Turei Metiria: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Turei Metiria: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5860] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I want to take a short call on this part to describe and explain the Green Party’s vote on the various amendments to it. We will be voting in favour of the Minister’s amendments to the bill and we will also be voting in favour of one of Mr McCully’s amendments to it. Of National’s many—impressively many—amendments we will be supporting Mr McCully’s addition of clause 6A which states: “Nothing in this Act prevents political parties repaying any expenditure identified by the Controller and Auditor-General as being outside of the appropriation for any financial year.” I think it is important to state that in the legislation because it is the Green Party’s view that parties should pay the money identified as being unlawfully spent. We have said clearly and repeatedly that we do not believe we have breached the rules at all. Yet the Auditor-General does and in respecting his office we will concede to his view on the matter. But that does not mean we agree we actually made a mistake. So it becomes a moral obligation on political parties to do the right thing in the eyes of the public and for the benefit of Parliament as a whole. 
That is one reason why we will not be supporting Chris Finlayson’s amendments which are very detailed and which involve penalty payments interest enforcement and all those sorts of things. This is not about making a legal obligation; in fact a moral obligation on political parties is actually much more potent. It is about the decision then of political parties to do the right thing without being forced to—to do the right thing because it is the right thing to do. We think it is much more important for the public to understand that there are parties prepared to make that decision for their own benefit and for the benefit of the community as a whole. So we will support Murray McCully’s amendment but that is all and we will vote against all other National amendments. 
We were interested in the idea of the reporting aspect in one of Chris Finlayson’s amendments—that the Speaker would report at some stage on whether parties had paid back all the money. It is an interesting idea and one we would not necessarily oppose but we certainly do not agree with the exposing of all the details of the expenditure which unfortunately his clause includes. That is unfortunate I think for Mr Finlayson because it is good to have transparency in the process and that in and of itself is not a particularly evil thing. 
It is very important for the public to remember that the Greens support the legislation insofar as it is a clear enunciation of the rules. It also has to be made clear that it is a temporary enunciation—an enunciation until the rules can be sorted out properly and effectively. We think it is important to take the time to make sure the rules are effective clear and workable for the public and for politicians. But that is where the Auditor-General has dismally failed. He has dismally failed to provide any clear direction for MPs and political parties in Parliament as to how they might then proceed. 
I refer to some of my own ads that have been ruled unlawful—for example an ad inviting the public to a section 59 repeal bill meeting during the election period. The meeting concerned legislation that was before the House and that was a matter of intense public interest to the community as a whole but because I put a little weeny tiny ad in a little community newspaper inviting people to come and talk to Sue Bradford about that legislation the Auditor-General ruled that to be unlawful electioneering. That is one of the mistakes he has made. His interpretation has been wrong and he has not given me any direction as to how I might then advertise public meetings about legislation that is relevant to the community. So any attempt at this stage to clarify those rules is absolutely essential. I cannot now communicate legally to the constituency of interest and to the constituency of locality that I represent and am involved in because I do not know what is legal now. Will I have to send all of my ads to the Auditor-General for him to ascertain their legal validity before I place them? If that is what the Auditor-General wants I am most happy to do that. I am sure it would take up enormous amounts of his own resources if every MP was forced to do that in order to make sure we were spending our money lawfully. 
So the rhetoric and hysteria coming from some Opposition benches I think is extreme and unnecessary and is failing to clarify other important issues for the constituency and the public. The public wants us to do our job to do it right and to do it properly. The Auditor-General has not enabled us to do that so we must find the mechanism. This bill is a temporary mechanism and the Greens will support it to that extent.