Finlayson Christopher: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Finlayson Christopher: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5934] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 In December 1776 the great American revolutionary Thomas Paine published his pamphlet  
The Crisis 
 which stated: “These are the times that try men’s souls … Tyranny like hell is not easily conquered;”. And I know how Tom must have felt for these are indeed dark days for our democracy. 
A few days ago a very important report by the Auditor-General on unauthorised expenditure was presented to this House. The Government ensured that no opportunity was given to debate that report which I would have thought was in the public interest. Instead the Government moved to introduce the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill and force it through all its stages without giving the public the opportunity to make any submissions. I would have thought it was in the public interest that the public make submissions. 
I have a number of objections to this bill as it has emerged from the Committee. First it is unnecessary. Secondly it is incomplete. Thirdly it is odious. First as to necessity the bill as we know contains two parts. It validates expenditure under Vote Parliamentary Service for the last 13 years and allegedly clarifies rules on an interim basis until the end of 2007. Yet the validation goes beyond the appropriations found to be unlawful by the Auditor-General. Secondly it is unnecessary to use legislation to change the rules in the interim—a point that has never been addressed by any Labour speaker in response. 
I said in the Committee stage that the Auditor-General’s concerns arose from the Speaker’s directions issued under section 8 of the Parliamentary Service Act 2000 and the directions’ definitions of “parliamentary purposes” and “electioneering”. All that needs to happen is for new directions to be issued substituting new definitions. There is no need for clarification by legislation. 
My second objection is that the bill is incomplete. Significantly there is no obligation for miscreants to repay any unauthorised expenditure; nor are there any reporting requirements. That is why I moved a number of amendments to Part 2 of the bill during the Committee stage. Those amendments sought to introduce provisions ensuring that unauthorised expenditure would be repaid with interest and penalties if the sums outstanding were not repaid by 31 December. It is notable that although some members emphasised the moral commitment to pay they were not prepared to support provisions that would have made that moral commitment a legal commitment. Those provisions would have gone some way to improving this bill but Labour refused to debate them. It was not prepared to put up any speaker to justify why repayment and reporting provisions were not needed but validating provisions were. 
My third objection is that the bill is odious. It does not comply with fundamental common law principles. In 2003 the Legislation Advisory Committee republished its guidelines on good legislation. Part 1 of section 2 asks a very important question: does the legislation in question comply with fundamental common law principles? Let us look at some of those principles. Does this bill satisfy the principle that the citizen is entitled to have access to the courts? Well no it does not. It will remove litigation rights in the Darnton case—and this is even before the litigation has been heard in the High Court. Secondly there is the principle that everyone exercising public authority must act legally reasonably and honestly. This legislation grants one standard for the Labour Party and a much stricter standard for members of the public. 
Thirdly there is the principle of the rule of law that no one is above the law. Enough said. This law places politicians above the law particularly Labour politicians and their cohorts. Finally there is the principle that all are treated equally before the law. Again enough said. There is one standard for the Labour Party and another standard for the general public. The rulers have rewritten the rules to place themselves in a superior and privileged position. 
This bill does not comply with fundamental principles of the common law; nor arguably does it comply with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The Attorney-General never condescended to prepare a report under Part 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act but it is interesting that section 12 of that Act provides that every citizen has the right to vote in genuine elections—and “genuine” is a very important word. How can there be genuine elections in this country when a bill of this kind is introduced that legitimises breaches of the Public Finance Act and the Electoral Act? 
What was it about the former Solicitor-General’s opinion dated 19 April 2006 that Labour found so difficult thus necessitating its obtaining a contrary opinion from Chapman Tripp—which I contend is an extraordinary thing to do given that it was the Solicitor-General who gave the original advice? I refer to his opinion where he set out a number of tests for determining whether expenditure was unauthorised. He said there was a bright-line approach an apportionment test or the dominant purpose test. But on any view of this matter Labour’s unauthorised expenditure was outside the rules. And what was it about the Auditor-General’s actions that the Labour Party failed to understand? The Auditor-General spelt out the rules time and time again. I need not refer to his report but he urged members of Parliament to be cautious even before the 2005 general election. 
So there we have it: there is one rule for the Labour Party and another for the public who are held to much higher standards. It is no wonder that this place is held in such low esteem. I myself was disappointed that other parties did not support my amendments. I did not expect the lost souls in the Labour Government to support them but I had hoped the Green and United Future MPs at least would have considered the amendments. Those amendments would have enabled all MPs to regain some respect in the eyes of the public. 
Mr Harawira in his excellent second reading speech commented that all members of Parliament are privileged men and women. Those in public life have been given much by the people of New Zealand. But of those to whom much is given much is expected and at the end of our time in this place whether we are to be regarded as successful or as failures depends on whether we are seen as people who have integrity—on whether we are people who are seen to be dedicated to serving the public good and the interests of all New Zealanders. This legislation does not serve the public good. It does not serve New Zealand’s interests. 
 It is not a question of inadvertently sinning as was alleged by the member for Waimakariri. By the way what is inadvertent sinning? It is an oxymoron just like the Labour Party. In order to sin one has to do wrong. One cannot inadvertently sin. It has to be deliberate just like Labour’s actions. But instead of confessing asking for forgiveness and repenting Labour has urgently legislated immediate absolution for itself. 
The Government’s actions have been opposed throughout all stages of this bill by the National Party the Maori Party and ACT. That opposition continues through this third reading. National will fail to prevent the passage of the bill this afternoon but we will succeed in the end. I can assure the House that I for one and I am sure my National colleagues will be zealous to ensure that any party that has not repaid any unauthorised expenditure will be held to account—perhaps not this afternoon but one day for sure. I can promise those people that justice will prevail.