Cullen Michael: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5833] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 First of all I will deal with that extraordinary assertion that Mr Brownlee—or maybe it is not an extraordinary assertion in his case—does not understand what is meant by: “includes the spending of public money … but (b) excludes any expenses incurred on or after the day on which this Act comes into force.” That means we are validating expenditure up to the point the Act comes into force. I will come to the reason in a moment. Moving forward we come to Part 2 which is why Part 2 comes straight after that line of the bill. Part 2 provides definitions for expenditure moving forward. So there is no need to provide validation for that. 
Why is that so? I invite the member to turn to paragraph 32 of the Speaker’s report: “While the 2006 report deals only with advertising expenditure it is clear that the principles articulated by the Auditor-General will have general application to all expenditure under Vote Parliamentary Service appropriations at all times and not only in relation to the three months prior to a general election.” Then there are examples of where various activities occur that are funded from Vote Parliamentary Service. They are standard activities such as research staff proving background information for a speech about one’s own party’s achievements in some kind of public meeting—the kind that Mr Key frequently holds in his electorate to a dazzled audience of three or four. Those are matters that under the current Auditor-General’s rulings would potentially be tainted by electioneering and therefore unlawful. 
The reason clause 3 states “May”—and I notice a rather cute amendment to something else—is that we simply do not know going back to 1989-90 what might or might not be included within that. The Auditor-General’s report gives us no clear guidance around that point at all. All we know is that in some vague way expenditure used for a range of purposes such as public meetings newsletters to one’s electorate or flying off to sign up a member for the National Party could be tainted by electioneering. 
What is more there is the former Solicitor-General’s legal opinion about the entire expenditure in that area. For example did any of the members opposite at any point talk on their cellphones to members of the Exclusive Brethren about the funding the Exclusive Brethren was engaged in or for example the polling they were carrying out in electorates? [ 
Interruption 
] Oh I am supposed to believe that Mr Foss—oh he was not an MP at the time but that none of those members who were MPs ever called up anybody about those matters on their phones? So all the meetings were face to face. I thank the member for that confirmation. We now know that all the meetings were face to face. But was any money expended on getting to any of those meetings? 
John Key 
: No meetings. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Oh they did not have any meetings? Mr Key had no meetings with the Exclusive Brethren. He would like to put on the record right now would he that he had no meetings with the Exclusive Brethren? So who were the shadow-faced people on television that Mr Key was meeting? But the point does not matter. Dr Brash finally admitted after denying it that he did have meetings with the Exclusive Brethren and if the Parliamentary Service paid in any shape or form for the travel then I am afraid the whole thing was out of order and tainted by electioneering and the expenditure was unlawful and needs to be validated—unlike the payment of GST by the members opposite where all they want validation for is to avoid conviction and a fine. 
Debate interrupted.