Smith Nick: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Smith Nick: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5844] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 Let me nail the point that Dover Samuels has just raised. Let us make the analogy with the issue of a speeding ticket because the extent of Labour’s offending is 88 times greater. Let us take the analogy. If someone in an urban street was travelling at 51 kilometres an hour would the average common-sense citizen say that that was a huge offence? Whereas Labour would be travelling at 138 kilometres an hour in a 50 kilometre-an-hour area. I ask a common-sense member like Dover Samuels whether he is really saying to the public that travelling at 138 kilometres an hour in a 50 kilometre-per-hour zone is the same offence as travelling in that zone at 51 kilometres per hour. Of course it is not! 
But what is even more serious is why this Government chooses to break two of the most basic principles on which our democracy is founded. If we go all the way back to the Magna Carta we see that there are two important principles. The first of those is that no one is above the law. But these Labour Government members say that they are above the law. If they break the law they say they will just pass a bill to fix it up. The second important principle of the Magna Carta is the issue of public money not belonging to the king—one cannot help oneself to money unlawfully. This Government has torn up those two fundamental principles of our society and it has made this country look like a joke. 
But the situation is even more serious than that. What this bill proposes to do is to completely overrule what the Auditor-General quite sensibly determined as to what was appropriate expenditure. What Mr Samuels and his colleagues are saying is: “We don’t give a stuff what the Auditor-General decides—we will spend public money as we will!” and the most shocking feature of this bill is that the pledge card could be done again tomorrow. A party could bring out that pledge card tomorrow I say to Mr Samuels. I ask him whether he has asked his constituents whether they think it was appropriate? Does he think the New Zealand public thinks it is appropriate to fund a pledge card in an election campaign with public money? The public have said no the Auditor-General has said no the Solicitor-General has said no and the Chief Electoral Officer has said no but this bill being rammed through under urgency says yes and I say to Mr Samuels that that is an outrage. 
I say to Labour members opposite that their desperate efforts to cling on to power by breaking any law and any convention bring this Parliament into disrepute. If they cannot understand that they are not fit to sit in this House of Representatives. We have a duty here to act in the public interest and that public interest is being completely ignored with this gross bill that we are being asked to pass under urgency. I say to members opposite that they are an illegitimate Government. They did not cheat by just a little bit. Do members opposite understand that this amounts to a breach of— 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I take offence at someone calling me illegitimate. That member may be illegitimate but I am certainly not. I am a member of this Government. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member has taken the comment as a personal reflection. Would the member on his feet withdraw the comment please. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I withdraw and apologise. This Government is an illegitimate Government. Let me explain why to Mr Samuels. The extent of the Government’s overspend amounts to about $14000 per electorate. Does he know how hard it is for party volunteers with their raffles and with all the work that goes on to raise that little bit of money? And the Labour Party cheated by $14000 per electorate! Members opposite say it is OK because they will pay the money back. Well it is still a rort and I will tell members why. They are being asked to pay back only $800000 but they have benefited by over $2 million from their rort.