Cullen Michael: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5914] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill be now read a third time 
. This has been an interesting and mildly lengthy debate. I think it has been to convince us that the National Party logo of the big “N” should be replaced by a big “H” because throughout this debate National members have failed to answer some pretty important challenges. 
First of all having been challenged time after time they refused to tell us what the leader of the National Party’s budget was spent on in the 3 months or so before the 2005 election. What was the leader’s budget spent on? Does it meet the Solicitor-General’s test of not being spent on electioneering in any shape or form because any of it being spent on electioneering takes the whole of it outside the parliamentary processes. 
The second point is that they failed to explain a whole set of details about other National Party spending. We have had all sorts of wonderful speeches. We had Murray McCully lecturing us about morality and Nick Smith lecturing us about obeying the law and the rule of law. The only man in this House who has been convicted of contempt of court lectured us at length about the rule of law. Then we had Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith forgetting to tell us certain things in a speech in which he got so carried away that he ended up calling his own previous leader in effect a dirty dirty cheat. He said that expenditure on the pledge card in 1999 and 2002 was somehow cheating forgetting completely— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Absolutely! 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Well what is this I ask Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith? What is it? It is a pledge advertisement from National in 2002—note the parliamentary crest—paid for by Parliamentary Service. Not of course that Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith has been backward in coming forward in using Parliamentary Service funding. I have a photo of him near naked in the company of a number of near naked young gentlemen and he seems to be “Mr February” on a calendar in 2002. Here he is with Miss Hibiscus Coast 2001—she is the one with the flowers. Apparently at this stage he was so out of sorts with his colleagues that his office is actually outside the building rather than inside the building and he is sitting at his desk somewhere out on the steps of Parliament. This was all paid for by Parliamentary Service. 
None of that would be legitimate under the Auditor-General’s rules because it is clearly promoting Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith and the National Party in terms of its political interest. But of course it is all different because it is Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith and he speaks like this: “I think you’re right.” He does that whereas if we do it in the normal speaking fashion it is perfectly wrong and it is dirt and it is disastrous and it is cheating— 
Paula Bennett 
: Because you knowingly broke the rules. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Oh my gosh! What was that? Oh it was Paula Bennett. I should have realised. I thought it was Dr Nick Smith grasping himself even more firmly than usual. 
Then we had the issue of the GST not being paid and the National Party’s generous offer to pass legislation so it does not get convicted and have to pay a fine. What a generous offer that was to the House I thought— 
Darren Hughes 
: From the chairman of the committee. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
:—from the chairman of the committee that introduced GST! And what is extraordinary about that and I repeat it is that there was no paper trail in terms of the contract for the National Party’s spending in that regard. No written arrangements were entered into and therefore the police could not work out who was responsible and therefore nobody could be prosecuted. So it is OK Dr Brash is off the hook anyway so he can go and pay the money. The police cannot prosecute him. There is nothing to stop him coughing up the $118000 right now. I am sure a quick whip-round the Exclusive Brethren wherever they are today would quickly pay off that $118000. 
What they would not tell us in this debate either was the price they paid for that $1.2 million from the Exclusive Brethren. What was it? Something about banning parking in one’s neighbours’ driveways if they are not Exclusive Brethren—that sort of strange stuff that the Exclusive Brethren are into? What did Dr Brash promise? Well I do want to place on record—because this could be quite interesting in not too many weeks’ or months’ time—that Mr Key told the House he had never met the Exclusive Brethren. 
Hon Member 
: No no. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Oh yes I think Mr Key had better look at the  
Hansard 
 again. He told the House he had not met the Exclusive Brethren because I challenged him and he interjected and said he had never met them. I think he might want to change that story. He not only met them he was deep donkey-doo in the process of organising Exclusive Brethren support— 
Dr Don Brash 
: Not true. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: How do we believe Dr Brash who claimed he had never met them or discussed the pamphlet then had to admit he did? He claimed that he had not met them after the election then he admitted he did. How often does Dr Brash change his story on the Exclusive Brethren? I tell Dr Brash that they are the ones where the women wear the head scarves. They are pretty easy to see. 
This bill is necessary. It is necessary for two reasons. Firstly it is necessary in order to put the public accounts in proper shape. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Say you are sorry. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am not at all sorry for not breaking the law which is our position. Part 2 is necessary because it clarifies current spending. Just in the last 24 hours a senior member of this House—not in the Labour Party—has been told that his Christmas cards are out of order under the Auditor-General’s ruling. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: That is rubbish. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No it is not rubbish. That is what Mr Brownlee does not understand. He does not understand it. He says that the previous Solicitor-General is talking rubbish except when he is condemning the Labour Party—then of course it is absolutely true. Because the Solicitor-General said if there was any taint of electioneering which he defined very broadly that tainted the entire expenditure. And if members are sending out Christmas cards and if Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith is sending out another calendar with himself near naked with another whole bunch of near naked young men—the under-21 surf club from somewhere or other—then that is clearly promoting Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith. I do not know what it is promoting him as but it is promoting Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith and in that case there is a taint of electioneering that disqualifies that expenditure. 
If he happens to have rung anybody on his cellphone during the election campaign to discuss a problem that has been raised by that person while he was canvassing—I am sure that has happened; I bet every member of this House has rung back constituents after canvassing using a telephone— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: No. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No Dr Mapp does not use a telephone to ring people. He is different from most of us as one can see from the look on his face. But most of us ring people using a telephone. I tell Dr Mapp that it is a relatively old instrument by now so he can catch up with it if he wishes. That use of a telephone is electioneering and that then disqualifies one’s appropriation for the use of that telephone. That is what the Auditor-General’s report implies. That is why it has to be clarified. 
But the biggest doozy of all was the amendment we finally gave leave to be put which would have meant between now and some indeterminate date when the Auditor-General finally reported back on people paying back the money we could spend whatever we like on whatever we like because the bill provides the validation for everything from 1989 through to the passing of the bill. It was an attempt by the National Party to write a blank cheque from here on for months to come because it was all going to be validated eventually when the Auditor-General finally reported back when the moneys had been fully refunded. That was an interesting ill-thought-out amendment. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Who moved it? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That was moved by Mr Simon Power. 
The final thing I do need to say is that this has been a wonderful audition for all the pretenders to the National Party leadership. There is no question who won. It was Mr English. I did not agree with what he said but he was the only one who actually hit home some hard arguments whereas all the rest completely fluffed it. Mr English still does mock outrage better than anybody else on the National Party front bench.