Rich Katherine: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Rich Katherine: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5867] 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 I am delighted to rise in opposition to the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill which all National Party members have spoken out against wholeheartedly. It is interesting to hear Dr Cullen’s comments because he wants to create the impression that somehow all parties are in the same boat and that all parties have erred equally. Well I would like to hear him explain why he runs that point when the Labour Party spent some 14000 times what the Maori Party spent unlawfully. Dr Cullen overlooks the fact that the Labour Party spent 70 times the amount spent by the National Party. Dr Cullen wants the public to believe that this is somehow about validating Parliamentary Service expenditure. Well it is not. It is about validating Labour Party expenditure in the last election. It is about validating the expenditure on the pledge card. 
When Kiwis got their pledge card in the mail most did not think for one second that they had paid for it. Most Kiwis thought that it would have been paid for by the Labour Party. The Labour Party was told that it was an electioneering expense and we have heard Pete Hodgson confirm that it was an electioneering expense. So this bill is all about validating that expenditure and opening the door for the Labour Party to do it again in the next election. Well I do not think there is a member of the public who thinks that is a good use of parliamentary time. I do not think there is a member of the public who believes that is the reason we are here—to pass legislation that makes up for the Labour Party’s mistakes. 
One other point is that Dr Cullen also overlooks the fact that if one looks at the major area where there has been some debate one sees it is in the area of the leaders’ budgets. While he calls on the National Party to expose what we spent our leader’s budget on I do not see him offering to the public information on what Helen Clark spent her leadership budget on other than the pledge card. Well we know that the pledge card was unlawful and this is all about validating the pledge card so that Labour can do it in the future. 
It is also about heading off a court case. Although members on that side of the Committee might be feeling delirious and slightly sick at having to get out their cheque books and write personal cheques this is all about ensuring that they do not have to have their day in court. It is typical Labour Party behaviour—when the chips are down it will change the law to suit itself. It is quite obvious that Helen Clark has misjudged this situation. For months she kept saying that this was an issue that was not of interest to anybody past the beltway. She ignored the fact that every single paper did an editorial slamming her position. She ignored the fact that talkback ran hot day after day calling on her and the Labour Party to pay it back and proving to her that it was not an issue just for the beltway. 
I turn my attention to some of the fine amendments put up by my colleagues Chris Finlayson and Wayne Mapp. I would like members of this Committee to stand up and explain why they will not allow an amendment to be inserted that would require parties to pay the money back. Peter Brown is sitting there. I have not seen him take a call but I would like to hear why New Zealand First is trying to wriggle out of its obligations and why it will not support an amendment to ensure that the money is paid back. The way this bill reads at the moment once it is passed and becomes an Act all expenditure will be validated and will not be required to be paid back. In fact some members—it will not matter what they have done with their budget—will not be required to do anything because it will all be valid expenditure. 
We have seen some spurious contributions from the Labour members. They want us to believe that everything they have done was kosher. Well it was not and four different independent Government organisations have told them that it was not. They were told before the last election that they were to include the pledge card in their election expenses. The amount that they overspent on the election—frankly buying the election—is an issue that should be dealt with separately.