English Bill: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
English Bill: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5932] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 Yes this is Harry’s second time! Let us just come right back to what lies at the heart of this debate and this legislation. What lies at its heart was a deliberate action taken by senior figures in the Labour Party in order to spend during an election campaign half a million dollars of taxpayers’ money on a pledge card that—as Dr Brash pointed out—broke two rules: the rules of this House in respect of the appropriation of parliamentary money; and the Electoral Act in respect of the cap on expenditure on an election. 
The Labour Party has not answered one simple question right through this debate: was the pledge card electioneering? You see we have heard every other kind of distraction about what the Auditor-General has done and what the rules might or might not mean but Labour members have never answered that question. Well I did a little investigation. I went back and looked at the launch of the Labour election campaign for 2005 by Helen Clark. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: What does it say? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well it was a campaign opening and a lengthy speech and at the heart of that speech was the pledge card. Ms Clark said: “We pioneered pledge cards for our key commitments.” Well I say that it also pioneered taxpayer funding of them. Then she said: “Now we are making fresh pledges on key policies …”. If that is not electioneering then this is not Parliament. So that was Helen Clark’s view. 
Well what did Heather Simpson say to the police when they asked her whether that was electioneering? She said something completely different. The person who was running the Labour Party campaign said that as far as she was concerned the purpose of those publications was the same in respect of previous similar publications by Labour—to inform the public of the position of the leader and the parliamentary team on the issues of the day. Then the police asked her whether she had followed the Electoral Act. That was a good question because if that were electioneering she had breached the Electoral Act. She said that her understanding of the Electoral Act was that it applied to elections not to parliamentary business. So the Labour Party has lost the trust of the New Zealand public because in just those two examples it has shown its willingness to argue completely opposite positions in respect of a critical aspect of the accountability and trust the public has in any Government at all. 
In fact what has come through this debate is a fierce and ugly sense of entitlement on the part of Labour. It has a fierce and ugly sense of entitlement that it is able to do with taxpayers’ money whatever it likes to serve its interests. I have illustrated to the House that the Prime Minister was able to get up in front of her campaign opening event and show the pledge card and wave it around as a centrepiece of her electioneering then her chief of staff told the New Zealand Police our law enforcement agency that that had nothing to do with the election. That is why the Labour Party is forfeiting the trust of the New Zealand people. 
It is not new for Helen Clark; she has done it before. The police—tell them whatever one likes! Heather Simpson who is fully paid on a public salary by this Parliament is now an employee of a new fiction: the “Office of the Leader of the Parliamentary Labour Party”. I have had a look through public records and such an office never existed until Helen Clark got into trouble as Prime Minister. Labour made it up to avoid accountability for someone who is paid $150000 of public money and who used that time and money to break the law. 
I want to move to a probably more disturbing issue which has not been canvassed extensively in this debate—that is what happens now? Let us say that this legislation is passed. It does not alter a fact of history which is that a Government—in this case the Labour Government—overspent in its election campaign by half a million dollars and possibly more and got away with it. So what will happen next election? The police effectively said that it was too much of a constitutional disturbance to prosecute the Government because it had exceeded the electoral cap. They said that they could throw out an MP but that they probably should not throw out a Government. This Parliament has now left a situation where the next Government could do the same. 
What is there to stop Helen Clark from doing exactly the same next election? Nothing! The police will not prosecute her because they are too scared to and if she breaks the rules with taxpayers’ money Parliament will pass legislation to validate it. So what is to stop Helen Clark overspending by a million dollars next time to secure a historic fourth term? She Heather Simpson Michael Cullen and Chris Carter will sit in the Beehive and say that they got away with it last time and that they will get away with it again. It is that deep and ugly cynicism underlying this debate that I have found so distasteful and that dishonours this Parliament. Labour has demonstrated that it will wilfully break the law. Its members will then use the privileges of power to bully hassle and discredit anyone who criticises them. If that does not work they will use the privileges and power of this House to change the law and defend their position. 
In that respect I want to make some comments on the role of the Speaker. Parliament has at its best acted as a check on the executive but in this case I am concerned that it has not. I was struck by the startling similarity of the Speaker’s report on the Auditor-General’s report and the Labour Party’s arguments against his report. In fact Dr Cullen’s arguments were rehearsed word for word by the Speaker. Instead of the Speaker doing what should have been done which was to show deference and respect to the officers of this Parliament—because the Speaker is one—the Speaker rebutted criticised and discredited the Auditor-General then used a slick and silly legal opinion to discredit the Solicitor-General. In fact the legal opinion was so bad that it did not refer to any of the legal precedents in this matter and if any student did that in a university legal exam he or she would fail. The Speaker gave the appearance of being complicit in the Government’s attempt to muddy the waters over this issue. That is a stain on the Speakership and this Speakership will not regain the credibility it ought to have. When it really mattered Parliament let the people down. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is going too far and I ask the member to withdraw and apologise about the stain on the Speakership. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I want finally to return to— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No I asked the member to withdraw and apologise— 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Oh sorry—in what respect? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
:—in respect of the comments just made about the Speaker. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I withdraw and apologise Mr Assistant Speaker. 
Lastly I want to deal with the issue where Labour claims that the Auditor-General has changed the definitions of parliamentary purposes. He has not and he says he has not. He has not changed the definition of parliamentary expenditure. The whole argument that members cannot fly home or send out Christmas cards is absolute rubbish. Unfortunately the Speaker has scared the Parliamentary Service Commission into making sure there is pre-approval. It is all rubbish; it is all a distraction. Labour has forfeited the right to the trust of the New Zealand people.