Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — Third Reading 
Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:655;Page:4618] 
Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill be now read a third time 
. For the reasons that have been outlined in speeches previously it is essential that this bill is passed before 1 July 2009. 
This is a short bill that provides an interim definition of the term “funding entitlements for parliamentary purposes” for the purposes of clarifying the principal duties of the Parliamentary Service. The bill provides a very similar interim definition to that set out in the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Act 2007 which expires on 1 July 2009. Generally speaking the bill maintains the legislative framework that has been in place since that legislation was passed in 2006 and preserves the conventions observed by members before that time which was that the parliamentary publicity entitlement should not be used for electioneering. As I have said this has been a convention for many years; it was provided for formally in the 2006 legislation. 
The bill also enables the Parliamentary Service to do its job and avoids creating an environment of uncertainty for officials where the review of electoral finance law is in progress. I think it is worthwhile to remind the House of the history of the interim definition. The Auditor-General made some comments that were publicly discussed post the 2005 general election. Parliament itself has largely accepted the Auditor-General’s position and reached the conclusion that the definition provided in the previous Act was a good one. The definition may not survive through the review that is in progress at the moment but Mr Deputy Speaker you will be aware that all parliamentarians are very very conscious of how the public purse is spent in the pursuit of their particular responsibilities as representatives. This bill largely protects those who are supporting parliamentarians and puts some bounds around that expenditure. 
I look forward to the passing of this legislation today. National will be supporting it. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 The Labour Opposition will be supporting the Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill. I think there is no choice but to do that. It is the third time we have done this. We had interim legislation in October 2006 which expired in 2007. Late in 2007 the expiry date was extended and the legislation will expire on 30 June this year. This bill again pushes that date out while another review occurs. 
I note the strong support of the Leader of the House now for the legislation. It reminds me somewhat of the comments of my former colleague Steve Maharey. He made some comments while in Opposition as I remember it. He said: “That’s one of the things you say in Opposition.” I note that Anne Tolley when in Opposition said this legislation was a rort and was an absolute disgrace to democracy in New Zealand. Now she is voting for it. The Leader of the House said it was Mugabe-style legislation and it was utterly disgraceful. Now he is not only voting for it—[ 
Interruption 
] Oh it is all right now because the National Government is promoting it not the Labour Party. I can understand from the comments I made earlier that sometimes people’s perspectives change when they go from one side of the House to the other. But I think the National Government now understands the necessity for this legislation although I am not sure whether it needed to continue it for this period of time. If Government members had got on with the job in the way they said they would do had the reviews done and had the proper legislation introduced this bill would not be necessary. 
But I can accept that the National members have had one or two more important things than this bill on their minds over recent months. Hopefully now that that time has passed they will be able to focus on this issue and get it sorted out. 
Bill read a third time.