McCully Murray: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
McCully Murray: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5853] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I listened to the Minister in the chair the Minister of Finance earlier on as he explained in relation to Part 1 of the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill how the Government felt that it had been ambushed by the Auditor-General. He told his tale of woe and I sat and I listened and I asked myself how that man could do that with a straight face. How could Michael Cullen stand in this Chamber and complain that he did not know that it was coming? Because everybody who took any interest in New Zealand politics knew that the Auditor-General was expressing concern about this Government’s practice of spending taxpayers’ money unlawfully. 
I will remind the Committee today precisely how that happened and tell the Committee about the Treasury report released by Mr Cullen—belatedly of course. The Opposition asked for it in advance of the bill; we got it on the eve of the bill being introduced. Mr Cullen claims that in bringing this bill to the House under urgency seeking retrospective validation he is acting upon officials’ advice. This Treasury report shows that claim is absolutely and utterly wrong. 
This report shows that Mr Cullen has officials’ support for one proposition and one proposition only. I quote from the report: “…we recommend that these expenses be validated.” So he does have the endorsement of his officials for the proposition of validation. Treasury goes on: “As a matter of course unappropriated expenditure occurs every year in a number of votes. The validation of such expenditure is a usual part of the overall budget legislative cycle. For instance last year’s Financial Review Bill included validation for the $309.843 million in relation to the recognition of the forecast liability under the Kyoto Protocol.” What this report states is very simple: this process should work according to the normal Budget cycle. The example provided is for the normal Budget cycle being followed in respect of the Kyoto overspends and the financial review bill of last year being utilised as the vehicle. That $309 million is a lot more money than we have at stake here on the table and the remedy is that the Government should use the proper bill as part of the legislative process—that is a financial review bill which from time to time will come before the House. 
But that is not what we have here. We have a special bill to deal with the Labour Party’s unlawful expenditure. It is being dealt with under urgency. It is not being subject to public scrutiny to the select committee process or to any of the other normal procedures of the House because it is being dealt with outside the normal Budget cycle. The Minister’s officials have told him in black and white that he should validate the expenditure but to use the normal legislative vehicle—use the normal Budget cycle. But the Minister of Finance has done the absolute opposite and had the barefaced cheek to come to the House in respect of Part 1 and say that he was doing what his officials had recommended that he should do. That is very far from the truth indeed. 
I remind the Minister of Finance who claims to have not known the Auditor-General’s report was coming that this is what the Auditor-General had to say in his report in June 2004: “It is a generally held principle that taxpayers do not pay for political parties’ publicity except to support a party’s parliamentary activities or the conduct of ministerial business. This is broadly consistent with the accepted position in New Zealand that the State does not fund political parties.” That is what the Auditor-General stated in black and white. 
To make his point on 28 April last year he wrote to the Prime Minister of the country and said that he would like to talk to her about that report which says that we do not allow political parties to be funded by the taxpayer of New Zealand. The Prime Minister of New Zealand having received a request from an independent officer of the Parliament—the Auditor-General no less—told him to go and take a running jump. The Prime Minister of New Zealand told Mr Brady to get lost and that she was not going to meet with him. The reason for that was that she already knew the pledge card was going to be paid for with public money.