Chauvel Charles: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Chauvel Charles: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13534] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I would like to make a contribution on the interpretation of clauses 58 80 and 81 in relation to spending undertaken by members of Parliament in their roles as members of Parliament rather than as candidates. I draw the Committee’s attention to the current section 213 of the Electoral Act 1993 which relevantly provides that “election activity in relation to a candidate at an election in any district means an activity … (c) which—(i) relates to the campaign for the return of the candidate in the candidate’s capacity as a candidate for the district and not to the candidate—(A) in his or her capacity as a member of Parliament or as the holder of any other office;”. That is the law at the moment. 
The Electoral Finance Bill will repeal this provision and re-enact it as regards candidates in clause 58 and then go on to replicate it in summary form in clauses 80 and 81 concerning party expenses. This will ensure that members of Parliament can continue to carry out their obligations to communicate with their constituents— 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Your heart’s not in it. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Members opposite may not think that it is important to communicate with constituents but members on this side of the Chamber do and take that responsibility very seriously. 
There is no clear legislative definition of “in his or her capacity as a member of Parliament” and in my view it would actually be undesirable to try to define too tightly what MPs can appropriately do as MPs. The situation will always be evolving. But the lack of a clear definition does not mean there is no guidance available to MPs or to those interpreting the legislation. Let me just cite three sources for the benefit of the Committee where assistance can be derived to assist in interpreting the meaning of clauses 58 80 and 81. 
The first source is the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Act which is very recent legislation of this House. That Act specifies that MPs cannot spend parliamentary resources on material that seeks to support the election of a particular person or particular people or that seeks to support the casting of a party vote for a particular political party or parties or that encourages any person to become a member of a political party or parties or that solicits subscriptions or other financial support. So any material that failed that four-part test could not properly be said to be issued in an MP’s capacity as an MP rather than as a candidate. 
Let us just think about the second source the Speaker’s directions and determinations as endorsed by the Parliamentary Service Commission. Although the legislation sets out the broad framework the Speaker on the advice of the Parliamentary Service Commission has recently issued rules on the way MPs can spend parliamentary money. Material issued by an MP in his or her capacity as an MP rather than as a candidate would need to meet this test. The Auditor-General appeared before the Finance and Expenditure Committee last week. He commented on how helpful these new guidelines are and in particular on how useful the pre-approval process is. So there is very clear guidance from that quarter as to what constitutes material put out by MPs in their capacity as MPs. 
Finally there is practice. This provision has been substantially part of our law since 1956. It is not an innovation that the Electoral Commission has to grapple with and we should not pretend that it is. The law in this area is actually relatively well settled. Let us not make a storm in a teacup about it.