Goodhew Jo: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Goodhew Jo: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5875] 
JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki) 
: 
 I rise to speak to Part 2 of the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill with a sick feeling in my stomach because I know that the public of New Zealand will right now be deciding how this Parliament should be judged. 
There are vast differences in the ways we should be judging the various parties that are caught up in needing this validation of their expenditure. I start by referring to National. National overspent by approximately $10000. It got it wrong put its hand up and paid the money back immediately. How different that approach is from that of some of the other parties! First of all I need to say that the Progressive party was not guilty. The Green Party the ACT party and United Future were a little slower to act but they put their hands up to pay the money back. Then we come to New Zealand First. New Zealand First members still say they will pay back only what they think they legally must pay back; we know that this validation bill will probably result in their not having to pay a single cent back so some may say that is quite wise on their part. Then we come to the Labour Party members who have been bleating on about confusion. They think that the signs about whether they should have spent the money on the pledge card were not clear. 
I quote from the Auditor-General’s report in which he refutes the claims made that he changed the rules: “Some MPs and parliamentary parties have said that I have acted unfairly by ‘changing the rules’ after the event. I have not changed any rules.” He continues: “I deliberately decided to publish my 2005 Report before the Election to provide a clear signal to MPs and parliamentary parties about the need to be careful during the pre-election period.” It seems the Labour Party ignored that advice. I can tell members that the public of New Zealand are wondering what this is all about. I hope they are not bluffed into believing that we are simply sorting out some sorry mess. I hope they understand that what we are doing today is trying to validate the behaviours of Labour Party members in particular who it seems would be happy enough to be compared with the likes of Mugabe in a mutual validation society. Is that what we want the New Zealand Government to be compared with around the world? I think not. 
I know that some hefty sums will need to be paid back and I am greatly distressed to hear about some of the ways those sums will be paid back. I suggest to Heather Simpson that if she feels she needs to contribute in some way she should pay a visit to a Timaru supermarket where she will find Labour Party people approaching customers and asking them whether they would like to make a donation. 
Hon Member 
: It’s shameful! 
JO GOODHEW 
: How shoddy and shameful is that? Labour Party people in Timaru supermarkets are asking customers to please make a donation to Labour. Maybe that is one way that Heather Simpson can make a donation to this campaign. We have heard about TradeMe—about all the various things that are being offered for sale in order to pay this money back. Everything we hear from the other side of the House muddies the issue. But the public of New Zealand are not as stupid as that: 81 percent of them have said that Labour should pay it back and get on with it and stop talking about all the other stuff that Labour members think validates their behaviours. 
Labour has pretended for so long that this is not a problem. For months and months— 
Hon Member 
: 13 months. 
JO GOODHEW 
: For 13 months Labour has pretended that this is not a problem. Then its strategist Pete Hodgson said Labour would not pay the money back. Well it seems he got that wrong. Pete Hodgson the strategist got that wrong because now Labour says it will pay it back. Alarmingly Labour seems to be helping its partners in Government—New Zealand First—to avoid having to pay it back. Why would New Zealand First bother? Once this bill is passed the money will not have to be paid back. There have been weeks of obfuscation by Labour about whether it would pay it back. For months there have been denials by Labour that it knew about the pledge card funding before the election but intentionally carried on with it. That means Labour breached the spending cap. Section 214B of the Electoral Act states that one cannot spend over $2.4 million. Labour’s spending of $800000 on top of that means it is in doo-doo. 
Shane Jones 
: What about GST? 
JO GOODHEW 
: Oh it owes more! So Labour overspent during the election campaign. In my maiden speech I used a quotation from Václav Havel little knowing how soon in my parliamentary career this quotation would be reflected on. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call the Hon Tau Henare. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Oh no!