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:5893] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I apologise for making a comment in response to the member saying he had been standing in this Chamber for a long time. In fact I left the Chamber this morning for a Cabinet committee meeting. 
That was Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith PhD in full understatement mode taking a moderate and balanced view in his speech. What he showed was a really important distinction. As I said this morning—and I say again—the Labour Party does not accept that the Auditor-General’s views are correct. But we accept that he is the referee and therefore we are paying the money back. I note that Dr Lockwood Smith did not agree with the referee’s decision in terms of the Speaker’s report so what did he do? He attacked the Speaker and attacked the report. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: As the Minister responsible for the Parliamentary Service. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Oh what a fine distinction he tries to make now having been caught out booting the referee because he did not like the referee’s decision on this matter. Is that not just typical of the National Party—the born-to-rule Government it would like to be? When one does not like the referee one boots the referee. We on this side of the Chamber are digging deep into our pockets even though we disagree with the referee. 
I note that not a single person opposite has yet picked up my challenge and quoted a single sentence from the 2005 Auditor-General’s report that states that the interpretation of the rules then current was wrong. Such a sentence is not in that report. Indeed what the Auditor-General said in that report was that advertising is broadly defined leaving scope for the inclusion of considerable political content. That is a pretty clear warning to people that what they are doing is wrong is it not? 
Worse than that the member forgot his own party’s record. He went on to ask who paid for the pledge card. He has asked that publicly so many times that it is a wonder he has not heard the answer. It came out of the leader’s budget which is why we argue that in 2005 there was no change because we had done that in two previous elections. Having described all that as—what did he say—“despicable dirty dirty electioneering” he forgot something. The National Party in 2002 placed an advertisement in the newspaper stating: “My pledge to you”. That was Bill English’s pledge—paid for how? By the Parliamentary Service leaders’ vote. Who paid for Bill English’s billboards in 2002? The Parliamentary Service vote. Who paid for National’s billboards on the foreshore and seabed issue in 2004? The Parliamentary Service vote. Who is paying this year—when National members say they knew that the rules had changed completely—for party political questionnaires clearly designed to support the National Party that are going out in electorate after electorate? The Parliamentary Service vote. 
So now Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith PhD is struck somewhat dumb. He has now described his colleagues his former leader his current leader and the National caucus as engaged in despicable dirty dirty electioneering. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Just muddy the waters further. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: He calls this muddying the waters. I do agree—if one throws a Tory into the water it does tend to make the water look dirty. But that has nothing to do with what the Labour Party did. 
I challenge Dr Smith again: what was the National Party leader’s budget spent on in the 3 months leading up to the 2005 election? We have still had no answer on that point from the National Party. The last thing National wanted was the Auditor-General to look into that. We wanted him to but he declined to go beyond the issue of communications. He declined to go back to 2002 and he wonders that we are somewhat critical of his report appearing somewhat partial as a consequence of that. I make no apology for saying that. We do not believe that we did anything wrong but the referee having blown the whistle we will refund the money. In the same way a week or so back my soccer team got a penalty it should not have got. Thank God we won the game because it was the first time we had won for a number of weeks and we are very grateful for that. National is very grateful for the fact that we have to spend a lot of money but by golly it wants the second part of this bill to pass. We have already heard that one member has had his Christmas card expenditure questioned under the rules the Auditor-General has now set. Who paid for Dr Lockwood Smith’s Christmas cards last year? 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I see you— 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: See see see! Dr Lockwood Smith should answer the question. Who paid for his Christmas cards last year? 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Just muddy the waters. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Ah just muddy the waters!