Smith Nick: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Smith Nick: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5822] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 Tonight is a really sad and depressing time for this Parliament. I know of no time in my 17 years when I have seen a bill that will bring this Parliament into as much disrepute as the bill before us. It is a matter of folklore that in 1987 when we had the last Labour Government an MPs’ superannuation bill was bunged through late at night through all three stages that went down in political folklore as one of the great breaches of the public trust. Even this year the New Zealand public remember that duplicitous act. Well this piece of legislation—[ 
Interruption 
] He is just breaking my speech up. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It should be pointed out that the National Party’s voting record on that superannuation bill— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No that is not a point of order. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: They voted— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am on my feet. It is not a point of order. The member has been here long enough and he knows that. Frivolous interjections or points of order used to break up a speech are themselves disorderly. The member is warned. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I seek leave for my speech to begin at its original 10-minute time to take into account that that was deliberate breach of the Standing Orders aimed at breaking up my speech. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I will consider that Dr Smith. 
Darren Hughes 
: He’s so embarrassing we agree. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: They are agreeing. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Tonight is one of those sad depressing times when every member of this Parliament knows that we are bringing this democratic institution on which the tender flower of democracy is based into gross disrepute. Why are we passing a bill under urgency to make lawful what Labour had done that was unlawful? We are being asked simply to rush a bill through to somehow make Labour’s breaking of the law right. Well no matter how many bills those members pass and no matter how many pathetic speeches we hear from the likes of Clayton Cosgrove the public of New Zealand knows that this is rotten that it is sick and that it is the hallmark of a corrupt Government. 
I use the word “corrupt” with care and wisely because the question that no member opposite has answered is this: “Was the pledge card electioneering?”. Well Mr Clayton Cosgrove has a lot to say for himself. I ask whether he could answer that point for the House whether the pledge card was electioneering. The silence is deafening because every member of the public who received Helen Clark’s pledge card knew that it was electioneering and every Labour Party volunteer who delivered that pledge card knew that it was electioneering but there are two people—Helen Clark and Heather Simpson—who told the police that it was not. What does that say about the leadership of the Labour Party that it will try to put that sort of porky past the New Zealand Police? 
The reason that this issue is so sick and so rotten is that a fundamental part of our electoral law is the spending cap. It limits Labour’s spending at $2.4 million. What the Labour Party did during that election campaign was to knowingly breach that cap not by a little bit—not by 1 percent or 2 percent—but Labour spent more than it was allowed to spend by $820000. Under the Electoral Act that amounts to a corrupt practice in the law. I say to members opposite who watched with glee as my colleague Bob Clarkson was put through the courts: “If he had got it wrong would we be having retrospective legislation to make sure that he could keep his seat in Parliament?”. In fact I know that Bob Clarkson is a member of integrity. He would not have had the audacity to ask for retrospective legislation if he had got it wrong. So I ask how 50 members of the Labour Party can sit in their seats in this Parliament when they know that they were elected through deliberately breaching the Electoral Act and committing a corrupt practice. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: They’re illegitimate. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: My colleague Maurice Williamson says they are illegitimate. There is another word for that but I will not lower the standards of the House by saying it. I challenge the Steve Mahareys the Harry Duynhovens and the George Hawkins to tell the House how they can sit in this Parliament when they know that they came here on the basis of a corrupt practice. What sort of moral mandate do they have? How can a Minister of Revenue go to the people of New Zealand and say they should pay their taxes according to the law when that Minister has broken the law? How can a social welfare Minister in this Government say that those thousands of New Zealanders who claim social welfare benefits should fill out their forms honestly when that Minister did not do that and broke the law? How can Labour members sit in a Cabinet room passing laws and expect New Zealanders to obey those laws when they break them they break them blatantly and then they introduce a dodgy bill into this Parliament to say that even though they have broken the law they will just pass a bill retrospectively under urgency to somehow make the situation lawful? 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: What did the judge say about you? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It may make it lawful I say to Mr Cosgrove but it is wrong and the people of Waimakariri know that it is wrong. Tonight this Government loses the moral mandate to be the Government of New Zealand. With this bill it loses the moral mandate to govern this country. 
Then we come to the Auditor-General and the disgraceful conduct that this Government has gone down the road of—and for me it was particularly interesting in regard to the Solicitor-General. People may recall that the Solicitor-General believed that I broke a law and at the time Labour members said that I had to face the consequences. They said I had to roll over to the High Court and face the music. Would Labour members—who actually passed a law only 3 months later repealing the very law under which I was prosecuted—have accepted a retrospective clause to undo it? Not on your life! Not on your nelly! That is how duplicitous those members are. 
Then we come to what is proposed in this bill in respect of electoral spending. This bill will—under urgency—override the Auditor-General’s report. The Auditor-General’s report provides us with complete clarity now about what we can and cannot do. Any members who pretend that there is any doubt now as to what is lawful and what is not are kidding themselves but has Labour accepted the ruling of the Auditor-General? I know that the people of New Zealand have. I see that the Auditor-General is already being nominated as the New Zealander of the year. 
So have Labour members said: “OK the rules are there now and we will accept them.”? No—what we have in this bill is to provide a new meaning of what funding entitlements for parliamentary purposes are which basically throws the Auditor-General’s report into the bin and allows Labour to get its sneaky little fingers back in the tin of public money and back to its old tricks of using public money for political purposes. 
Let us remind ourselves of just what is in this sneaky little bill that Labour wants to pass tonight. Clause 7 states that the term “funding entitlements for parliamentary purposes” is to include performing the roles and functions of a party. That is State funding for political parties in drag. Under this bill the pledge card would be quite lawful. I think that there is a good chance there will be a snap election or an early election in this term such will be the loss of public confidence in this lot that pretend that they are a Government. If we have an election before the end of next year Labour will again be able to produce a pledge card and again have it funded by the taxpayer. I simply ask whether that is the public will. 
I would ask Labour members whether they have asked their constituents whether they want legislation that will allow the Labour Party to use public funds for political purposes again. Have they asked their constituents whether they want legislation that would allow another dodgy pledge card to be funded by the taxpayer? You see this bill is really State funding for political parties in drag. What Labour is doing quite sneakily quite secretively and under urgency is passing legislation to allow it to put its sneaky fingers back into the public tin again—and National says that that is wrong. 
The final point I will make in my contribution to the second reading is to ask why the need for urgency. Why has the Prime Minister not contributed to this debate? It is because Labour members know in their heart of hearts that this is a morally corrupt law and that they are throwing away their mandate to govern. This is the nail in the coffin of this Labour Government’s mandate to govern.