Hughes Darren: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Hughes Darren: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5868] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 We are debating Part 2 which is the part of the bill that the National Party needs. We have just heard the member Katherine Rich speak. She is by streets and streets one of the smarter and more considered members of the National Party. Notwithstanding that there were two or three factual errors in what Katherine Rich said that we need to correct now. 
The member Katherine Rich said that if this bill was passed into law it would all relate to the 2008 general election. This part contains a sunset provision of 31 December 2007 to allow the parliamentary parties working with the Parliamentary Service Commission to come together with a proper and legal definition of “parliamentary purposes” so that no political party gets back into the situation that all parties—with the exception of Progressive—were in before the last election. 
This is the part about the National Party that I cannot understand. National members are quiet in the Chamber only when they are asked a question. When they are asked a question they have nothing to say because they cannot understand the inconsistency of their own position. When they are not debating that when they are not answering questions they yell and scream because that is what they are expert at. But here is the point: the National Party is saying that it is somehow without any fault or sin here. How come it had to pay back $10000? National members’ argument here is that because they did not get it wrong too badly they are therefore perfect but everybody else because they got it wrong by more therefore did something wrong. 
Nobody accepts that as a point of logic. Nobody accepts that as a point of fact. The National Party is caught by that in the same way that all parties have been. That is why we have introduced Part 2. And that is why there is a sunset provision in there which Katherine Rich did not refer to. She got it 100 percent wrong when she said it was about the 2008 election; it is not. There is an opportunity in here for the parliamentary parties to get this put right. 
Let me now ask members of Parliament this. What page of the Auditor-General’s report clarifies what “parliamentary purposes” means? What page number is that on? 
Mark Blumsky 
: Page 27. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: Mark Blumsky is giving us advice. He says it is page 27. Knowing Mark Blumsky’s command of detail and fact I am not even going to check page 27—I know Mark Blumsky is wrong. So we will put Mark Blumsky to one side in that regard—in terms of credibility—and say that the Auditor-General did not come back and report to us last Thursday with a clear definition of parliamentary purposes. That is why we need Part 2 unless the National Party proposes to spend none of its leader’s budget between now and 31 December. 
Let me ask National Party members another question. What law currently exists that requires money to refund the money misappropriated that would be changed by Part 2? 
Hon Tau Henare 
: No it won’t. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: I am asking Tau Henare a question and he answers me by saying “No it won’t”. That is not the answer. What law exists right now that requires the money to be refunded that is altered by Part 2? 
Hon Tau Henare 
: That’s why you’re scared. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: No I am hearing nothing from Tau Henare. I ask the shadow Attorney-General what law changes with Part 2 and he points to Tau Henare and Tau Henare points to Mark Blumsky and pretty soon we have the parliamentary National Party. So National members have no answer for any single question the Government is trying to ask as we debate Part 2. The only answer they have is for anything apart from Part 2. So I ask National members to join the debate on Part 2 and to give us the examples rather than the abuse and the “Tau Henare I’m still in talkback land” kind of swagger which does not pay a single dollar back. I also ask them to explain to us why $10000 was misspent when the National Party said it knew what the laws were around that issue. I ask National members to answer me this question. Why did the National Party spend the money if it knew the rules had changed? Labour did not know they had changed New Zealand First did not know they had changed and United Future did not know they had changed. Even the Maori Party which has been lauded by the National Party got it wrong as well. 
I accept the amounts of spending are different. What I do not accept is that somehow parties get away with it if their amount of spending is different and that therefore they understood what the rules were. They did not understand the rules and National members have to come up with some sort of clear argument against Part 2 if they are going to vote against it. I want to know first when they found out that the rule had changed; second what law is altered by Part 2— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Sit down and we’ll tell you. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: Tau Henare tells me to sit down so they can tell us. Will Tau Henare yield if he gets it wrong? Tau Henare will argue the National Party position— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member cannot shout continuously like that. That is not an acceptable interjection. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I just want some clarification. When I am continually named in the debate and the member who was on his feet is asking me for a reply is it within the bounds of the Standing Orders that I do reply? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No the member knows very clearly that—[ 
Interruption 
] I will rule on the point of order. The member knows that reasonable interjections are tolerated—six barraging calls in a row are not. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I do not want to interrupt the member who is on his feet any longer but I draw your attention to the fact that Mr Tau Henare is sitting in the wrong seat. He comes out with these rather loud insults from time to time and I think he should be at the back of the Chamber where he belongs. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Can I just clarify that. 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: What about Gerry Brownlee? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Silence! Points of order are being dealt with. The point is that the member has not moved his seat for an advantage. He has been sitting there for a long time and that is acceptable. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairman. Throughout this debate from its beginning members have been warned on several occasions not to interject on points of order. Some members have even been thrown out of the Chamber and for the right reasons. During that point of order Dover Samuels interjected. I am not asking you to throw him out or do anything. I leave it in your hands. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is quite right. I have not given a general warning today but certainly a general warning was given yesterday. I warned members earlier and there have been a number of interjections so I really think the member should leave because he should not interject during points of order or when points of order are being dealt with. I ask the member now to leave. 
Hon Dover Samuels withdrew from the Chamber. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: How much time do I have remaining in this speech? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: About 16 seconds. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: Sixteen seconds leaves me just enough time to mention Murray McCully and validating legislation. That man over there with his $56 million Tourism Board fiasco required validating legislation in this House. I know that none of the new National MPs have any history of their own party but I say the man who is their strategist cost us $56 million.