Finlayson Christopher: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Finlayson Christopher: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5861] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 As always I listened with interest to what that honourable member said because I value her views so I thought it would be helpful if I tried to put in context what exactly I am seeking to do with my amendments to Part 2. I have quite a number of amendments and on this call I want to focus on my proposed amendment to insert new clauses 5A and 5B because there is a yawning gap in the legislation as it is currently drafted. 
Clause 5 seeks to validate expenditure under Vote Parliamentary Service but there is no mechanism for repayment of unauthorised expenditure and there is no way in which the public can be satisfied that moneys have been paid back if honourable members do the right thing and act—as Mr Copeland said yesterday they would do—on the moral imperative to repay. So new clause 5A seeks to introduce a repayment clause and it is limited only to the expenditure under Vote Parliamentary Service for the financial year 2005-06 that was outside the scope of an appropriation. 
The key provision in subclause (1) provides that the expenditure that was unauthorised must be repaid on or before 31 December 2006. That gives political parties a couple of months to get their act in order. It also provides in paragraph (b) that the funds are to be repaid with interest. Where is the harshness in that? If people do not pay on a judgment given against them they are required to pay interest under the Judicature Act. If people do not pay their fines or their terminal tax on time they are clobbered by the Inland Revenue Department. If they do not pay their credit card debt on time they get an interest bill component in their next bills or they get their credit cards taken away from them. So it is only fair that there should be an interest component and rather than going for some of the higher rates of interest—which I could have done and I have come under some criticism in my own caucus for being too soft I must say—I have picked the interest provision under section 87 of the Judicature Act which is at a rate simply of 7.5 percent— 
Darren Hughes 
: Ha ha! 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
:—and I am sure that the boy wonder from Otaki could afford that. 
The second point is that if unauthorised expenditure is not paid back by 31 December it will attract a penalty. The penalty is to restore confidence in this institution and it is for $500000. That penalty has to be paid on or before 30 June 2007 but at the same time people are not exculpated if you like from having the obligation to repay the expenditure with interest. So that sort of concentrates the minds of the miscreant parties and makes them focus on their obligations to this place and to the political process if they do not pay by 31 December 2006. If we face continuing disobedience in respect of what the Auditor-General said after 30 June then the Speaker may appoint a manager who can take whatever steps are considered necessary to ensure that unauthorised expenditure is repaid to the Parliamentary Service. That will include some of the matters set out in my proposed new subclauses (4)(a) to (4)(c). Subclause (5) simply states that “the liability of any Parliamentary representative for that expenditure shall be joint and several.” That is the first part of my amendment. 
The second part is new clause 5B which concerns the reporting function. This is an extremely important clause and I am grateful that the Green MP indicated at least some interest in it because it is fundamental to regaining the respect of the public. People are entitled to know that those sums have been repaid but at the moment there is no mechanism for ensuring that that is the case. As we know the Parliamentary Service Commission is not subject to the Official Information Act 1982 so how are people in the general public to know that the sums have been repaid? This proposed new clause attempts to address that. It also addresses both the amount paid and a detailed breakdown of the way the amount was calculated. That is really what this critical clause is about but I do not think I have time on this call to go further.