Brownlee Gerry: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — First Reading 
Brownlee Gerry: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5779] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 The explanation from Mr Maharey was an utter disgrace. I ask simply these questions: what definition do we give to the word “thief”; what definition do we give to the word “cheat”; and what do we call a group of people who deliberately take something that is not theirs use it for their own ends then try to hide the fact that they took it in the first place? They are thieves and they are cheats. 
 We are here today only because they were caught. Let me make it very clear to anyone who wants to know with regard to all this talk from Mr Maharey about the need to validate this spending if the Labour Party had not been caught we would not be here today. It is as simple as that. What we have is a bill to cover up the theft by Labour from the taxpayer—a theft that it has now been caught for—and Labour members are all holding up their hands and saying that they are holier than thou and will pay it back. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: When? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well the question is when. I notice that when Labour was caught by the Auditor-General for appropriating some $21 million to advertise its Government programmes and it was later pinged back to only $15 million those members said that it was not much. But I tell you what this morning the Labour caucus found out that $750000 split 50 ways is a huge amount of money. So we do want to know when it will be paid back and we want to know why this legislation does not include that information. 
What I was most fascinated by was the Prime Minister’s reaction on last Monday’s  
Breakfast  
television programme when she was asked about the intention to pass validating legislation. She said: “Oh well that is just a technical thing. We are paying it back. There it ends. Let us move on.” It was classic Helen Clark—13 months of saying that Labour will not pay and of saying that everyone else is wrong except Labour and then it is: “Oh well we will pay. We are moving on. That is the end of that.” 
The rules are extremely clear around this particular issue and they have been for a very long time. For Labour to suggest that they are not is completely disingenuous. I refer Mr Maharey to the Hunn-Lang report of 1990 which was the basis for the establishment of the Parliamentary Service and the rules that go with the expenditure of taxpayer money around parliamentary support in the first place. Apparently we are being told today that these rules have been wrong for the last 16 years and that we have to go right back to that time to sort it all out. Well I say to Mr Maharey that that was a Labour Government report which was put on the Table by no less a person than Sir Geoffrey Palmer and that there is nothing in it that would suggest that any of the behaviour that has gone on before this time was particularly illegal. 
For Dr Cullen to suggest that somehow if this legislation is not passed simple things like MPs’ travel their communication with their constituents and their use of a research facility to find out whether some idea is worthwhile would be completely wrong is of itself wrong. That is what democracy is built on: the idea that we elect some people to think a little bit about the future—some people who can move freely and speak freely. But when it comes to the election period there is no provision and there never has been for some party to confuse its campaign expenditure with its parliamentary expenditure. What we saw from Labour members was a cynical decision to very deliberately pay for the pledge card—and it would appear for a great deal of other advertising—from its Parliamentary Service funding. 
What they knew also because let us remember they had letters from the Auditor-General the Chief Electoral Officer and their own auditors stating that if this pledge card is considered election spending—and they have admitted right from the word go that it was—they would breach their electoral spending cap. It was a breach of section 214B of the Electoral Act as Dr Brash pointed out and in that sense of knowing it makes those members party to a corrupt practice. What we are doing here today is apparently alleviating that situation. Well this Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill will not do that. The question still remains out there for New Zealanders to ask themselves: “Is this a Government that respects the conventions of governance in our country?”. The answer overwhelmingly is “No”. 
We have asked over and over when the Government will pay this money back. What we have had in return is a deafening silence. The reality is that when this bill passes today there will be no legal requirement for the money to be paid back. In fact we might ask ourselves this question. If the pledge card was not illegal because 14 months or so after it was posted out the law changed to make it legal why would one pay the money back? 
The other point that Mr Maharey made was that even if one paid the money back one still has to validate it. Well I want to know why we do not do that every time someone commits benefit fraud or every time the Government pays a prison construction bill that it should not be paying. We could go on and on about where Government appropriations are going in the wrong direction but there is no need to refer back to Parliament. 
Mr Maharey said that it is not unusual to come back for appropriations to be realigned. Those appropriations are usually within the policy confines of a Government. They are not about some Government choosing to stick its hand deep into the pocket of the taxpayer and reach money out for its own political purposes and that is the strong and serious difference we have here. 
I am in possession of some information that tells me the land grab undertaken by Robert Mugabe’s Government in Zimbabwe is perfectly legal because after that Government got in the bulldozers and all those thugs who whipped those people off those farms it passed a law to make that action legal. Although I do not want to exaggerate become carried away and suggest that this Government is operating as if it were a Mugabe-style Government the reality is that the comparison is chillingly close. Mr Hughes shakes his head and says “No no no”. I would ask Mr Hughes why we are here today and why we have this legislation in front of us. If Mr Hughes and his colleagues had not robbed the taxpayer of nearly $1 million we would not be here today. The reality is that this legislation makes perfectly legal the terrible and disgraceful act that the Labour Party committed. Members opposite are saying that it happens all the time. It does not happen all the time. There are appropriation realignments but there are none like the sort of situation we have today where illegal activities are being made legal. 
I reserve my final comments for New Zealand First members who I think have been a very big disappointment on this particular issue. They have a $160000 overspend and a statement from their leader that they will not pay it back but will go to court. Well everyone knows that when this legislation passes—assuming that the House will be compliant enough to pass it—then there is no basis on which to go to court because Mr Peters will be stumping up to court saying: “I am not paying this money back because I did not break the law.” and the judge will say to him: “You are dead right sonny. Fourteen months after you spent the money your mates in the Labour Government made it perfectly legal for you to do so.” So I hope that the New Zealand First members get up today and tell us whether they will accept their moral obligation to repay the money and whether they will accept the fact that New Zealanders expect politicians to repay the money. 
I would also ask the Labour Government members whether we can expect during their speeches today to have put in front of us a time line for when they will repay the money. Finally I want to know why Labour members keep swinging arrows across to this side of the House asking whether National will pay the GST. The answer is “Yes”. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: When? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well unlike the Labour Party we want the law changed so that we can pay. Labour members are changing the law so that they do not have to pay. This is utterly disgraceful legislation and we will be fighting it very hard.