Cullen Michael: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13163] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Dr Smith is a member who cannot even shut up. He should sit down and shut up. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Oh the Minister says “shut up”. I would say to the Minister— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. The member’s time has expired. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It’s not for him to be the Chair—or has he taken over that role constitutionally as well? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. I will just warn the member. The bell went and the member knows he should sit down. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Those two speeches were so full of factual errors and misinterpretation that it was quite extraordinary. Let us just take one small point. Dr Smith said he has put out the same newsletter for 18 or 19 years. That is remarkable. He has been an MP for 17 years but he has put out the same newsletter for 18 or 19 years. That is very very well done. How prescient of him at the start of his political career—17 years as an MP! 
Secondly Dr Smith has got it wrong about the Electoral Act and the definition in relation to MPs. That definition appears in the 1993 Electoral Act which was introduced under the previous National Government. It has not changed and it is still the same—he is wrong. 
The third point is that we were asked why we did not try to put in place new legislation. Well we did try. That is exactly what we have spent much of this year talking with all the other parties about. National got to the point where it said it actually thought that was a good idea but it would not support it. National wanted to debate the issue in the context of the Electoral Finance Bill so it said it was not going to agree to a new permanent regime. National members did say the legislation should be rolled over and yes rolled over to the middle of next year sometime just before an election. That was also pretty clear. 
Then the member said that he has never said anything like “Vote for me” using the Parliamentary Service expenditure. What does “Why New Zealand needs a new Government” mean from a National MP? Or does he think that Nelson voters are so thick that when there is a Labour-led Government in office “Why New Zealand needs a new Government” does not mean “Vote National”? Is that what he thinks? The member actually has one of the more intelligent electorates in the country in Nelson although voters there have had a lapse for six elections in a row in that regard. Actually no I am sorry—it is not six; it is five. Dr Smith was first elected in 1993 not 1990. He actually did not get elected in 1990. He has been an MP in this place for only 14 years; I correct myself as well as him on that. The newsletter also said “nick4nelson”. “Nelson get nicked” we might say if we put it somewhat differently in terms of the approach from that member. 
The real point about all of this is that the law is not settled. What this bill does is to return the law and extend the current law to what everybody understood it to be before 2005. That includes the National Party’s understanding of it in the 2002 election campaign with Bill English’s “My commitment” public advertisement in that campaign having been paid for by the Parliamentary Service. Or is Mr English a hypocrite? Oh well that is an interesting response to that point. One can fill in the gaps after the three dots in that regard. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Did the Auditor-General find him in breach? No. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: What the Auditor-General refused to do was to look at what National did spend its money on. He was asked to do so and he refused. He did not look at the money that that party spent on staff in 2005 and at what those staff were doing and we all know that because National refused to tell us what those staff were doing. Those members refused to reveal their accounts at that point. [ 
Interruption 
] Oh we know exactly what the member’s staff were doing at that point: they were engaged in electioneering. 
But the fundamental flaw in the argument from the National Party is this: MPs do not stop being MPs 3 months 6 months or 9 months before an election. MPs stop being MPs at midnight on election night unless re-elected. That is actually the law. And MPs surprisingly are engaged in politics. I know that Dr Smith is not. I know that Dr Smith adopts a very pure life publicly and privately. I know that he always tells the truth. I know that he never questions the referee whether it is the Auditor-General or the court or whomever it may be. I know that no member of the National Party would ever accuse independent assessors in the Public Service of lying. I know that some of them gave the impression that they did— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Like Prebble—we caught him lying. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Oh the member did—sorry he just did. I correct that. He did just accuse the State Services Commissioner of lying—and Mr Hunn the former commissioner and Mr Sherwin the head of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. I ask whether there is anybody else the member would like to add to the list of liars in the public sector inside the Chamber and under privilege. I ask whether the member would like to add any more names in that regard. The only person I know of in this House about whom a court has said he lied is Dr Nick Smith. The court said it did not believe the tale that he told. That is what the court said. 
And I say MPs do have to explain their views and will continue to do so.