Cullen Michael: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5864] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I first of all draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that there is literally a small technical amendment to be made to clause 7(1)(c) and (d) which involves simply a matter of getting the technical terminology correct and we come back now to one or two key points. First of all let me make it clear that the Labour Party accepts the Auditor-General’s view is that unlawful appropriations occurred and that they occurred across all parties except for the Progressive party. But one thing that appears to be now established is that the National Party is the only party that claims it did so knowingly; all other parties claim they engaged in unlawful expenditure unknowingly. 
As we respect the person who determines the rules around this matter we will be refunding the expenditure involved. If the National Party were in the same position of course it would not do so because it shows its contempt for whoever is the referee almost daily if not hourly within this Chamber. The challenging of the Speaker’s authority is more than an hourly occurrence; it has taken sometimes all of an hour continuously in this House. But Labour does believe that the Auditor-General’s opinion is wrong and that it is certainly unworkable. 
Even Mr Brownlee this morning in the Parliamentary Service Commission meeting finally began to understand what the implications were— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: You weren’t told. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is not a select committee; I am sorry. It is not bound by the rules of privilege. 
Hon Member 
: You can’t talk about it. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I can talk about that and I am going to. Mr Brownlee had it explained to him with the General Manager of the Parliamentary Service and the accountant present what the implications were of the Auditor-General’s ruling and what it would mean if he went to a meeting in Auckland. If questions started being raised about National Party policy and he answered those that could render invalid the expenditure of the money engaged entirely in that visit. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I think it is worth pointing out that Dr Cullen was not at the meeting this morning and that the situation he outlines was a most absurd and preposterous suggestion put to the commission by Mr Mark Burton the “justice Minister extraordinaire” who is behaving as if he were some sort of sycophant to the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General. In no way does this reflect a reasonable approach to the Auditor-General’s report. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. That was not a point of order and the member knows it was not a point of order. It is a matter for debate. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. You simply cannot sit there and condone Ministers of the Crown getting up and purporting to give an accurate report of meetings that they have not attended. That is misusing the parliamentary process. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Mr Brownlee I should warn you that I have ruled on that point of order. It is clearly a point of debate. There is no way that the Chairperson can know about the content and be in a position to rule on that matter. It is a point of debate as are all the things that you raised. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I also come to this point. The extraordinary claim made by Mr Ardern who appears to have inhaled the tractor fumes rather too much recently was that somehow or other no parliamentary funding is ever used for political activity. I ask whether he would care to explain to me what paid for National Party billboards in 2002 what paid for National Party billboards on the foreshore and seabed legislation in 2004 what paid—this year—for questionnaires with politically leading questions being put out by National Party MPs around the country and what paid for their pledge advertising in 2002. 
And when Mr Ardern finally realises that all that funding came from the Parliamentary Service could he tell us something else because yesterday I challenged National members and I have not had an answer. What did they spend their leader’s budget on in the few months before the 2005 election? What was it spent on? Was none of that money to do with the election at all? It was all about flower arranging was it in what was purported to be Ms Bennett’s office when she finally got here after the election? Was it nothing to do with Bryan Sinclair nothing about polling nothing about anything else? [ 
Interruption 
] Oh they are not going to commit themselves to saying that—because we know. 
The point is that the Auditor-General did not look at it and he said himself that he is aware of other practices that could be unlawful but did not have a sufficient audit trail. Well why not? 
If we look at the National Party’s own advertising contract and I have in front of me the report we see no written arrangements were entered into for conducting the advertising campaign despite the amount of money involved—nearly $1 million a year spent. A contract was entered into without a written agreement so the police could not pin down who overspent with the GST. So the National Party escaped prosecution. [ 
Interruption 
] Well I will quote it to the member; I thank him for that. “The issue for police is to establish in the absence of a written agreement what each person communicated to and understood from the other party. Police cannot attribute responsibility for the GST overexpenditure to either the New Zealand National Party or their advertising agency Rainmakers and are not therefore in a position to charge either person.” That party deliberately made sure there was no documentary trail in the same way that there was no audit trail on the spending of its leader’s budget. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I think you should ask Michael Cullen to come back to the point of the bill because at the moment he is straying into the area of election spending from funds that this Parliament does not have to have any account of and he is trying to confuse two things. The reality is that we are here because the Labour Party misspent Parliamentary Service funding not because of anything to do with the National Party election campaign or otherwise. But I would now seek leave— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. I want to rule on the point of order before you seek leave. I say to Mr Brownlee that certainly the first part of the debate was wide-ranging and the points Dr Cullen has brought into the debate are ones that members have brought in all morning and they continue to bring them in. Therefore I caution members about keeping to the clauses of the bill but I do accept that every member has brought in those points in a wide-ranging debate. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Thank you for your ruling. It probably explains why this particular process is taking so long. I seek leave for the bill in the name of Don Brash that would allow National to pay the GST to be introduced to the House immediately upon the vote on this bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: We do have a problem with that because it is not actually within the competence of the Committee to do that. So the member has to put that to the House. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: When that leave is sought it will be declined because we are not letting that party off being convicted and fined for overexpenditure which is what the import of its bill is. The only reason National members want it is so they are not convicted and fined. But I note that they cannot tell us what they spent their leader’s budget on because they know it was spent on campaigning. They had their feet in the till and they are criticising us.