Wilkinson Kate: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Wilkinson Kate: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5872] 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 Can I start by clarifying— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but there are two members one each on either side of me interjecting. They are not permitted to interject when they do not have the floor. 
KATE WILKINSON 
: I start this call on Part 2 of the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill by clarifying for members opposite that there is every difference in the world between one accidentally overspending realising it admitting it and paying the money back straight away; and two blatantly and intentionally overspending by $800000 denying it ever happened trying to hide it within the beltway shooting the messenger who dared to disagree then attempting to legislate under urgency to make lawful what was unlawful and to validate actions having still not paid back one solitary cent. 
We have heard in debates today that this bill will make legal what was illegal but the moral obligation to pay back the money that was misappropriated remains. How on earth do we enforce this moral obligation? How can we be expected to believe that this Labour Government which blatantly ignores its legal obligations will now conscientiously subscribe to some moral obligations? If Labour’s legal obligations have not been obeyed in the past what suggestion is there that its moral obligations will be obeyed in the future? 
I refer to the amendment proposed by my learned colleague Mr Finlayson to insert new clauses 5A and 5B which addresses the fact that there is absolutely no legal obligation under the proposed bill to repay any money. Mr Finlayson has rather eloquently imposed an obligation to pay the money back. The public expects the money to be paid back. The public expects a legal obligation for it to be paid back. The public will not trust the Labour Government to obey some moral obligation to pay the money back. We urge support for this amendment. What is wrong with a proposal that states that the parties will pay the money back? After all that is what they said they would do What is wrong with a provision in clause 5A(2) to impose interest as an incentive on a party to pay the money back? What is wrong with imposing a penalty for not paying the money back when we have already heard promises that parties will pay the money back? What is wrong with having provisions to appoint a manager to take whatever steps are necessary if the money is not paid back and what is wrong with the manager having the power to sequester the assets of a party and to initiate proceedings and having all the powers and authorities exercisable by receivers to ensure that this wonderful moral promise by the Labour Government is in fact honoured? 
I urge the Committee to support the amendment proposed by Mr Finlayson. As an addition to that as provided for in the amendment to include new clause 5B it is only common sense that members are made aware exactly when the money is paid back so that it cannot be just swept under the carpet and “moved on”. 
I would also like to address the amendment proposed by Dr Mapp to insert new clause 6A. This addresses the process. I will talk about the process for a minute because we have been told that this is an urgent matter. Nobody has yet enlightened us as to where the urgency is that is being demanded of us. The money has already been misappropriated. Whether the bill passes today tomorrow or next year will not change that fact. Even if we accept that clarification of the rules is required there is no desperate urgency that the clarification be codified now today tomorrow or even this year. Dr Mapp’s amendment in fact suggests that nothing in the Act shall affect the existing High Court proceedings which seek a judicial declaration as to whether the expenditure was lawful or whether it was misappropriated. Why not wait until the Darnton case is judicially determined? Why push this through under urgency?