Turia Tariana: Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — First Reading 
Turia Tariana: Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:3080] 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe tena koutou katoa. The Maori Party is pleased to support the Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill which is after all a transitional measure. The bill is required to respond to the fact that the existing legislation the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Act 2007 expires on 1 July 2009. An extension of the interim meaning is needed to allow time for a permanent meaning to be considered and enacted. This is simply part of the process that we understand to be taking place within the Government’s review of electoral finance. The new provisions in this bill are not limited to a particular financial year and need to take account of the 18-month period during which time this bill is to remain in force. 
This bill is necessary to ensure that this Parliament makes the appropriate investment in accountability and integrity for public money used for Parliamentary purposes. It comes out of a shadowy murky past. Maori Party members can recall vividly the circus that fell out of the consequences of the Controller and Auditor-General’s 2006 report into advertising expenditure. That report responded to the inconsistencies and illegalities that were a feature of the 2005 election. The validation Act was passed with an interim meaning and after that an Appropriation Act was passed to extend the interim meaning. 
We have no interest in rehashing arguments and issues that arose in 2005 2006 and 2007 about the ways that the purposes of parliamentary funding were used or misused to promote performance by a political party for political purposes rather than exclusively for its role and function as a parliamentary party. It is now on the record that we supported the Electoral Amendment Bill to repeal and review the Electoral Finance Act and within that we hope that the definitions around electioneering and funding entitlements for parliamentary purposes will be well and truly worked out. 
However I cannot let the opportunity go by without referring the House to an editorial this morning in the  
Otago Daily Times 
. The editorial makes it blatantly clear that the forced disclosure of funding sources put upon political parties has to be seen as one of the problem areas that emerged under the aptly described “mysterious fog of the Electoral Finance Act a piece of legislation … which no-one—least of all its architects—fully understood.” The editorial points out that “The distance between what the major parties spent on their election campaigns and what they listed in their donation returns is so great as to suggest sufficient loopholes still existed to legally exploit.” This is a shoddy state of affairs that we as a Parliament cannot ignore. 
There is a specific anomaly identified in that while the previous Electoral Finance Act was presumably to constrain “secret trusts from making large donations without declaring the source … there was nothing to prevent one entity making many donations which were under the $10000 disclosure barrier.” These are all excellent points of discussion that we hope to see will take place at the select committee stage of this bill. 
There is one final statement from the editorial that I believe is appropriate to share with the House in supporting this debate that we are engaged in around transparency and accountability; that is the revelation made this morning that “the Maori Party spent a mere $222000 (but won five seats and some might argue holds the most powerful minority influence in the Government)”. This is not a question around how much money is available. What is the extent to which secret trusts and corporate donors can back political parties? The disclosure from the official returns suggests that the level of spending had little to do with the outcome of the polls. This bill cuts to the very heart of what New Zealanders believe that Parliament should practice; that is the practice of a healthy democracy where the tikanga of integrity transparency and accountability count. The Maori Party believes that it is such tikanga that give expression to rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga. We accept without reservation the need for the prudent management of public money. We are happy to continue the debate around what legitimate parliamentary purposes are as opposed to electioneering purposes. 
I end with some rather harsh words from political commentator Gordon McLauchlan in his book  
The Big Con 
: “it is not that difference of opinion on policy has engendered the anger frustration and sense of powerlessness among New Zealanders. We are angry because the policies were borne of the dissembling the betrayal and the lies of politicians. People feel democracy has let them down.” The public perception of politicians is frequently described as one of contempt or at least mistrust. The level of dissatisfaction with politicians has been a feature of New Zealand politics mai ra ano. 
We have a chance to change this view. This bill and the Electoral Amendment Bill enable us to have the opportunity to work cooperatively and collaboratively in consolidating definitions of parliamentary purposes to guide our future practice. Politics is absolutely fundamental to the fabric of our society. We owe it to the people and to the integrity of this Parliament to make sure that we get it right and in doing so improve the public perception of our performance. Na reira tena koutou.