Brown Peter: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Brown Peter: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5930] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I found that that was an unusual contribution from a member of a party whose leader for 12 weeks went dancing in fancy frilly shirts whilst she spent some weeks wearing camouflage—and it was all at the taxpayers’ expense. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: And who else pays Rodney? 
PETER BROWN 
: That is a good question and I am not going to answer it; the Speaker wants me to come back to the bill. 
New Zealand First supports this bill for three major reasons. First of all the Auditor-General recommends we have such legislation. The Auditor-General in the very report we are all referring to recommends that there is such legislation. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does not. 
PETER BROWN 
: The honourable member should start reading the thing. I tell the member to read page 53. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Where does he support this legislation? 
PETER BROWN 
: There is a little bit more reading for the member then. He should read the Speaker’s report and see what she has to say. She suggests that we need this sort of legislation. Finally if the member is not convinced—if he can read— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do apologise for interrupting my colleague who is being fairly severely interrupted by the National front bench but a very unparliamentary comment was just made by Dr Nick Smith about the Speaker and I think he should be asked to withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I did not hear it but if Dr Smith made a derogatory comment I ask him to withdraw it. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I withdraw. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Was it appropriate for Mr Peter Brown to bring the Speaker into the debate? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No it was not. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Well can you make him withdraw and apologise too? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Would the member please be seated. If the member brought the Speaker into the debate then he should not do so. I ask the member now to continue his speech. 
PETER BROWN 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I brought the Speaker into the debate insomuch as she has written a report we have all read or at least members on this side have. I think I am entitled to refer to the Speaker’s report on this very issue. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Brown. You are entitled to do so. Please continue your speech. 
PETER BROWN 
: I reiterate what I said. We are supporting this bill because the Auditor-General himself the Speaker and Treasury in its reports to Cabinet all recommend that we have such legislation. 
New Zealand First has been accused of overspending in the same way that National members have been accused of overspending. Allegedly the National Party has written a cheque and paid its so-called debt. National had the advantage that the Auditor-General had a talk to the leader of the party and warned him what was likely to happen. The Auditor-General did not do that for New Zealand First—I do not know which other parties he actually went and spoke with but he did not do so with New Zealand First. Don Brash on the radio said exactly that. The Auditor-General did not even go and speak with the Parliamentary Service but he spoke with the National Party. National overspent despite being warned and despite being advised. We can claim that we overspent without being warned and without being advised. 
But the matter is more serious than that. In his report the Auditor-General makes a recommendation that the Parliamentary Service should be the authority that agrees or disagrees with a particular item of expense. Indeed the report states at paragraph 6.20 on page 53: “I also recommend that the Service in consultation with the Minister responsible for Vote: Parliamentary Service take urgent measures to ensure that advertising expenditure incurred under the Party and Member Support appropriations is for a purpose within the scope of those appropriations. These measures should include: Revising the guidance given to MPs on advertising to provide clear instruction about what advertising costs can be incurred under the Party and Member Support appropriations.” 
I will not read on but the fact that the Auditor-General says that clear instructions should be provided implies that the current instructions are less than clear. In other words they are open to some form of interpretation. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Abuse! 
PETER BROWN 
: They might well be open to abuse—the member would know more about that than me. 
New Zealand First was exceedingly cautious in the election. We went and sought guidance and sign-off from the Parliamentary Service—the body that the Auditor-General recommends should have that sort of authority. We went and asked the Parliamentary Service and we got sign-off. But we went further than that. We went to the Electoral Commission and got our materials signed off. There may have been some small rats and mice stuff that we did in-house but we got sign-off for the vast bulk of what we produced at election time from the Parliamentary Service and the Electoral Commission. Taking into account the fact that the Auditor-General says there needs to be clear instructions and the fact that the rules can be interpreted one way or the other we are saying that we want an opinion that states consistently what the rules are. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What’s wrong with the Auditor-General? 
PETER BROWN 
: We have not said we will not obey or follow the rules that the Auditor-General has stipulated; we have said—and I want to make this explicitly clear—that New Zealand First will pay any moneys it rightfully and lawfully owes. But we reserve the right to be convinced that they are rightfully and lawfully owed. 
I have heard other parties saying they will pay anything everything and everybody. Let me say to those members that party funds come from people who run raffles and sell raffle tickets. They come from people who hold— 
Phil Heatley 
: That’s no justification for breaking the law. 
PETER BROWN 
: There is no breaking the law. The member should read the report. He should shut his mouth and read the report. 
We will not pay 1c that we are not obliged to pay—not 1c—but we will pay everything once we are convinced that everything needs to be paid. And we will not treat our party people with contempt. Those members opposite may well dig deep into the party pockets of people who go out and sell raffle tickets on their behalf but we have an obligation to look after the people who support us and we will do that. 
This report opens the door for all sorts of problem areas and that matter was well canvassed at the Parliamentary Service Commission this morning. We need to bring in this legislation and with some urgency. As members well know—or they might not know—the Parliamentary Service only yesterday vetoed having Christmas cards financed from parties’ budgets. I do not think that the members opposite know that but they are in danger of having to fork out to pay for their Christmas cards if this legislation does not go through. The Auditor-General has told ACT—and the ACT member speaking this morning raised this matter—that he has not turned his mind to MPs’ travel costs when they are engaged in going about their business. It could well be that we will all be caught with travel costs. Every National and ACT MP and indeed every MP in this House who wants to vote against this legislation should take note of that. This legislation is required so that all of us—all MPs—can do our jobs properly.