Mapp Wayne: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5862] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I have amendments to Part 2 and they relate to saving and allowing the courts to hear the case of  
Darnton v Clark 
 filed earlier this year. What is Mr Darnton seeking? He is seeking the fundamental right of all citizens to hold the Government to account. We do not do that just through elections. As citizens we also want to know whether Governments and parliamentarians are lawful—whether they obey the law. 
That is one of the fundamental checks in our democracy and there is no more powerful a case on that than  
Fitzgerald v Muldoon 
 when back in 1975 the Government of the day sought to overturn superannuation by a non-legislative procedure. The courts were absolutely emphatic that one cannot do that—that one must pass law to establish the law of the nation. In essence the same principle arises here does it not? Surely it is the right of Mr Darnton to know whether the actions of the Labour Party last year followed the law—whether it breached its Appropriation bills or whether it did not. Surely that is a fundamental right of citizens in holding the Government to account. So what does the Government say? The Government is saying: “No we don’t want the courts to judge our actions. We’re going to pretend”—because that is what we are actually doing today; let us not fool the public here—“that what was unlawful is now lawful as if it never happened.” 
The public will not be fooled by that. The public will judge the parliamentary Labour Party and its followers the New Zealand First Party and United Future harshly for that. They know that the fundamental right of citizens is to have their cases heard and to have judgments from the courts that in essence ask whether these actions—the actions of the parliamentary Labour Party last year—were lawful. It is a fundamental right of citizens to know that. 
Darren Hughes 
: And the National Party. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I might say to the junior whip on the other side that there is a case in the court. The court is adjudicating on whether he obeyed the law. Surely citizens have a right to know whether that was the case. But this Government is saying that it is going to take a high-handed approach and remove the right of citizens to know whether the Government’s actions were lawful as if there were never an issue in the first place. 
I find that reprehensible because Western democracies—countries we model ourselves on—are we say countries of laws. Our actions are judged by independent courts. But in this case the Government says no. It is going to reduce this country to the level of a Third World democracy where courts are routinely browbeaten by the lawmakers of the day and that is of course what this legislation does. The Government is saying to the courts and to the citizens that their rights do not matter. It is saying that it has absolute power and will use it ruthlessly to its own end. Well I say to Mr Deputy Prime Minister that the public will judge it harshly for that. 
That is why I have this amendment today which I ask the Government to actually vote for so that citizens are allowed to have their cases heard and judged to determine simply by a declaration whether those actions were lawful. If those members are true to their word—if they believe in the rule of law—then they will be willing to be judged. They will be willing to have their actions submitted to an independent test of the courts. They can make their submissions to the courts. They have in fact filed a statement of defence. They can have the judges of the High Court the Court of Appeal and their Supreme Court adjudicate to find out whether this Government this parliamentary Labour Party actually obeyed the law. Surely that is a fundamental right of all citizens.