Street Maryan: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Street Maryan: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5830] 
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 The issue that made the material difference in the last election was the fact that previous years of promises had been kept by the Government as opposed to the years before that when the National Party in Government broke promise after promise after promise. That is what made the material difference in the election. As other speakers on this side of the House have said this debate should be to do with restoring faith in political institutions and in Parliament. The National Opposition should in fact be playing its part in doing that by explaining to New Zealanders why legislation like this is necessary. This debate and the circumstances around it have reminded me of that situation whereby the very proud mother is watching the military drill—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is becoming difficult to hear the member. 
MARYAN STREET 
: The debate has reminded me of that situation whereby the very proud mother is watching the military drill and says that everybody is out of step except her Jack. The truth of the matter is that the Auditor-General’s summary and conclusion mean that every party in this House bar one offended according to his definition. Labour will be refunding the money—we have made that perfectly clear. As somebody who has conducted and run Labour Party campaigns nationally—unlike those novices over there—I say to members opposite that we have done the same thing before and that it has never previously been considered illegal. The fact is that this Labour Government—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is impossible to hear the member. As we know the Standing Orders say that interjections are permitted but we are starting to barrack again. If members want to remain in the House to participate they should please lower the tone and give the member the opportunity to be heard. 
MARYAN STREET 
: We have had recounted previously the need for validating legislation to have been used in the past particularly in respect of the Tourism Board but in the history of this Parliament there have been other examples as well. When mistakes have been made or mistakes have been imputed to have been made then validating legislation has sometimes been used by National when in Government. 
My challenge to members opposite is why not elevate this debate for the sake of New Zealanders. Why not take the opportunity to explain the issues adequately? Why not take the opportunity to lead the debate about how democratic processes in this country ought to be funded? What about a debate about disclosure? What about a debate about State funding and its pros and cons? What about leading that debate and taking the opportunity to do it? Does the House know why members opposite cannot do that? Because they have not the wit to do it. If they had— 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague but I am barely more than a metre from her yet I can hardly hear her speak. You have just made a ruling. The barracking is just ridiculous and it is not acceptable. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I am sorry but I cannot hear either so I am afraid some members will be leaving the Chamber if this continues. Unfortunately some members have louder voices than others. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. If you are going to be hard on members on this side of the House for interjecting then I think you need to listen to the content of the speech being delivered. The general tenor of that speech— 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: You can’t hear it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please continue with his point of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Well Madam Speaker is it OK for my points of order to be interrupted by Damien O'Connor? National has had people thrown out of the House left right and centre today for that sort of thing but he apparently can just sit there. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Did the member interrupt? 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: I did. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please leave—from now until the end of today. 
Hon Damien O'Connor withdrew from the Chamber. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please come to the point of his point of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Well the general tenor of that speech is quite insulting to the Opposition— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but I might agree with the member if I could hear it. So would the member please continue. 
MARYAN STREET 
: Thank you Madam Speaker. I was trying my best to make myself heard but I prefer not to raise my voice. The issue is that here we have an opportunity to describe the facts and the reasons for this validating legislation to the public but the Opposition has not the wit to lead or participate in that debate. Those members have not the wit to do it. Here is a moment when some integrity can be restored and when some faith can be held again in political institutions because we are doing the right thing—we are refunding the money. Even though we disagree with the finding that caused that action we will do it because we believe it is necessary to assist in the restoration of integrity and the restoration of faith in the processes. 
There are a number of things I regret about this circumstance. One of the things I regret is the Opposition’s facile opportunism. I regret the lack of integrity of its members in dealing with the real issues. But most of all I regret their inability to seize the moment appropriately. In the end they are probably too limited to recognise my final line as a quotation: “They have not the wit to do it.”