Cosgrove Clayton: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5820] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Finance) 
: 
 This debate centres on restoring public confidence in the institution that is Parliament. Members of the public who are listening tonight could be forgiven for thinking that everybody has inadvertently been caught by the Auditor-General broadening the definition of what was appropriate—everybody except the National Party. Tonight we have heard a whole lot of invective a series of auditions by the “super - front bench” of Simon Power and John Key. Interestingly Katherine Rich has remained—quite logically and smartly—very silent. But people would be forgiven tonight for thinking that everybody had inadvertently sinned apart from the National Party. I could remind National Party members that they got caught by the same broadening of the same definition to the tune of around $10000. They got caught by the same definitional broadening as every other party in this House yet they conveniently sit here tonight pretending they are lily-white they did no wrong and everybody else inadvertently sinned apart from them. Well there is a word for that. 
This Government—it is true—did not act on a draft leaked report. This Government did not have a rush of blood to the head—that is true. This Government did not play politics with the issue—that is true. This Government waited until we had a final report and then reacted to that. Anybody with a logical mind—and I do not include Nick Smith in that definition—anybody with a calm low-tempered mind who did not turn red as he or she took a third glass of water would think that that was a logical procedure to undergo unless one had a brainwave or a rush of blood to the cranium as one or two people over that side of the Chamber are wont to do. 
When we talk about validating legislation let us look at some of the past precedents when there has been inadvertent use of appropriations. The “Prince of Darkness” Murray McCully came down and as Michael Cullen quite rightly said tried to lecture us on what was moral fibre. I remind Mr McCully that back in 1995 and 1996 there was a thing called the Tourism Board. There was a mess-up in appropriations of around $56 million and the expenditure could not be aligned with the appropriations. So what did National do? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Call in the medics. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Yes Mr Smith is nodding in agreement with Mr Brownlee. That member might need a medic or a weight-watcher—one of the two. What did Mr McCully do and what did the National Government do? They validated $56 million worth of expenditure. They validated that $56 million of expenditure because that is the appropriate thing to do as per the Treasury advice. So they validated $56 million of misappropriated tourism expenditure in 1995-96. Members opposite cannot have it both ways and that is where Mr Hide’s logic as Mr Copeland pointed out falls down. If we have mismatches in appropriations for departments for instance year to year the National Party says: “Leave it. Let it sit. She’s right.” Mr Brownlee says that. That shows how much he knows about the finances and the books. Then the Auditor-General raises it every year and we look like a laughing stock as a First World economy. That is what validation is for and that is why the National Government did it to the tune of $56 million in 1995 and 1996. 
I say this: if we are going to get the ledger right and if the National Party is going to portray itself as lily-white in the whole scheme of things then I ask National members to do this. As Dr Cullen said Simon Power knows as a lawyer—I am not; he is—that $112000 of GST presents absolutely no barrier in respect of the National Party paying that back. If National members want to bring back confidence in this institution they should tell us what they did with their leader’s budget because the Auditor-General had a problem. The Auditor-General could find Labour’s records of expenditure but there was a bit of murk around the National Party leadership budget. He could not quite find the records. I also say this. When it comes to fronting up as Steve Maharey said: “Tell us about the trusts Gerry. Tell us about those. Tell us why you hide the money.” 
The second thing I say is that in respect of the Exclusive Brethren we had the biggest attempted hoodwink in political history to the tune of $1.2 million. I ask those members to come clean. Will John Key tell us whom he met with that afternoon? If we look at the reruns shown on television we see that the faces are blacked out. Can he tell us whom he met? He could have given a personal explanation when he protested about the fact he was challenged on it. He could have given a personal explanation which is unchallengeable in Parliament and which is also on the record of the House but he chose not to do so. I also say that National members should tell us about the legal representation that the Brethren have received. I ask the lawyers in the National Party those formerly from law firms to tell us about the legal representation that for a long time the Brethren have received and the connection there. Dare I say and they know who they are that there is an untold story that will be told at some point. Tell us what favours were accrued in that respect! Tell us what promises were made! 
If members opposite are serious about restoring integrity transparency and confidence in what is probably the most important institution in the land then they cannot debate in this House hour on hour and say they did not sin when they did sin to the tune of $10000 at least. They were caught by the same rules as every other political party in this House but that has been conveniently forgotten in the minds of National members. They were caught by the same broadening of the definition as every other party and that is a fact. Nick Smith accused one of our members of getting in the gutter when that member reminded him of that. I say that Mr Smith has broadened the definition of gutter politics because now under that definition when facts are raised that Dr Smith does not agree with he hides behind that little smug definition. I say to the National members that they should front up. They have spent their hours in the House being holier than thou. They have commitments from all the political parties as to where they stand. It is an open sea now. 
But the unanswered questions around the last election remain. The unanswered questions are about collusion with a sect that is quite happy as Steve Maharey said to send other people’s kids overseas to be killed but not theirs; that is quite happy to go around the country saying: “We are praying for you all.” As a Catholic but not such a good one—Mr Brownlee and I would agree on that—I say that National members should front up that they should not try to hoodwink the public. They should not have a sort of Ronald Reagan amnesia as Dr Brash did: “I cannot recall.” How many times did he say that he could not remember whom he met with what he said what commitments were given and what he was told? I say to Mr Brownlee—because he and I both know the truth—that like some other members he feels exceptionally uncomfortable about that situation. 
We now have a bill that opens the whole thing up but the questions remain on that side of the House. I challenge members opposite to tell us about the trusts to tell us when they will pay back the GST and tell us why they validated $56 million of misappropriated expenditure in 1995 and 1996. Then when they have answered those questions they can stand up and portray themselves as lily-white. The next cab off the rank is the scone-doer from Tasman.