Finlayson Christopher: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Finlayson Christopher: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5838] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I want to focus initially on clause 3 of Part 1 of the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill which sets out the purposes of this legislation. The first purpose is to validate expenditure but we all know that validation of expenditure goes beyond the appropriations found to be unlawful by the Auditor-General. The second part of that purpose clause is to provide an interim meaning of the term “funding entitlements for parliamentary purposes”. But again we all know that it is unnecessary to use legislation to change the rules in the interim; all that needs to happen is for the Speaker to issue new directions that substitute new definitions of parliamentary purposes and electioneering. So this legislation quite apart from the fact that it is shabby is unnecessary. 
I propose in the Committee to move an amendment to clause 3 because the key issues that the people of New Zealand are interested in are first that the moneys are going to be repaid and second that there is an adequate reporting mechanism so that they know the moneys can be paid. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I apologise sincerely to the honourable member for interrupting his speech and I hope it does not break his pattern. But I have to take this point of order as per the Standing Orders; if I have a point of order I know I have to raise it as quickly as possible and I have just come down from my office. I have heard some absolute—I cannot use the word “lie” can I Mr Chairperson? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No you cannot. 
Ron Mark 
: Then I will not. I have heard some untrue statements made by Phil Heatley. I seek the leave of the Committee to table the transcript of the interview between John Banks and Winston Peters this morning to prove that Mr Peters did not say he was laid up in hospital from a spider bite so did not get to hear the Auditor-General’s comments or meet with him and to prove that he did not say— 
Document not tabled. 
Ron Mark 
: Sort him out whip! 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will now come back to his seat and withdraw and apologise. 
Ron Mark 
: What am I apologising for Mr Chairperson? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: For the context and the threat he threw across the Chamber I ask the member to withdraw and apologise. 
Ron Mark 
: Well Mr Chairperson— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No. I ask the member to withdraw and apologise. 
Ron Mark 
: I apologise for saying “Sort him out.” 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Mark. That is all that is necessary. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. After the member apologised he again said: “Sort it out.” as he walked out of the Chamber. That is a challenge to the Chair and you should bring him back and then kick him out for the rest of the day. That sort of behaviour is unacceptable. It degrades the character of this House and its members. I ask you to take action now against that member. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I have some sympathy with the point made by the member and if you do that Mr Chairperson it will be a very important signal to a number of members opposite not to issue threats to the person in the Chair which I think is actually the offence that Mr Mark committed by telling you to do something. It is happening far too often in the Chamber that people are trying to give orders to the Speaker or to the Chairman in Committee. 
Pita Paraone 
: The comments the Opposition has referred to were solicited only as a result of the behaviour of members opposite. So there are two sides to the story. If you decide to make the decision that has been suggested to you Mr Chairman I hope you take into consideration the exchanges that give rise to this sort of situation. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have heard enough. I know this is a rather heated debate with a lot of ill feeling on all sides of the Chamber. I also recognise that members make statements out of frustration that they might not do in normal circumstances. In this particular instance I am going to ask the member concerned to come back to the Chamber and apologise for the manner in which he conducted himself. I am prepared to be tolerant in recognising the complexity in which we are conducting this debate. 
Ron Mark 
: Mr Chairman out of respect to you and the office you hold I withdraw and apologise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Mark. I appreciate that Mr Mark. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Can you give the Committee some guidance by stating the Standing Order that allows me to seek redress when a member knowingly and wilfully stands up and says something in this Chamber on the record that clearly is not true and will be proven to be untrue by the documents I have sought access to and sought leave to table? What can we do when a member dares to do such a thing and brings this Committee into dishonour? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The first thing that would be helpful is for us to try to lower the temperature. Mr Mark’s point is one that should not be raised by a point of order. He is actually raising an issue of a breach of privilege and that is dealt with by means of a letter to the Speaker. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is right. Thank you very much. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: As I was saying I have proposed a number of amendments to clause 3 the purpose clause which foreshadow further amendments that will be introduced when we debate Part 2. The first of those amendments is to provide in the purpose clause that any expenditure the Auditor-General has found was unauthorised must be repaid. The second issue of concern to the public is dealt with in paragraph (d) of my proposed clause 3 which provides a reporting mechanism to ensure that members of the public can be satisfied that any party that has incurred any unauthorised expenditure has repaid that expenditure because the Parliamentary Service Commission as we know is not subject to the Official Information Act. 
So these are mechanisms that I seek to introduce and I foreshadow ones in Part 2 to try to address the real concerns of the public because at the moment there is no obligation to repay. Mr Copeland in his second reading speech yesterday said there was a moral obligation. That is not good enough. We want a legal obligation and expenditure that is unauthorised should be repaid with interest and penalties if not paid on time. It is interesting to hear the kinds of things the Inland Revenue Department is proposing to do to miscreants who do not pay their tax. There will be heavy penalties. In the interests as the Attorney-General said of lowering the temperature and conducting the debate in a seemly way I am proposing that interest not be paid at Inland Revenue Department rates but pursuant to the interest provisions of the Judicature Act—a mere 7.5 percent—which I think is very generous. 
 Perhaps the most odious aspect of this legislation is that it removes litigation rights and the litigation rights of those who have commenced a proceeding in the High Court. As Dr Mapp said in  
Fitzgerald v Muldoon 
 the Government changed the law after the litigation was concluded. Even Dr Cullen as Minister of Finance when the Ngati Apa case was decided changed the law after the Court of Appeal decision had come out. But here in the Darnton case the litigation has not even been determined in the High Court let alone at the appellate level. That is why I support amendments which my friend Dr Mapp will be introducing shortly to say that the High Court case of Darnton is not to be affected by the passage of this litigation. Litigation rights should be preserved. 
This legislation is an abuse of parliamentary sovereignty and I venture to suggest that it is so odious that were Lord Cooke still sitting in the Court of Appeal today he would be sorely tempted to pick up the words he said in  
Taylor v New Zealand Poultry Board  
and have it struck down because it is an affront to democracy and it is an affront to the rule of law. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Judicial activism. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: It is called decency and common sense in a democracy I say to Dr Cullen—something that his Government does not seem to know too much about. The Attorney-General and his cohorts are people who are staring into the abyss; they are people who are led by a Prime Minister who increasingly suffers from delusions of decency; and this legislation is proof if proof be needed that changes need to be made.