Dunne Peter: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Dunne Peter: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5800] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 In speaking to the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill I want to make my remarks in two parts. The first part deals with the Auditor-General’s report and the response to that and the second deals with the legislation itself. I think that at least one party in the House may not have quite caught up with the news that United Future has agreed to repay the amount deemed owing in the report and we will do so as soon as we are in a position to meet that commitment. 
That commitment will not change with the passage of this legislation. Our view is that although we think there are considerable flaws in the Auditor-General’s report and the logic that he applied to his decisions those considerations actually count for nothing in the public mind. The public is clearly of a view that parties misappropriated their funding and that parties have consequently to make good that misappropriation. Whatever our thinking about the nature of the report and the way it was carried out we will honour that commitment. That stands regardless of the fate of this bill. So I say unequivocally to those who fear that the passage of the legislation may be used as a vehicle to say that what was deemed to be unlawful is therefore now lawful so our obligations do not apply that in our case we do not accept that logic. We accept the commitment and we will meet it. 
The second point I make relates to the bill itself. It has been said—and I think with some truth—that validation measures are not unusual in this Parliament and some very large validation measures have been passed through this Parliament over the years. In fact I recall one for something in the order of $350 million in one instance. In this case Treasury has advised that given its role as the steward of the public finances and looking at the provisions of the Public Finance Act there is now a question—a very real question—about the validity of all parliamentary expenditure under these headings going back to 1989-90. The consequence of a question being asked about the lawfulness of expenditure over a 17-year period raises serious questions for the integrity of the books of successive Governments over that period. Therefore there is a strong case to pass legislation to clarify immediately that that expenditure was in fact lawful; that removes not just a question of doubt over the 2004-05 and 2005-06 years but the question of doubt that Treasury has identified right back to 1989-90. 
I observe in passing that at that level this is just not an argument about parliamentary spending. If the integrity of the books of New Zealand is in question then so too is our integrity in the international financial marketplace and our ability to do business in that sense has been adversely affected. So this legislation becomes more serious and more necessary in that regard. 
The next aspect of the legislation that is important is to clarify the definition of “electioneering”. We may not be in election mode at the moment but it is unclear arising out of the Auditor-General’s report—and particularly if one relies on the advice of the Solicitor-General then looks at the conflicting advice from Mr Hodder—what actually constitutes electioneering at the present time. One thing we can say is that a majority of parties in this House if not all have historically had a view about what one can and cannot say and that view is challenged in the Auditor-General’s report. So at the very least an argument emerges that we need to codify what it is that constitutes election spending and that is what this bill does by taking a very conservative approach in that it effectively replicates what most of us have understood to be the status quo. 
But because there is uncertainty moving forward the bill introduces a sunset clause at the end of next year—31 December 2007—on the strong understanding that in that time the Parliamentary Service Commission members of Parliament and the parties in this Parliament will work to develop new rules that are more specific more transparent less uncertain and less open to the misinterpretation that clearly applied across the board at least in the mind of the Auditor-General before the 2005 general election. So this bill sends a signal in that regard—that it expects further work to be done. 
Members may well ask: “Why the urgency—why the need to do this right now?”. I say two things in response to that. Firstly the Speaker in her response to the Auditor-General’s report last week—and I hope I am not involving her in the debate by quoting her report—highlighted some circumstances that could be occurring right now where expenditure by members on areas they thought were legitimate is brought into question. For the safe and good running of this Parliament and the whole process that we are about that cannot continue unanswered. 
The second point is that my party has already had accounts for payment returned to it by the Parliamentary Service since last week—accounts that in the normal course of events would be paid because they satisfy the conditions—on the grounds that in the wake of the Auditor-General’s report new uncertainties now apply. So we are now getting to the situation where the day-to-day business of this place—and I am not talking about electioneering accounts—is being put in some doubt not by officious bureaucrats but by cautious people saying: “Given that ruling we are uncertain as to how we proceed.” So that is what introduces an element of urgency into this legislation. 
There will be many who will say that this is Parliament rushing to get itself out of a hole. I do not think that is true because even by making lawful what the Auditor-General has deemed to be unlawful in my view we do not remove the moral obligation on those who have accepted it to repay the debts that have been attributed to them. But what we do is remove the uncertainty that now affects the Crown accounts that now affects the way in which this Parliament operates and the big question that hangs not so much over us but over the staff who support us about what they can actually do as part of their normal duties helping us do the work we are elected to do. 
This has not been one of Parliament’s most glorious moments. This has not been a happy affair whatever position one takes in relation to it. But the reality is that we need to act decisively to resolve it. Given the commitments that most parties have made to meet the obligations imposed upon them by the Auditor-General we need now to tidy up this situation so there can be no uncertainties in the future. 
I hope that parties do not take the view that this lets them off the hook. United Future takes the view that we have some obligations imposed upon us by the Auditor-General’s report. In the case of a very small party they are very big obligations. I was tempted at the beginning to declare a massive financial interest in this because it certainly is for my bank balance. That is actually not the point. We accept that responsibility we move on and now we make sure that the rules that emerge as a result of this exercise are ones that are robust clearly understood able to be supported by all and not subject to the sort of misinterpretation misunderstanding and unruly and sometimes very bitter debate that the experience of the last election has occasioned.