Mallard Trevor: Appropriation (2009/10 Supplementary Estimates) Bill Imprest Supply (First for 2010/11) Bill — Second Readings 
Mallard Trevor: Appropriation (2009/10 Supplementary Estimates) Bill Imprest Supply (First for 2010/11) Bill — Second Readings 
[Volume:664;Page:11888] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I move  
That the amendment in the name of Hon David Cunliffe be amended by adding the following after “fluctuations”: “and because the Government will not provide for the validation of borrowing by King’s High School Dunedin and the allocation of funds to the repayment of loans relating to the Performing Arts Centre at no net cost to the Crown”.  
That is an issue that I have undertaken to bring up on every occasion. On this particular occasion it will not add time to the debate but there is an issue of gross injustice for a particular school. It is one that members of the Education and Science Committee know a lot about. It is something on which we have received support from the ACT Party in the past. I have undertaken to bring it up. 
There will be occasions when matters that would have otherwise gone straight through the House will be delayed as a result of an amendment of this nature being moved. I want today though to focus on one particular issue and that is the declarations made by the Attorney-General and their veracity. There has been some publicity recently about declarations—careless declarations I think they could be described as—in relation to Jonathan Young’s declaration of pecuniary interest. He has moved to correct that. This week we want to address the issue of the hapless Chris Finlayson who is already in serious trouble for the way he kept on changing his description of his relationship with a Supreme Court judge in whose favour he intervened and especially because he did not inform either the Prime Minister or the Cabinet of— 
Jo Goodhew 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your assistance in determining whether what is being spoken of here in the House at the moment by the member opposite is within the scope of the bill that we are debating. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The point I am getting to is whether the appropriation is sufficient for the inquiry that will result from the errors that Mr Finlayson has made. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: This is a bit of new territory for me. I will have to take a little advice from the Clerk. I was trying to sort out a couple of other technical details at the time the speech began. This is an appropriation debate. I would like to hear from Mr Mallard if he has a point to make why the personal declaration that the member is making reference to is within the scope of an appropriation debate. It seems to me at the moment that it is beyond the scope of the appropriation. If he can put forward an argument that it is within the scope I am willing to listen to it. But at this moment I think he is out of scope. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I reiterate the point that I made and it was about the next point that I was going to make: that it is important that the appropriations be sufficient to finance the inquiry which could well end up being a royal commission of inquiry into the approach that the— 
Jo Goodhew 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am speaking to a point of order. 
Jo Goodhew 
: Oh I am sorry; you did not say so. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I was invited to speak to a point of order by the Speaker. The point that I am trying to make Mr Speaker is that it is my view that there must be an appropriation for a commission especially a royal commission of inquiry. The point that I am trying to establish is that there will have to be an inquiry set up by the Prime Minister or the Minister of Internal Affairs into that area. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: If the member is going to seek an extension to the appropriation for an inquiry I think that is fine. But if the member is referring to pecuniary interests as I heard him do before then that is out of scope. So if the member wants to keep it to that I will let him continue as long as it is directed at the appropriation. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Get some more advice on it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The Clerk advises me that it is a public affairs amendment and it is therefore in scope. Yes I have got— 
Craig Foss 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Excuse me Mr Speaker but I also seek your assistance. The member opposite Trevor Mallard—and thank you for that clarification—was also starting to reference members of our Supreme Court and matters that are under review there. I seek your advice Mr Speaker whether it was appropriate that those names are mentioned as I think the member was going down that track. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is not my intention to further mention that and I did not anyway. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member did make reference to the Supreme Court inquiries but did not mention any particulars about it. He stopped one yard short of it. The member Craig Foss’ point of order is well made. The Hon Trevor Mallard has indicated that he has no intention of going in that direction nor should he. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The only point that I am making in this area is that the Attorney-General failed to inform Cabinet of his intention to intervene and he failed to inform the Prime Minister when he ran into trouble. That is the reason that he already has problems. The Attorney-General helped to set up a company in 2006 after he became a member of Parliament. He became a director of it then and he has failed to declare it on any return since that date. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am aware of your previous rulings on this matter. I think the Hon Trevor Mallard was straying well outside the topic of the debate. He may well have just completely defied you with the statement he made in the House while you were in discussions with the Clerk. This is an appropriation debate and those matters are not part of that debate. It is not a general debate; it is not particularly wide ranging. Relevance should be something that I think the Chair looks at in this debate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The ruling I gave earlier was on advisement from the Clerk at the Table. The Clerk’s advice was that the member had moved an amendment about those matters which involved an appropriation. Therefore the member was entitled to speak about them. That is the advice I got from the Clerk. I have cautioned the member that he is to speak specifically to that amendment and keep himself well constrained within that. As long as he does then he remains within the ambit of this debate. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I assume then that if I go to the Table I can pick up a copy of the amendment. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: A copy of the amendment should be on the Table. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: There are two amendments sitting there. This debate is also on an Imprest Supply Bill so it is very broad—it is absolutely broad. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: But why are they not on the Table here? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I ask the Clerk whether the amendment is on the Table. If the member has moved it the amendment should be available. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Well could I have one? Could you direct me to where it might be? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Well we cannot hold up the debate for that. I will ask— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: We can’t have a debate if members do not know what they are debating for goodness’ sake. That is why we have bills on the Table. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I will just deal with this matter first. We have a slight difficulty. The member moved an amendment in the House and spoke to it at that time so all members who were here would have heard it. There is nothing unusual about that. The amendment as I understand it is in typewritten form and it should be on the Table. If it is not then I will ask the Clerk to attend to it and make sure that Mr Brownlee has a copy of it immediately. But I assure him that the member when he started his speech read out the amendment to the House and thereby in reading it—as in a first reading—has now made it available to the House. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just ask you for further advice on relevance here. I thought that part of the debate was the second reading of the Imprest Supply (First for 2010/11) Bill. Is that the case? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: As I understand it that is the case. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well that is a very broad debate. It is about the financing of the Government for the first 3 months of the next financial year until the Budget goes through. I do not think there is a wider debate than that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I draw members’ attention to the motion moved by the Hon Bill English that the Appropriation (2009/10 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2010/11) Bill be now read a second time. That is the question that is before the House. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I will go back to the point I was making which is to ask the Government whether there is enough money allocated by the Imprest Supply (First for 2010/11) Bill to finance a commission of inquiry into the declarations made by the Hon Chris Finlayson. The Standing Orders are very clear; clause 4(1) of Appendix B states: “Every return of pecuniary interests must contain the following information as at the effective date of the return: (a) the name of each company of which the member is a director …”. The 2008 Privileges Committee report makes it very clear that it is up to every member to ascertain make clear and understand their own pecuniary interests and to declare them. The report concerned the Peters case on that occasion. The Office of the Clerk has recently been quoted as stating: “Members are required to declare the name of each company of which the MP is a director …” and at the very worst non-declaration “could be contempt of the House if an MP has knowingly provided false information to the House.” 
I submit to the House the words of the then Leader of the Opposition Don Brash when he said: “Lawyers are the professionals we depend on in our society to ensure the accuracy of the documents that they sign. They should not sign documents knowing them to be false under any circumstances. For the most senior law official in the land the Attorney-General to have done so not once but on several occasions is a serious matter. Mr Parker was right to tender his resignation. I commend him for that.” I will now quote the leader of the ACT Party Rodney Hide when he said: “I say to Helen Clark that her Government now lacks integrity and honesty. I think that filing a false statement a statutory document when one is the Attorney-General and a Minister of the Crown is unacceptable. I think this issue does need a full investigation. I say to the House that it is an important job to hold Ministers to account. That is what Parliament does—that is our Westminster parliamentary democracy.” 
David Parker stood down because there was doubt as to whether he had signed an incorrect statement. As it turned out he had not; he was reinstated to the executive but because there was doubt about that and because he had not been sure he was not reinstated to the Attorney-General role. It appears on the face of the documents that Mr Finlayson has signed a false statement every year since March 2006. His declarations cannot be accurate— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The assertion made by the Hon Trevor Mallard is I think to say the least outrageous but also completely spurious. If Mr Mallard was in any way convinced by his own argument quite clearly he would have gone to the remedy available to him in the Standing Orders. Rather he is indulging himself at the expense of the dignity of the House in what is effectively an orchestrated attempt to take down a member when there is no such case to answer. I have looked at the motion by the Hon Bill English. I am looking at the second reading amendment by the Hon David Cunliffe. I am looking at the second reading amendment by the Hon Trevor Mallard. Regardless of the claim that an Imprest Supply Bill allows a wider debate the member himself has said that it is about the first 3 months of funding available to the Government. I think that where we are heading at the moment is well outside what would be expected in this debate and the member does himself no credit by having completely failed to accept the remedy that is readily available to him should there have been any validity in the comments he is now trying to put across to the House. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think the assumption that the member is making is that the declaration of pecuniary interests is wrong. It may be that the Companies Office declarations are wrong. It may be that the declaration that has been made to the Chief Registrar of Electors—which I will get to soon—is wrong. I do not know which of the documents are accurate; they are inconsistent. Mr Finlayson has made three separate declarations. Therefore I have chosen to bring up the matter this way as is my right. I have not suggested a breach of privilege because that would work on the assumption that the Companies Office declaration was right and the declaration made to the Registrar of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament was wrong. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: It is a serious matter— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: It is a very serious matter— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: —and I think the member in his protestations in that little offering to the House has condemned his own course of action. He has previously said that he believes that those matters should be investigated. The way in which he can have that investigation—or could have had that investigation—is firstly to write to the member seeking a clarification. Mr Finlayson is a very senior lawyer who is very well respected in the profession and I am quite sure he is not a man given to making mistakes. Secondly had the member followed that course of action and gone into the issue of privilege there would have been an inquiry quite naturally conducted by the Speaker. I think the problem we have here is that the Registrar of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament requires that members act honourably in the disclosures they make in that register. So we are indulging Mr Mallard this afternoon in allowing him to impugn the reputation of a member simply because he himself has failed to follow the right process to get to the bottom of what clearly appears to be a matter causing him to lose sleep. It is a nonsense. It is outside the confines of this debate by any stretch of the imagination or by any tolerance that might normally be allowed and I suggest that it is inappropriate in this debate for those allegations to be laid on the Table of the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I want to put a couple of things on the table. Firstly I am not in a position to measure the rights and wrongs of this. Members who make statements in this House are entitled to do so and they can be held accountable for them if they are found to have overstepped the mark by claim and counterclaim. If the claims made are utterly without foundation and they have affected a member’s reputation then members who are so offended can take the matter to the Privileges Committee. Members do not have an untrammelled right to take a member’s reputation down in this House; that is clear. I refer members to that worthy book  
McGee 
. On the subject of the Address in Reply and the Budget debates McGee writes that in practice there is virtually no limitations to those debates on the grounds of relevancy. So according to  
McGee 
 and the advice I have received from the Clerk this is a very free-ranging debate without limits and on that basis I invite Mr Mallard to speak. But before that I will hear a point of order from the Hon Gerry Brownlee. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is some absurdity in what you are suggesting if I might suggest so. It would seem then that if someone came into this House and used his or her speaking slot to recite nursery rhymes during a debate like this that would be perfectly acceptable. I think it would in fact be trifling with the House. I think it would be stretching the House’s tolerance for such an action to be taken. I think there is no difference though between that and coming into the House and deciding to run out a series of allegations designed to besmirch the reputation of a member which is a style of politics well known to be the trademark of the Hon Trevor Mallard and I think it is inappropriate in this debate. The Speaker is not bound by Mr McGee’s writings much referred to though that large volume might be. The Speaker’s responsibility is to ensure that Parliament itself is not the subject of disreputable behaviour or trifling with the right to speak freely in this House. Indeed the Speaker has a responsibility equally to ensure that the rights of members are not unduly trampled upon in the processes of this House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I will just respond to that before I call the Hon Trevor Mallard. All those things are very good but I say to the member that from my own experience these debates have always been free ranging and wide ranging. On occasions it has been so wide that I have wondered what points members were trying to make. If members got up and recited nursery rhymes I am sure they would receive public opprobrium for that. That is one of the constraints on the debate. But in this particular debate if the member makes accusations at the end of the debate the member will be held accountable for them. I am sure the member is well aware of that. Whatever he says will be noted and he will be held to account for it. The member has received the warning from the Hon Gerry Brownlee to tread cautiously. I think he has received that loud and clear and he has 3 minutes and 33 seconds remaining. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. On 9 March 2006 at 11 minutes past 1—and 33 seconds—there was an application to incorporate a company known as Te Puhi Trustee (2) Ltd. Associated with that is a document that is signed by one C F Finlayson of 42 Molesworth Street. That company has filed returns online since then on 20 February 2007 17 April 2008 27 April 2009 and 9 March 2010. Those returns are very similar other than the fact that there was a change in the online particulars of directors to do with one C F Finlayson in the 2010 return. I say that only to emphasise the fact that in 2010 again Mr Finlayson was aware of the fact that he was a director of that company which he had not declared. 
There is another matter that I will refer to and that is the fact that Mr Finlayson enrolled on 20 June 2008 at 69 High Street Island Bay. As at 5 minutes ago he had not changed that enrolment. So we have a situation where someone is enrolled at one place which must be his place of residence and is declaring to the Companies Office another place which must also be his place of residence. That is a matter I think for the registrar— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Sounds like David Cunliffe. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No—that is the approach that Bill English has taken but I understand that he has corrected that now. All I am saying about the Attorney-General is that in the words of the then Leader of the Opposition Don Brash: “Lawyers are the professionals we depend on in our society to ensure the accuracy of the documents that they sign. They should not sign documents knowing them to be false under any circumstances. For the most senior law official in the land”—that is not quite right—“the Attorney-General to have done so not once but on several occasions is a serious matter. Mr Parker”—that is to whom he was referring—“was right to tender his resignation.” I want to know now whether the standards that National members say apply to Labour Attorneys-General apply to National Attorneys-General too. Is it all right for their Attorney-General to make false declaration after false declaration and continue to hold the role or is he the most senior law official—not in the land but in this Parliament—and should we expect him to uphold the standards of the House?