Power Simon: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Power Simon: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5859] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 The Committee having dealt with the purposes and interpretation in Part 1 now comes to the body of the bill—the largely operative clauses; the bulk of this legislation—and I look forward to this being the first of my four calls on this part. I expect that given the substantive nature of this part of the bill many members on this side of the Chamber will be looking for multiple calls on this particular part of the bill in accordance with the Standing Order that provides for such multiple calls. 
Part 2 which deals with the actual validation of expenditure is of course the crux of the matter. National as the Committee will be aware is opposed to this bill and in particular we draw members’ attention to an amendment in the name of Christopher Finlayson to insert new clauses 5A and 5B. I know that Mr Finlayson will be anxious to speak to this amendment himself as he has spent a considerable amount of time drafting it. At the risk of putting myself in the same legal league as Mr Finlayson I will begin National’s contribution to Part 2 by outlining some of the provisions proposed in this amendment. 
The most important thing about Mr Finlayson’s amendment to this part is that it essentially requires that before validation can occur repayment must have been made. In the modern lexicon we would refer to the clause as the “New Zealand First clause” because under this clause—if it is accepted by the Committee and I am sure it will because it is a sensible clause—validation of spending will occur only in the event that repayment has been taken and receipted. We know from the media this morning that all political parties except New Zealand First have now agreed to repay. But this clause requires that no validation will occur until repayment is made. There is an incentive for that course of action in Mr Finlayson’s proposed amendment under clause 5A(2) which states: “If any party neglects or refuses to pay back [money] … which was outside the scope of an appropriation … together with interest thereon on or before 31 December 2006”. 
So those parties that are proposing to set targets for repayment by some vague date in the ether that may or may not be met—depending on the public’s reaction to this issue if this legislation passes—must pay. Otherwise if payment is not made on or before 31 December “then that party will become liable to pay a penalty of $500000 which penalty must be paid on or before 30 June 2007.” So this is a carrot and stick amendment for legislation that actually does not require the repayment of the moneys. The legislation validates the spending but this amendment will require the repayment. That is quite a big difference from the parent legislation’s suggestion. 
At that point if repayment is not made together with interest and penalties by 30 June 2007 Mr Finlayson’s amendment provides that the Speaker will have the power to sequester the assets of the party that has not made the repayment the power to institute bankruptcy proceedings against any or all of its parliamentary representatives and any other powers exercisable by receivers and liquidators. In other words parties must pay by the due date. 
If a party does not pay by the due date it will be penalised by half a million dollars which must be payable by 30 June. If the payment plus the penalty is not paid by 30 June the party will lose assets its members will be sued personally for bankruptcy proceedings and it must submit as well to any other powers needed by receivers or liquidators. 
Well this is the missing clause in the parent legislation. This is the clause that gives teeth to the validating legislation and requires the repayment. The original bill does not require repayment. Darren Hughes knows that. He is happy about having to write out a cheque for seven grand. He will be pleased about that but not as pleased as a first-term MP.