Smith Lockwood: Appropriation (2008/09 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
Smith Lockwood: Appropriation (2008/09 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:649;Page:17804] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 In speaking to this appropriations debate in 2008 I would like to quote from a very important Labour Government document which states: “This year the Government is budgeting for a financial surplus of $89 million. In cash terms we are budgeting for a surplus of almost $5 billion. This cash surplus includes the revenue from the sale of Telecom and the Crown’s commercial forests.” That document is the Labour Government’s Budget in 1990 when Helen Clark was Deputy Prime Minister; when Michael Cullen a former Associate Minister of Finance was Minister of Social Welfare; David Caygill was Minister of Finance; and Phil Goff was Minister of Education. After the election when the books were opened this Government document was shown to be a lie. One of the reasons why this Budget document in 1990 was a lie when Helen Clark was Deputy Prime Minister and Phil Goff was Minister of Education is that Phil Goff—and I know about this personally—and Michael Cullen for that matter spent money unlawfully leading up to the 1990 election for which there was no appropriation in this Budget at all. Phil Goff was Minister of Education at the time and the Ministry of Education was having palpitations. It was being directed to spend money leading up to the 1990 election to try to save Helen Clark’s skin. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: Before the dinner break I was reading from Labour’s Budget document of 1990 when Helen Clark was Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen was Minister of Social Welfare and Phil Goff was Minister of Education. The Prime Minister and those key Labour Ministers of today were absolutely at the heart of the 1990 Budget. I quoted from that Budget: “This year the Government is budgeting for a financial surplus of $89 million. In cash terms we are budgeting for a surplus of almost $5 billion. This cash surplus includes the revenue”—listen to this—“from the sale of Telecom and the Crown’s commercial forests.” When Helen Clark was Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen a former Associate Minister of Finance was Minister of Social Welfare and Phil Goff was Minister of Education Labour was selling $5 billion worth of State assets and claiming an $89 million surplus. As I said before the dinner break that Budget was a lie—an absolute lie. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I want to make two points. One relates to the unparliamentary language that has just been spoken. I do not think that calling people liars is parliamentary. The main point I raise is that as far as I am aware this is the imprest supply and appropriations debate for this year not for 1990. But I think my substantive point has been usurped by the language the member used. He used a very very unparliamentary term. I cannot find a Standing Order that says we can call other people liars. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: With all due respect to the member I think I heard the member say that the Budget was a lie. I do accept that this is a debate on the current Budget. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. I will not spend a lot of time on this but it is important. The 1990 Budget was a lie because when the books were opened the claimed $89 million surplus was proven to be a deficit of more than $1 billion. It was a deficit of something like $1.5 billion which would climb to $3 billion and then $5 billion if nothing was done about it. 
One reason why that Budget was a lie was that key Ministers particularly the Hon Dr Michael Cullen and the Hon Phil Goff spent unappropriated money in the period leading up to the 1990 election. I know that because I followed Phil Goff as Minister of Education and the Ministry of Education was having palpitations about the illegal spending that Phil Goff had ordered it to make. I will repeat that to get it absolutely on the record of this House: Phil Goff the Minister of Education in 1990 ordered his Ministry of Education to spend money to try to win votes in the lead-up to the 1990 election. When the skids were under that Labour Government Phil Goff ordered the Ministry of Education to spend money unlawfully. Phil Goff knew that it was unlawful but still he ordered it to be spent. How do I know that? Because when I became the Minister of Education I had to make legal the unlawful spending that Phil Goff had ordered while trying to win votes in 1990 when the skids were under Labour. 
Those were the kinds of dirty tricks that Labour played then. Labour just ignored the law and spent money unlawfully. Ask Jenny Shipley who followed Michael Cullen as Minister of Social Welfare. She can give chapter and verse on making lawful Michael Cullen’s illegal spending and I can give chapter and verse on making Phil Goff’s unlawful spending legal. That is what Labour members did when the skids were under them. That was their dirty tricks campaign in 1990. They spent taxpayers’ money to try to win votes. It did not matter whether there was any appropriation in the Budget for that money—it did not matter a damn. But Phil Goff never had to account for it because he was thrown out in 1990. He never had to face up to the fact that he had spent tens of millions of dollars—more—unlawfully; money for which there was no appropriation. 
This time when Labour is on the skids again Labour Party members who claimed to be Young Nats entered a private function and illegally recorded private conversations. Labour members think that that was good. If that is the standard they think is acceptable they should just say so. If they think that it is acceptable for a person to pretend to be a delegate at a private conference and to record private conversations unlawfully then let us hear it. If Labour members think that that is OK let them condone it—because the public of New Zealand think that it is disgraceful. That the Government of our country has sunk to that level shows just why this Government has lost any idea of what New Zealanders think as they look ahead. 
I see Clayton Cosgrove sitting opposite. I want to talk a bit about this Labour Government’s performance in immigration. In April last year the chief executive officer of the Department of Labour James Buwalda discovered that unlawful decision-making had been going on in his department. He briefed the Hon David Cunliffe in April last year that he suspected that unlawful decision-making had been going on. He established an inquiry into that unlawful decision-making. By the time the inquiry was completed Graham Fortune had taken over as acting chief executive officer of the Department of Labour. He briefed the Hon David Cunliffe again in August last year. 
The Hon David Cunliffe knew that unlawful decision-making had been going on at Immigration New Zealand and he covered it up. He uncovered it then covered it up. Again Labour was trying to play dirty tricks. He covered up the fact that his department was making unlawful decisions. When the media heard about this in December last year they sought information under the Official Information Act. Immigration New Zealand and the Department of Labour under this Labour Government fought for 4 months to keep it covered up. They tried to keep it covered up from December last year until April this year and were finally forced to release the information on the Thursday evening before Easter weekend. 
The cat was let out of the bag that the Hon David Cunliffe had willingly and knowingly covered up seriously unlawful decision-making at Immigration New Zealand. Government policy was being breached and unlawful decisions were being made. We know that David Cunliffe knew that. Labour Ministers know that David Cunliffe knew that. There has been a cover-up and the Auditor-General will uncover that. Finally the public will get the truth on this. This is just more from a Labour Government where anything goes. Illegal or not it does not matter; it will cover it up if it can get away with it.