Power Simon: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Power Simon: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5815] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I start tonight by congratulating someone. I want to begin my contribution to this debate by congratulating the Auditor-General. This is a person who has stood against a barrage of personal abuse and bullying tactics to try to get him to change his view. Attempts were made to discredit him publicly not only in the media but also in other fora as well and he stood firm against all of those tactics. Frankly the only court of opinion that matters on this issue is the court of public opinion and members opposite would do well to read the editorials of all the major daily newspapers around New Zealand when the Auditor-General’s report was finally tabled in this House. It said one thing. Underneath the detail the Auditor-General simply said he would not be pushed around. It was wrong and he was going to say it was wrong. He said in his report: “Some MPs and parliamentary parties have said that I acted unfairly by ‘changing the rules’ after the event. I have not changed any rules.” 
So who does the Labour Party think the public are going to believe—somebody who said right from the start that he would not be pushed around or a Labour Party that is wildly spinning the line that the rules have changed? Well the public have made up their minds. They believe the Auditor-General. The bullying did not work. If the Labour Party—as Steve Maharey said in his contribution—thinks that the public are going to put this issue behind them I assure him that it will not be the case. If the Labour Party thinks today that this issue will not be raised on the hustings at the next election it is wrong. If New Zealand First Labour and United Future think this issue will disappear into the ether after the legislation gets through the House and they will not have to pay the money back then let me assure them that that is wrong. 
I must admit that at 11.30 this morning I thought of those first-term MPs in the Labour Party who 12 months into their job arrived here to the news that a campaign they had very little to do with—that they had no say in but simply participated in—will now cost them between $8000 and $10000 of their personal money. If I were Maryan Street I would be saying: “Well the collective is fine but actually this isn’t my fault and I am not going to pay it. Maybe Heather Simpson should.” 
The question I found particularly interesting is where the senior Labour Party Minister is who has been nowhere near this stuff and has run a mile. Where is Phil Goff? Phil Goff has so much confidence in the Labour Party’s ability to handle this issue that he negotiates separately with the Auditor-General. He wanders off on his own and has a separate negotiation with the Auditor-General and he sits in his caravan waiting waiting waiting because he knows that the opportunity is not far away. 
I have to say that over the last 7 years I have on occasion sat on this side of the House and quietly admired some of the political management skills I have seen but having been a student of politics before becoming an MP I was totally disbelieving when as senior whip this matter was brought to my attention in September 2005. In the first week of that month I wrote to the Auditor-General after looking at the pledge card the fold-out sheets the conference banners and the like and not actually believing what I saw. I actually did not believe that the Labour Party would have the overwhelming gall to think it could get away with it. In fact I read the letter seven times before I sent it to make sure I was not overstating the case. But it was impossible to overstate; it was almost too obvious. My colleague Bill English has spoken about the deep level of cynicism required to actually take an affirmative step to sign that letter to Parliamentary Service and to say: “Pay this bill or else.” 
This was not an accident. This was not reckless even. This was a wilful step that was taken by senior party officials. Frankly that level of inherent arrogance was just gobsmacking if one steps back and looks at it objectively. Even if it could be argued that the expenditure was legitimate which it cannot be and even if it could be argued that all parties will pay the money back—and my colleague the Hon Murray McCully has done a very good job I believe of summarising the fact that there are parties in this House that have no intention of paying that money back—if all of those factors were legitimate why are we in urgency? If those factors were legitimate why not allow the public to have a say? Why not allow the bill to withstand the select committee process? This bill does not have to be an appropriations bill—particularly Part 2. Any normal form of legislation could contain these matters and be dealt with in an open and transparent way. 
But let us step back. Helen Clark has always campaigned on her integrity. That has been her No. 1 asset and something I have observed over the last 7 years she guards and protects viciously. Fair enough! Well that has gone. That integrity has gone. 
Darren Hughes 
: No never. 
SIMON POWER 
: It does not matter for Darren Hughes. He is 12. He can spend some time on this side of the House and go back over to the Government benches in 20 years’ time. It does not matter to him. It is Rick Barker I feel sorry for—no I do not feel sorry for him. Rick Barker has done his dash; it is time he moved on. 
The moral authority that allows the Government to do its business has gone. Its political capital to use the phrase is spent and we will table in the Committee stage a series of amendments that will seek the votes of those in the Chamber who believe validation should occur only in the event that the money has been paid back. I say this to the Greens: do not abstain on that point. Do not become a party of Ashraf Choudharys. Take a stand and decide to vote for amendments that say “Validating legislation is OK as long as the money is paid back.” 
There are members opposite in the Labour Party who actually respect in my opinion the political process in the Parliament and they know this is wrong. They know this is wrong and it is a big rat for them to swallow before returning to Opposition. John Key made an excellent point when he spoke earlier tonight. If one has done something wrong show some contrition. At the very least one should front up to the public and say “Hands are up got caught made a mistake.” I have had to do it and believe me it is not hard. Just put the hands up and say “A mistake has been made.” and accept the punishment. Those Labour members should accept one thing: they will be in Opposition in 2008. They should save what little integrity some of them still have because the winds of change are blowing through the electorate and I tell the members of this House that Helen Clark’s integrity in this country is nil. Which members opposite want to go down with that ship?