Smith Lockwood: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Smith Lockwood: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5892] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 In speaking to the title of the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill I want to go back a bit to what is being validated here. The Controller and Auditor-General identified $1173598 of illegal spending. A large hunk of that related to Labour’s pledge card so I just want to go back a little over that pledge card. It was not the New Zealand Labour Party’s idea. In fact it was an idea it copied off Prime Minister Blair from the Labour Party’s campaign in Great Britain. The pledge card in Britain proved to be very very successful; it was a very very successful election strategy. So what Labour did in 1999 was to copy as Helen Clark often did what Tony Blair had done for the Labour Party in the UK. The whole third way approach of this Government was a sort of copy of Tony Blair’s approach in Britain. 
In 1999 when Labour first used a pledge card here in New Zealand it was congratulated on what an effective election campaign strategy the pledge card was. I want the Minister in the chair the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to tell us who paid for the pledge card in 1999 when Labour itself took credit for how effective it was—it was the centrepiece of Labour’s campaign in 1999. I ask Dr Cullen who paid for it. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: That would have been announced publicly. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: So the taxpayers of New Zealand paid for it? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: That has been said frequently. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: I just want to make sure that Dr Cullen acknowledges that the taxpayers of New Zealand paid for it. 
The reason why I believe that is important is this. When Labour gets caught like that it tries to muddy the waters. No honest New Zealander could possibly have thought in 1999 that that pledge card was not electioneering. No ordinary honest New Zealander would have ever ever assumed that it was not electioneering. So in 2002 when Labour’s funding was also hidden no honest New Zealander would have dreamt that anyone—anyone no matter how dishonest—could consider it not to be electioneering. 
The reason this is important is that the Auditor-General did not look at technical difficult reasons in making his decisions about what was illegal. He states in paragraph 4.9 on page 35 of his report: “I took a common-sense approach based on what I considered a reasonable member of the public would think …”. And any reasonable honest member of the public would have treated that pledge card absolutely and clearly as electioneering. Dr Cullen who is always very clever seems to think somehow that it was not electioneering because it did not ask for a vote. 
What makes this issue even more despicable is that the Minister responsible for Vote Parliamentary Service has been dragged into that dirty dirty muddying of the waters by this Labour Government—by Helen Clark and Michael Cullen. The Speaker of our Parliament has been brought into disrepute in her role as the Minister responsible for Vote Parliamentary Service. This report of hers is a disgrace. The report of the Minister responsible for Vote Parliamentary Service on the Auditor-General’s report is a disgrace. As a longstanding member of this Parliament—22 years in this Parliament—I am ashamed that our Speaker should be involved in that kind of tawdry cheating of the public purse of this country. 
There can be no honest consideration of that pledge card that treats it in any other way than as electioneering. There is no possible honest assessment of that pledge card that could treat it in any other way than as electioneering and Labour knows that.