing the roles and functions of a party. That is State funding for political parties, in drag. Under this bill the pledge card would be quite lawful. I think that there is a good chance there will be a snap election or an early election in this term, such will be the loss of public confidence in this lot that pretend that they are a Government. If we have an election before the end of next year, Labour will again be able to produce a pledge card and again have it funded by the taxpayer. I simply ask whether that is the public will.

I would ask Labour members whether they have asked their constituents whether they want legislation that will allow the Labour Party to use public funds for political purposes again. Have they asked their constituents whether they want legislation that would allow another dodgy pledge card to be funded by the taxpayer? You see, this bill is really State funding for political parties, in drag. What Labour is doing, quite sneakily, quite secretively, and under urgency, is passing legislation to allow it to put its sneaky fingers back into the public tin again—and National says that that is wrong.

The final point I will make in my contribution to the second reading is to ask why the need for urgency. Why has the Prime Minister not contributed to this debate? It is because Labour members know in their heart of hearts that this is a morally corrupt law and that they are throwing away their mandate to govern. This is the nail in the coffin of this Labour Government’s mandate to govern.

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) : Every now and again, in the annals of Parliament and in the history of the debates of this great place, we seem to reach a debate in which one side of the House decides that to scream the loudest is to win the argument, that to show the greatest anger is to display the most accuracy, that to be thundering is argument in itself, that shouting down is a good idea, and that a running tirade of abuse against the speaker on his or her feet somehow represents debate.

We have seen Dr Nick Smith become physiologically frightening. God knows what he did to his systolic pressure as he trotted out the words “corrupt” and “lacking moral authority” as many times as he could fit them into a sentence—as if there was a thread of logic around the unctuous prattle of that simple man. That was not an argument; that was a tirade. That was not a debate; that was high-tension abuse. The gentleman headed off into hyperspace. He demonstrated kangaroos in the top paddock. Minute after minute his blood pressure rose, his redness became more and more ruddy, and his shouting grew as the argument faded. He thought he had made some good points.

Well, here is something to think about. The Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill lets no one off any hook of refunding any money that needs to be refunded, whether or not the legislation is passed. One would not think that, judging by the tirade of abuse that has come from the National Party, whose members have gathered in their numbers for this historic debate. One would think that there is a link between refunding unlawful expenditure and the passage of this legislation, but there is none. One would not think that there is any uncertainty about the Auditor-General’s ruling, though the Speaker thinks there is, Treasury thinks there is, and every party in the House except the National Party thinks there is. But one would not think so, listening to the National Party.

National members have made it up. They do not want to understand what is in this legislation, because it does not suit their purposes to know that what they did today might also be unlawful, that what they do tomorrow or over the weekend might also be unlawful, that that is the state in which we find ourselves, and that we have plenty of legal advice that says we need to fix it—one would not think those things by listening to the tirade of the most angry Hon Dr Nick Smith and other speakers before him. One would not think that there was logical, strong, official advice in favour of this legislation—oh no! This is somehow a cover-up, a loss of moral authority, and something that the House has apparently never done before! The House does it often, but one would not know it in this case, because National members have got themselves into a high little lather, as if they will seize the benches of power like the born-to-rule folk whom they consider themselves to be, on the basis of this.

Well, I say to the National Party that we should talk about television, and television expenditure, and we should begin by looking at the law. The law says that there shall be an amount of taxpayers’ money to be divided by an independent commission, using criteria that are in New Zealand statutes, that that money shall be spent on television, and that no other money can be spent on television. That is the rule. The rule is that there is a quantum of money that is identified as expenditure for that purpose. It may all be spent on that purpose, but not one dollar more may be spent on that purpose. That is the New Zealand law.

Do members know what happened? Every party in this House obeyed that law in this election, as they have done in every election that I have had anything to do with. But the National Party overshot its spending on the grounds that it did not realise that it was a GST inclusive figure. We are expected to believe that, and we are further expected to believe that the National Party does not want to pay the GST, because it will then break the law! Actually, the trouble is that the law is broken already. That is why the police investigated it. Let me say that again. The National Party has, in respect of television funding, already broken the law, which is why the police investigated it. Why did the police take this matter no further, as indeed they took other matters no further? Well, the answer is that they did not know whom to take to court, because they did not know who had broken the law. Why did the police not know who had broken the law? It is because the National Party said it was its agent, the agent said it was its client, and that was where the matter was left to rest. The truth is that the law has been broken by the National Party.

Dr Don Brash: No, no.

Hon PETE HODGSON: It does not matter how often Dr Brash says this is not true—the law is there, it has been broken, and the National Party knows it. So its little attempts to introduce legislation to make itself within the law—including, indeed, earlier today—are simply an attempt to smokescreen. National has broken the law, and if it pays the GST, the law will still be broken. It will not be newly broken; it will be broken as it already is. Will National pay the money? No. National has not said it will pay the money; it has decided to try to convince this House that only by paying the money will it break the law, and therefore it needs some sort of absolution from breaking the law in order to pay the money. That is nonsense. The law has been broken by the National Party, and its members simply will not admit it.

So if those members want to do unctuous, if those members want to do angry, and if those members want to do “high moral authority” and put together the nastiest adjectives one can ever think of—especially a big string of them in one sentence—then I have to say that the National Party, unfortunately, has broken the law all by itself, and it denies doing so. I say to National Party members that they should climb off their high horse just a little bit, peer underneath the tail, and see whether there is anything nasty—I suspect there is. I think the National Party needs to get some more legal advice. Quite apart from the fact that it managed unlawful expenditure itself in the last election in respect of the Auditor-General’s opinion—in that respect it did manage to act unlawfully as well, but one would not know it; the only difference is that the amount was much, much less—the next time it decides to throw a bit of mud around it should remember that in respect of television advertising the law has been broken.

The law has been broken by the New Zealand National Party, not by any other political party in New Zealand, or in any previous election in New Zealand that I know of. The National Party is in denial. It has broken the law already in respect of television. Its members are busily denying it, even as I speak. They are shaking their fingers at me and saying I am wrong. Well, there is nothing wrong about what I have to say. The law has been broken, and the National Party should pay the money back. We could get a chorus up saying: “Pay the money back.”, but, hey, that is old hat and it has been done before.

The truth of the matter is that the National Party does not like being told that it is not lily-white. There is nothing lily-white about National Party members. These are the people who put 92 percent of their funds through a blind trust in order to obscure the origins of the donations, and in order to directly frustrate the spirit of the Electoral Act. These are the people who decided to climb into bed—to an extent that we are still uncovering, a year later—with a very strange group of people who gave them $1.2 million of support in such a way that it would not be counted within the laws of the land.

The National Party decides to get on its high horse, and it has nothing to get on its high horse about. No one has ever rorted the trust system to the extent that the National Party did in the last election. No one has ever done third-party funding in the history of this country to the extent that the National Party has, and no one else has broken the broadcasting legislation in respect of television in the history that I know of this Parliament. Those are the things that the National Party stands accused of.

It is just a shame that National is not part of this legislative debate, because the truth of the matter is that the National Party has done much wrong, and National, all by itself, in one election, has triggered a review of the electoral legislation. There is no doubt that that will be needed, because the rorting has gone on forever. It is about time National members took a bit, instead of giving it, it is about time they got off their high horses, it is about time they stopped doing unctuous, and it is about time they stopped trying to shut down the speaker in full flight, because these guys have dirt written all over them.

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. First, I want to assure you, and your predecessor in the Chair, that earlier this afternoon when I was asked to leave the House, I certainly moved to do so, and did not intend, in any way, to disrespect or disobey the Speaker’s direction. I was simply, under Standing Order 85, doing as I was asked, but I was informing the acting chief whip that I was the duty Minister, so he needed to arrange for someone to replace me.

My second point relates to the current debate. We have heard a lot of interjection from the Opposition, and, on occasions, I suppose, we might even expect it to be a little witty. We have been disappointed, so far. However, a large number of the interjections have been made by people who are not sitting in their normal seats. Former Speakers have ruled, on many occasions, that interjections should be rare and reasonable, and hopefully witty, and should be made by members who are sitting in their seats and not deliberately moving to be closer to the member who is speaking.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you, Mr Duynhoven. I will be the judge of that.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) : We accept that the Hon Harry Duynhoven should be taken at his word, when he said he had not deliberately dallied in the House but was notifying the senior whip that he was the duty Minister. I am sure the senior whip was greatly appreciative, because, quite clearly, he would not have been following proceedings at the time, and probably of his own volition could not have worked that out.

On Mr Duynhoven’s second point, I assure him that all of the people on this side will try not to speak at a greater audible volume than they would from their normal seats. But if he thinks we are speaking too loudly, he should take another point of order and we can have some further discussion about the matter.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you, Mr Brownlee, but that was not a point of order.

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) : We have just sat through 10 minutes of personal abuse from the Labour Party’s strategist, Pete Hodgson. That is the man who went on television and said: “We will not pay it back.” Then he was overruled by Helen Clark, who said he should not have said that, and was not authorised to say that. I presume the 10 minutes of personal abuse that he threw at this side was authorised. Because in not one word did Pete Hodgson mention the bill we are supposed to be debating tonight. Not for one moment did he seem to think he should address the bill.

But why would he want to? This bill is such a disgrace—just like that Minister opposite. The reason it is such a disgrace is that 1 year and 1 month after the election was stolen, this Parliament is back here tonight, under urgency, rushing legislation through to make legal what is clearly illegal. Some wonder why people out there say the law is an ass. The reason the law is an ass is that people push through legislation that has no right to be legislation.

Most people in this country try to be law abiding, at least most of the time. Some people who are beneficiaries occasionally rip off the benefits system, and we know that. Those people get prosecuted and can end up in jail. For $2,000 they will be prosecuted and forever condemned as cheats, thieves, and dishonest people. But not the Labour Party! No, no; it can take taxpayers’ money, misuse it, hide it, know it is wrong, be told it is wrong, but it gets to pass a law to make it all better.

Let us look at the example of those beneficiaries whom I sometimes deal with. Through no fault of their own, they end up in debt to the Ministry of Social Development—the ministry that deals with beneficiaries. If beneficiaries try to come off the domestic purposes benefit, or the unemployment benefit, and get into work, they can sometimes have their benefit paid for 2, 3, or 4 weeks after it is supposed to have stopped. The mistake is made by the ministry, but the beneficiary gets a note telling him or her to pay back the money. We are talking about people with very, very little money, who do not have savings accounts or credit cards they can use. These people have no option, yet they get threatening letters from the ministry telling them to pay back the money that the ministry wrongly paid them. Do they get retrospective legislation making everything better? They certainly do not. They, in fact, get stood over, and bullied and harassed by the very people who made the mistake in the first place by keeping on paying them.

Some of us have dealt with estates, and the situation when people have died and the old-age pension is being paid from New Zealand superannuation, and is paid for another few weeks, or whatever, and the estate gets a nasty letter saying the money must be paid back. Someone is grieving for his or her partner, and gets a letter saying there has been an overpayment and to pay back so many of the hundreds of dollars. That is the sort of way in which the most vulnerable people are treated.

Yet the Labour Party, the New Zealand First Party, and United Future are all giving, really, not a huge commitment to paying it back. We hear Helen Clark say there is a target. Well, we all know about targets, under “Helen Clark’s land”. It is a “target” that at some stage they will pay back. Apparently, it is within some financial year. Maybe it is this financial year, or maybe another. We have heard bleeding heart stories from the back-bencher Dave Hereora that he might have to pay it by means of time payment. Tell that to the beneficiaries who have to pay by time payment.

What about New Zealand First! It is the most disgraceful element in this matter. No wonder Winston Peters has been quiet throughout this entire debate! Not a peep have we heard from Winston Peters. Why is that? He, of course, is in a situation where he is in an unholy alliance with the Labour Party, all for the baubles of office. That is a man who is the first to go around telling other people how they should live their lives, and what they should be paying. We are talking about “Mr Wine Box”, of course! Unfortunately, it was $160,000, was it not, that he stole from the taxpayer? The poor old taxpayer! Who paid for those billboards—the “Oh, I’ve got something on my shoe!” billboards—that he had up and down the country? The taxpayer paid for them.

One of the most disgraceful things about this legislation is that as soon as it is passed—and it will be, because those people are in this unholy alliance to do exactly that, to cheat the people of New Zealand—there will be no legal obligation to pay. It is all right for the Prime Minister to say: “Oh, well, we’re going to pay in the Labour Party; we’re going to tithe them.” It is so sweet that Labour is going to tithe. Then what will happen in New Zealand First? It has said it will go to court.

Hon Tony Ryall: The “Dance of the Seven Lawyers”.

JUDITH COLLINS: Yes, the “Dance of the Seven Lawyers”. As soon as Winston Peters gets into trouble, he says: “We’ll charge off to court.” That is what he will do. But there will not be any point because, at the end of the day, this bill that I hold in my hand will make it all better, anyway. It is like putting a little band-aid on. Winston Peters said: “We will pay what is lawfully owed.”, but nothing will be “lawfully” owed. It will all be gratis. So anything he does pay—and it will be nothing—will be a bonus and he will be able to traipse around the three old-folks homes that will have him back and say to them: “I paid back more than I legally had to do.” He will be right, because it will all be right. This is a clean slate bill for Winston Peters and Helen Clark.

In fact, in this country most of us, as I said, most of the time try to respect the law, but occasionally people like the Chief Electoral Officer come along and say: “If you keep spending like this, you will have broken the law.” That is what happened to my friend Bob Clarkson. He was spoken to, and Bob listened to the Chief Electoral Officer, who said that if he kept spending like that, he would be outside the law. Bob listened, because Bob respected the law and respected the Chief Electoral Officer.

But what happened to the Labour Party? It heard as well, but, unlike Bob Clarkson, it did not stop spending. Members in the Labour Party said: “Let’s not be like Bob Clarkson; let’s keep on spending and rark it up, because we’ll get into Government and have our mate Winston in there. It won’t matter, we’ll shove through any legislation, and do whatever to remain in power.” That is what they did, and that is exactly what they are doing now.

Tell me again, why do people think the law is an ass? It is because of this sort of legislation, and because of the disrespect that those on the other side of the House have towards the taxpayers of New Zealand. They are so used to being at the receiving end of other people’s money, time and time again. They do not care.

These are the same people, of course, who with the unions went around the factories and told people lies upon lies, took their union fees off them, and paid them through to the Labour Party. Those poor people today now have to say that they agree with this nonsense, where suddenly the Labour Party, New Zealand First, and United Future are wiping off their debt, all for the baubles of power, for their limousines, for all the accoutrements they get—the taxpayer benefits.

This bill will allow that pledge card to be legal—legally paid for by the taxpayer, next time. This is, in fact, a declaration of war on the taxpayer. The poor old taxpayers might as well know that they have never approved State funding for parties, they have never voted for it, they have never been polled on it. What will they now have? State funding, legalised through the back door! It is State funding in drag—State funding by another name. That is what this Parliament is about to go and vote on, and it is an utter disgrace. The members over there should be looking glum because when they go back to their electorates they will be told exactly what the people of this country think. They know that this is nothing more than a whitewash. These people are dog-tucker, and it is about time they went.

Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) : I am pleased to take this opportunity to participate in this debate. The people of New Zealand need to know that opposite the National Party today sits an illegitimate Government. It is an illegitimate Government because it stole the 2005 general election. Don Brash has shown conclusively that that party opposite spent $750,000 on the election that it should not have. That $750,000 was spent on top of the $2.4 million that it was allowed to spend. The party opposite spent $3 million - plus on the election. The legal limit was $2.4 million. Labour broke the law. Section 214B of the Electoral Act says to the Labour Party that if it spends more than $2.4 million on an election, that is a corrupt practice. Labour spent $750,000 on top of that. It stole the election. That $750,000 made a material difference to that election. It was a knife-edge election. It was the closest we have seen in a generation. Every foot soldier counted, every telephone call counted, and every dollar counted.

What has outraged me the most was the Minister of Justice, pontificating from his seat this afternoon. He is a man whose 10,000 majority in Taupo was shaved to 1,100. I say to Mark Burton that if Helen Clark had not taken that $750,000 of taxpayers’ money and spent it in electorates like his, he would be out of Parliament today. Steve Chadwick, the person who took a 10,000 majority in Rotorua down to 686, is there only because of the good people of Kawerau. The people of Rotorua wanted to kick her out and replace her with a dentist from Auckland. That tells us something about what the people of Rotorua thought. Steve Chadwick is in this House today only because Helen Clark and Michael Cullen spent more than the electoral law allowed. That $750,000 made a difference in Rotorua. Steve Chadwick would be out of Parliament today if Helen Clark had obeyed the law. Let us look at the back bench. The fact is that Maryan Street would not be a list MP in Parliament today if Helen Clark had obeyed the law.

What is clear is that Labour was told that the limit must be obeyed, and it deliberately ignored it. As our good leader Dr Don Brash has said time and time again, before the election the Labour Party was twice warned by the Chief Electoral Officer, David Henry, that the pledge card spending would have to be included in Labour’s election return. Remember that week before the election, when the chief returning officer announced that he had told Bob Clarkson not to spend any more money? Well, Labour saw that press statement and thought: “My God! We’ve got this letter from the chief returning officer telling us that this pledge card spending had better be included in it.” So what did Mike Smith and the Labour Party do? I am sure he went to the Labour campaign committee, and immediately a letter was dispatched, saying: “Yes, we’ll declare that in our spending return.” What do we know? What happened after the election was the Labour campaign committee said: “No, it’s not going to be part of our spending return.”, because Labour had worked out that it had spent the $2.4 million already, plus the $750,000 that has been declared in the Auditor-General’s report, and that put it way over the limit.

What makes it worse is that in the 2 weeks before the election the Labour Party campaign committee members would have been fully aware of the warning from David Henry, but those Labour Party campaign committee members still decided to spend well over a million dollars on newspaper advertising, when they were fully aware of the warning that had come from David Henry. So they could have stopped overspending, they could have obeyed the law, but that Labour campaign committee decided that it would carry on and spend the money. So this is an illegitimate Government, because this Government would not be there if Labour had not spent that three-quarters of a million dollars that it spent unlawfully in the last election.

Hon David Benson-Pope: What about the Brethren? Tell us about the Brethren.

Hon TONY RYALL: David Benson-Pope can pop in there and throw a few things around. But the fact is he would not be a Minister in this Government today if the Labour Party had not overspent in the last election. This is an illegitimate Government. How many members in this House receive The Parliamentarian magazine from the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association? How many times have we read complaints about Caribbean and African Governments whose members overspend their election limits then pass legislation to authorise their misappropriation of public money? We read that, we tut-tut, and we say: “What banana republics! What illegitimate Governments! What corrupt people!”.

Well, what is different here? This is a Labour Party in which Helen Clark, Michael Cullen, and Heather Simpson must have knowingly allowed themselves to breach section 214B. Oh, Dr Cullen shakes his head. Was Dr Cullen on the Labour Party campaign committee? Who were the other people on the Labour Party campaign committee? I ask Dr Cullen who the other members of this House are who sat in on those decisions. How about telling us? I reckon this House would be very surprised to know those names—would it not, Madam Speaker? Who were the Labour MPs sitting in on that discussion, Madam Speaker? If their names were made public, I am sure it would be very embarrassing for the Labour Party. They sat on the campaign committee and made the decision that they would overspend.

This is a Government that is not legitimate. More and more people in New Zealand realise that this Government broke the law to secure its electoral mandate. The law is clear. David Henry spelt it out. He told the police, who said: “Oh well, you know, we’re all a bit confused by it.” David Henry set it out very clearly. He warned the Government twice before the election that the pledge card must be included in election spending. Days before the election the Labour Party admitted that the card would be included—solely to prevent David Henry from putting out a press statement like the one he did about Bob Clarkson. As a result, we now have a Government that has secured its mandate through committing an electoral offence. It must be an electoral offence. If the limit is $2.4 million, and Labour spends over $3 million, then that is a breach.

Michael Cullen would not be Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand today, he would not be travelling the world at taxpayers’ expense, and he would not be sitting in a limousine—[Interruption] Oh, that is the bit that winds the Labour Party members up—the overseas travel and the limousines. Dr Cullen would not be sitting over there, Steve Chadwick would be out, Cosgrove would be out, and Street would be out. MP after MP would have been kicked out of this Parliament, because this is an illegitimate Government. The Government stole the money, they spent more money than they should have, they broke the electoral law, and they were let off.

The National Opposition will make sure that the people of New Zealand know that there is no legitimate mandate that supports the Labour Party in office. Its members cannot break the electoral spending cap by three-quarters of a million dollars and stand up and say they are, honestly, the legitimately elected Government of this country—they are not. That three-quarters of a million dollars made a material difference to the election. It made a huge difference. Remember that this was an election on the knife-edge. Government members spent all that money in the last week, when they knew they had breached their spending limits. That is how they secured a fraudulent victory in the 2005 election. The sooner they are back on the Opposition benches the better.

MARYAN STREET (Labour) : The issue that made the material difference in the last election was the fact that previous years of promises had been kept by the Government, as opposed to the years before that, when the National Party in Government broke promise after promise after promise. That is what made the material difference in the election. As other speakers on this side of the House have said, this debate should be to do with restoring faith in political institutions and in Parliament. The National Opposition should, in fact, be playing its part in doing that by explaining to New Zealanders why legislation like this is necessary. This debate and the circumstances around it have reminded me of that situation whereby the very proud mother is watching the military drill—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: It is becoming difficult to hear the member.

MARYAN STREET: The debate has reminded me of that situation whereby the very proud mother is watching the military drill and says that everybody is out of step except her Jack. The truth of the matter is that the Auditor-General’s summary and conclusion mean that every party in this House, bar one, offended according to his definition. Labour will be refunding the money—we have made that perfectly clear. As somebody who has conducted and run Labour Party campaigns nationally—unlike those novices over there—I say to members opposite that we have done the same thing before and that it has never previously been considered illegal. The fact is that this Labour Government—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: It is impossible to hear the member. As we know, the Standing Orders say that interjections are permitted, but we are starting to barrack again. If members want to remain in the House to participate, they should please lower the tone and give the member the opportunity to be heard.

MARYAN STREET: We have had recounted previously the need for validating legislation to have been used in the past, particularly in respect of the Tourism Board, but in the history of this Parliament there have been other examples, as well. When mistakes have been made, or mistakes have been imputed to have been made, then validating legislation has sometimes been used by National when in Government.

My challenge to members opposite is why not elevate this debate, for the sake of New Zealanders. Why not take the opportunity to explain the issues adequately? Why not take the opportunity to lead the debate about how democratic processes in this country ought to be funded? What about a debate about disclosure? What about a debate about State funding, and its pros and cons? What about leading that debate, and taking the opportunity to do it? Does the House know why members opposite cannot do that? Because they have not the wit to do it. If they had—

Hon David Benson-Pope: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague, but I am barely more than a metre from her, yet I can hardly hear her speak. You have just made a ruling. The barracking is just ridiculous, and it is not acceptable.

Madam SPEAKER: No, I am sorry but I cannot hear either, so I am afraid some members will be leaving the Chamber if this continues. Unfortunately, some members have louder voices than others.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. If you are going to be hard on members on this side of the House for interjecting, then I think you need to listen to the content of the speech being delivered. The general tenor of that speech—

Hon Damien O'Connor: You can’t hear it.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the member please continue with his point of order.

Gerry Brownlee: Well, Madam Speaker, is it OK for my points of order to be interrupted by Damien O'Connor? National has had people thrown out of the House left, right, and centre today for that sort of thing, but he apparently can just sit there.

Madam SPEAKER: Did the member interrupt?

Hon Damien O'Connor: I did.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the member please leave—from now until the end of today.

• Hon Damien O'Connor withdrew from the Chamber.
• Madam SPEAKER: Would the member please come to the point of his point of order.

Gerry Brownlee: Well, the general tenor of that speech is quite insulting to the Opposition—

Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the member, but I might agree with the member if I could hear it. So would the member please continue.

MARYAN STREET: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was trying my best to make myself heard, but I prefer not to raise my voice. The issue is that here we have an opportunity to describe the facts and the reasons for this validating legislation to the public, but the Opposition has not the wit to lead or participate in that debate. Those members have not the wit to do it. Here is a moment when some integrity can be restored, and when some faith can be held again in political institutions, because we are doing the right thing—we are refunding the money. Even though we disagree with the finding that caused that action, we will do it because we believe it is necessary to assist in the restoration of integrity and the restoration of faith in the processes.

There are a number of things I regret about this circumstance. One of the things I regret is the Opposition’s facile opportunism. I regret the lack of integrity of its members in dealing with the real issues. But, most of all, I regret their inability to seize the moment appropriately. In the end, they are probably too limited to recognise my final line as a quotation: “They have not the wit to do it.”

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) : This is the part of the proceedings when the bill is discussed part by part. Really, I am imploring you, Mr Chairman, to ensure that the part by part debate is a genuine clause by clause analysis of this bill. I say at the outset that the National Party has put a considerable amount of time into the preparation of amendments, which will be tabled first thing in the morning, for consideration by the Committee. We thought we might supply those amendments ahead of time in order that the Labour Party might be able to consider them, but then we thought that if the Labour Party was not considerate enough to give us the bill ahead of time, then why would we be particularly concerned about doing that? Having said that, I point out that a large bundle of papers has just been put on the Table. They are some of the amendments that will be delivered to the Table as we proceed through this bill over the next short while, because this bill is one that needs a great deal of work.

The first part of that work must surely start in the purposes clause. It is interesting to read that the purposes of the bill include doing everything that the Labour Party has been saying we should do, such as validate the appropriation and follow the instructions of the Auditor-General, except that the Labour Party, with one hand tied behind its back, has limped into the House today having to follow this particular course of action. We know that the purpose of the bill is to validate illegal activity done by the Government. The purpose of this bill is, on the one hand, to make legitimate the extreme over-expenditure of the Labour Party last year, and, on the other hand, to make legitimate the dipping into of the taxpayers’ fund—the Parliamentary Service fund—to fund the pledge card and, it would seem, a great deal of advertising in the electorates of sitting Labour members. So we must amend the purposes to reflect just that.

This is the “Get the Government Supporters Out of Trouble Bill”. This is the bill that New Zealand First members sit smugly over there happily awaiting, because they know that their leader, Winston Peters—who is running up and down the country saying: “I’m going to court to sort this matter out.”—is going to shove up his hand at the third reading to vote for the bill, knowing that he then will not have to go anywhere near a court because of the actions he took having been made legal. I am not sure exactly how the Committee will end up wording the purposes clause to this extent, but the National Party most certainly will be giving people an opportunity to amend it.

The next bit in this part of the bill is clause 4, “Interpretation”, containing the interpretations. Here we can see some extremely creative work from the Government. A number of things are described, one of them being “expenditure”. “Expenditure” in this bill is very, very tightly defined. The clause states that expenditure “(a) includes the spending of public money and the incurring of any expense or cost; but (b) excludes any expenses incurred on or after the day on which this Act comes into force.”

At some stage the Minister of Finance will explain to us what that means. He laughs, but, you see, we are aware of the Tamihere warning, which is that Michael Cullen, with just the slight shift of a word here and there, is able to pull the wool over the eyes of the New Zealand people. Everyone would have to agree now that that is absolutely right, because that is what Labour members did at the time of the last election. It is what they did in 2002. It is what they did in 1999. The former Labour Party president who ran those campaigns stood up here today and said: “It wasn’t a problem in the past, so why should it be a problem now?”. Well, in case that new member did not notice, this bill actually goes way back. It recognises that there was a problem way back in those years—in fact, all the way back some 17 years, from the time that Sir Geoffrey Palmer first introduced the legislation to put the Parliamentary Service into effect.

I know that a large number of National Party members want to have a say on this bill. They have been denied a say on the Parliamentary Service Commission so far, therefore they have every right to speak.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) : First of all, I will deal with that extraordinary assertion that Mr Brownlee—or maybe it is not an extraordinary assertion in his case—does not understand what is meant by: “includes the spending of public money … but (b) excludes any expenses incurred on or after the day on which this Act comes into force.” That means we are validating expenditure up to the point the Act comes into force. I will come to the reason in a moment. Moving forward, we come to Part 2, which is why Part 2 comes straight after that line of the bill. Part 2 provides definitions for expenditure moving forward. So there is no need to provide validation for that.

Why is that so? I invite the member to turn to paragraph 32 of the Speaker’s report: “While the 2006 report deals only with advertising expenditure, it is clear that the principles articulated by the Auditor-General will have general application to all expenditure under Vote Parliamentary Service appropriations at all times and not only in relation to the three months prior to a general election.” Then there are examples of where various activities occur that are funded from Vote Parliamentary Service. They are standard activities, such as research staff proving background information for a speech about one’s own party’s achievements in some kind of public meeting—the kind that Mr Key frequently holds in his electorate to a dazzled audience of three or four. Those are matters that, under the current Auditor-General’s rulings, would potentially be tainted by electioneering and, therefore, unlawful.

The reason clause 3 states “May”—and I notice a rather cute amendment to something else—is that we simply do not know, going back to 1989-90, what might or might not be included within that. The Auditor-General’s report gives us no clear guidance around that point at all. All we know is that in some vague way, expenditure used for a range of purposes, such as public meetings, newsletters to one’s electorate, or flying off to sign up a member for the National Party, could be tainted by electioneering.

What is more, there is the former Solicitor-General’s legal opinion about the entire expenditure in that area. For example, did any of the members opposite at any point talk on their cellphones to members of the Exclusive Brethren about the funding the Exclusive Brethren was engaged in, or, for example, the polling they were carrying out in electorates? [Interruption] Oh, I am supposed to believe that Mr Foss—oh, he was not an MP at the time, but that none of those members who were MPs ever called up anybody about those matters on their phones? So all the meetings were face to face. I thank the member for that confirmation. We now know that all the meetings were face to face. But was any money expended on getting to any of those meetings?

John Key: No meetings.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Oh, they did not have any meetings? Mr Key had no meetings with the Exclusive Brethren. He would like to put on the record right now, would he, that he had no meetings with the Exclusive Brethren? So who were the shadow-faced people on television that Mr Key was meeting? But the point does not matter. Dr Brash finally admitted, after denying it, that he did have meetings with the Exclusive Brethren, and if the Parliamentary Service paid, in any shape or form, for the travel, then I am afraid the whole thing was out of order and tainted by electioneering, and the expenditure was unlawful and needs to be validated—unlike the payment of GST by the members opposite, where all they want validation for is to avoid conviction and a fine.

• Debate interrupted.