Brown Peter: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — Second Reading 
Brown Peter: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13024] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I have to say that that was an interesting speech but it almost totally contravenes what National members on the Parliamentary Service Commission have said in terms of this sort of ruling. Some 5 years ago just after the 2002 election members of the Parliamentary Service Commission sat down together. There were two National members on the commission: Gerry Brownlee was one and John Carter was another if I recall correctly. 
We discussed the Speaker’s directions as they appertained to MPs going into the 3-month period before an election which is what is currently in the legislation. It was agreed that electioneering embraced members going out and asking for a vote embraced members going out and asking for financial assistance and embraced members going out and seeking support in many ways. That is reflected in this Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill. 
It was also agreed that any literature that the member or the party put out that was paid for by the member by the party from the party leader’s fund or by the individual’s fund would have displayed on the back or somewhere prominent the parliamentary crest in order to show that it had been paid for by taxpayers’ money. It would also include contact numbers. 
The Auditor-General came up with a report in June 2005 in which he intimated that there could be some concerns about the methodology if you like that had been adopted. Obviously I cannot read out the whole report but he made some relevant points. One of them was when he spoke about MMP: “The nature of MMP politics also makes it essential for parties to differentiate themselves from each other both in Parliament and when in government and visibly to take ownership of particular policies and initiatives.” One could conclude from that statement that it is OK for MPs to go out and tell the public at large what they stand for. 
The Auditor-General went on to state in another part of the report: “The autonomy of Ministers and MPs in their relationship with the public must be preserved. Ministers and MPs are elected officers not employees. They have a right to freely interact with the public as their elected representatives without restriction.” Those are the Auditor-General’s words in his June report. 
Further he went on to state under the heading “Complementary rules and standards should apply”: “Each set of rules and standards should”—and this is one of the bullet points—“identify clear and workable procedures for the approval of publicity before publication takes place;”. There were a number of other points but the points I have read out are very very relevant. 
When it came to the 2005 election New Zealand First went along to the Parliamentary Service and asked for approval to publish the document  
Your choice for change 
. The document outlines what the Auditor-General in his June report said was allowed. That is all it does. It does not ask for a vote it does not ask for members and it does not ask for money. It has the crest on it and it has the contact numbers. Not only did we go to the Parliamentary Service but we went to the Chief Electoral Officer and he approved the document. 
Rodney Hide 
: We did the same. 
PETER BROWN 
: ACT’s Rodney Hide has just said that he did the same. I know United Future did the same. But the Auditor-General came along and said that it was all wrong. We went to the referees and they said we had complied with the rules as written and as understood in the Speaker’s directions but the Auditor-General said that it was all wrong. 
As a result New Zealand First has a bill for some $159000 or thereabouts. We are still using this brochure. We used it before the 3-month period of the last election we used it during the 3-month period of the last election and we are using it now—and it complies with the rules now. 
The Speaker’s directions have been formulated in the last year or so. The MPs sitting on the Parliamentary Service Commission who have worked long and extensive hours reading debating and getting rules in place would agree to the man and the woman that what is in this document complies with the rules. The document complies with the rules now it complied with the Speaker’s directions in 2005 and it would have complied with the rules had it been in existence in 2002 1999 1996 and going back before that. But the Auditor-General said that it does not comply. 
This bill strengthens the Speaker’s directions in this regard and that is why we need it. We need this bill to protect us from the Auditor-General’s wisdom. That might be a tough call. I see Rodney Hide there frowning. [ 
Interruption 
] I think Parliamentary Service would agree with us. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: They would? 
PETER BROWN 
: Yes it would agree with us that we got it right. Parliamentary Service approved the document before and it would approve it—I am almost certain—again now under the current rules. The current rules the Speaker’s directions are set out so that members can follow them bullet point by bullet point. This brochure would get a clean tick-off yet it is going to cost our party in large measure $159000. I say “in large measure” because I admit there were probably a few things—a few relatively minor things—that did not get ticked off and did not comply. We recognise that we should be upfront about them. They have not been investigated as thoroughly as this brochure so I am not in a position to say categorically that we have offended the rules or broken the rules. I am suggesting that some of the material we produced may have done but in large measure it was this brochure that was deemed to be the offending document. 
We need this legislation. The Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill is meant to come to an end—the sunset clause states—in I think December this year but we have not been able to replace it adequately with suitable legislation. This bill fits. This afternoon we are rolling the legislation over until after the next election to a period of time when the heat will be taken out of this whole issue and we—or the new MPs who might be around the table after the next election—can sit and work out what rules are needed to govern MPs during an election process. 
This bill is only three pages long. There is nothing sinister in it whatsoever. It is as clear as day what MPs can spend their taxpayer entitlements on and it is very simple and straightforward. For people to go out and tell the public that there is some underhand trickery behind this bill— 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Outrageous! 
PETER BROWN 
: —is as my colleague has just said outrageous. New Zealand First will be supporting this bill all the way.