King Colin: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
King Colin: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5855] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is quite interesting to hear those members across the Chamber say the New Zealand public are not overly interested in this issue. The inside front page of this morning’s  
Dominion Post  
refers to the “day of shame” and quite honestly that is the position that this House has been put in. 
In speaking to Part 1 I say that it is quite worthwhile mentioning that some very meaningful amendments have been suggested to clause 3 and I look forward to the Committee giving serious consideration to proposed paragraphs (c) and (d) to underscore the importance that the money will be paid back. There is also a proposed paragraph (d) courtesy of Dr Wayne Mapp that there can be public confidence that this is the case. It is quite important that serious consideration is given to this bill so that we do go some way to restoring the confidence that this House should have in the minds and aspirations of all New Zealanders. 
I would like to consider the purpose clause in Part 1. It is quite interesting when we look at a reasonable definition of the word “purpose”. It is the reason for which anything is done created or exists. So that is a fair definition of the purpose clause. I would also like to draw members’ attention to the definition of validation. A fair meaning of validation is to give legal force for the purpose of confirming an action. What we are talking about here is making an illegal act legal. We have had that summarised to represent a sum of some $14000 per electorate. We are talking about something that is hugely significant. 
In Part 1 we are talking about validation in a bill that will try to make straight something that was terribly wrong. There is a proverbial saying that once something has been made crooked it cannot be made straight. What are we referring to here? We are referring to Parliamentary Service money that was wrongly used for the purposes of electioneering. The members on the other side of the Chamber—namely Labour Government members—would tell us that this all happened incidentally and by pure accident and was unintended. I contend the Labour Government knowingly and deliberately ignored the rules governing such spending and as such we are now confronted with this validation of expenditure. 
I like the way it is put in clause 3(a) which states: “that may have been outside the scope or purpose of an appropriation …”. We know quite categorically and all New Zealanders know when they read the papers published throughout the country that this action was deliberate. Labour arrogantly breaks laws and will in the future and will justify those actions because it thinks it is above the law. The old saying “A leopard doesn’t change its spots” sums it up. 
We know that a lot has gone on. We know that David Henry the then Chief Electoral Officer telephoned wrote beseeched and communicated with the Labour Party campaign committee. The Minister of Finance Dr Cullen introduced this bill and it would be very interesting to know just how much he knew. I contend there was a deliberate mind-set at that time when the sign-off was given to the “Helen Clark - taxpayer funded” pledge card. Labour’s state of mind was: “We’ll get away with this. We’ll put through validating legislation after the fact and if we play our cards right the Auditor-General will have smoke and mirrors around him. We’ll ensure that this issue won’t come up until some 12 months after election day when the public will have forgotten about it.” I say that Labour is guilty on all counts.