Brown Peter: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — First Reading 
Brown Peter: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5781] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First will be supporting the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenses Validation) Bill. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes we will. We will do that for three reasons. The first reason is that the Controller and Auditor-General has recommended that we do so. [ 
Interruption 
] Members should take the time to read the Auditor-General’s report. On page 53 of the report he makes the recommendation that this legislation should be passed. As the Auditor-General notes the relevant sections of the Public Finance Act 1989 require this type of legislation to validate the appropriation. The Controller and Auditor-General is the man who is telling virtually every party in Parliament that it owes some money. 
The second reason New Zealand First is supporting this bill is that the Speaker herself has recommended that this step be taken. Finally we are supporting this legislation because Treasury suggests that it should be supported. Treasury in its report explained why this sort of legislation is required in terms of the Public Finance Act 1989. 
In fact New Zealand First is somewhat disturbed about the politicking that surrounds this type of legislation. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Nobody can hear at all. Will members please show some respect to the speaker. 
PETER BROWN 
: To put it simply if the Controller and Auditor-General the Speaker of the House and Treasury all independently say we must pass this legislation then New Zealand First agrees that it should be passed. I invite members of the National Party to read the documents—maybe I should table them. 
I want to make this point perfectly clear: New Zealand First will pay any moneys that it rightfully and lawfully owes. 
Hon Members 
: What does that mean? 
PETER BROWN 
: The members do not understand what that means. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I say to the members at the back of the Chamber that one or two interjections are acceptable but that constant barracking is not acceptable. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have been sitting here quietly actually. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes you have. 
Rodney Hide 
: But it is very very hard to keep quiet when the deputy leader of New Zealand First speaks in favour of a law to validate his party’s unlawful spending and has the temerity and audacity to say that New Zealand First as a matter of policy will pay back any money it lawfully owes when it is busy here under urgency changing the law so— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The members knows that that is not a point of order. [ 
Interruption 
] No the member will please be seated. The member cannot go on with a point of order that is not a point of order. It is a debating point. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Mr Hide’s offering to the House leads us to an interesting point. I refer you to Standing Order 165 and Speakers’ rulings 70/5-6 and 71/1-5 which deal with financial interests pecuniary interests and declarations thereof. Given that Labour MPs have today received the bad news that they each have to write a personal cheque given that many other parties have found themselves in a similar position and given that New Zealand First is the only party out there saying that it will not pay it back then— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I am sorry but this is not a point of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: With all due respect it is. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: It is not a point of order. The member will be seated. That is a debating point and the member knows it. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I am sorry but I have ruled on the point of order. Please be seated. What the member has been raising for the last 2 or 3 minutes are matters within this bill that are for debate. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Madam Assistant Speaker you cannot debate the Standing Orders. The Standing Orders are clear. This member has a financial interest in this bill and he has an absolute obligation to declare it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is just completely misinterpreting the Standing Orders and— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Would you interpret them for us. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Mr Brownlee—[ 
Interruption 
] Please be seated Mr Brown. Before we go any further Mr Brownlee will withdraw and apologise for his interruption of the Speaker. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: No please be seated—I was ruling on that. It was not a point of order. The member was bringing into the debate Standing Orders that do not apply to this matter. Please continue Mr Brown. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I say to the member that if he is contesting my ruling that in itself is disorderly. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Madam Assistant Speaker I want to read to you— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: No just a minute. Can I be assured that the member is not contesting— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I am not contesting your ruling Madam Assistant Speaker; I am raising a new point of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I call Dr Nick Smith who is raising a new point of order. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Madam Speaker I draw to your attention Standing Order 166 which states: “A member must before participating in the consideration of any item of business declare any financial interest that the member has in that business.” We are all aware in this House that there is a court action involving members of this House. A court case in the High Court of New Zealand names every Labour member—in fact I think the interest applies also to yourself Madam Assistant Speaker—as having a financial interest in this bill. 
This is a very serious point of order. It goes to the heart of the integrity of this Parliament. I ask you Madam Assistant Speaker to give a considered ruling on the following point. Given the fact that there is a legal action involving the financial accountability of all 50 Labour MPs then a clear interpretation of that Standing Order particularly when one adds to it the Speakers’ rulings would say that members opposite who are affected by the legal action must declare a financial interest in this bill. I ask you Madam Assistant Speaker to give a considered ruling so that the Standing Orders of this House are upheld. 
It is a perfectly proper Standing Order because when we debate issues in this House it is the public interest not our own personal interests that must take precedence in the business of this Parliament. I believe that the 50 Labour Party MPs have a very distinct private interest in this bill. Madam Assistant Speaker we need your ruling on Standing Order 166 for those members to be required to declare that financial interest. If you do not do so these Standing Orders are not worth the paper they are written on. We are talking about a sizable amount of money—over $10000 per member. Those members have a financial interest it must be declared and they should not be able to participate in a debate in which they have that financial interest. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The financial interest is not different from that of any other members generally. That is the point. Court proceedings or anything else do not— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Can you explain why? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will now leave the Chamber. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I simply asked you to explain why. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will now leave the Chamber with no backchat. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Dr Nick Smith withdrew from the Chamber. 
Debate interrupted.