Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16109] 
Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the conclusion of the first reading debate I will move that the bill be referred to the Standing Orders Committee with an instruction that the bill be finally reported back by 21 July 2008. For reasons I will explain in my speech it is essential that this bill passes before the House rises for the election. 
The bill provides for the Parliamentary Service to maintain a longstanding practice of giving administrative and support services to candidates who are to become members of Parliament. It addresses a technicality that relates to the status of candidates who will clearly be elected but have not yet become members of Parliament. It has been the practice over many years to make some travel and accommodation entitlements available between polling day and the day that members are declared to be elected to those new candidates who clearly will be elected. It has also been the practice to continue to give support during that period to those candidates who were members of Parliament before polling day and the duration of that period has usually been approximately 2 weeks. The practices allow contractual arrangements such as telecommunications and office leases to continue uninterrupted. The practice has also allowed new candidates who clearly will be elected to travel to Wellington to participate in the processes of forming a Government. Doubt has arisen that these past practices were authorised by legislation and therefore are probably illegal under the Public Finance Act. This legislation will remove any doubt about the lawful authority of continuing these practices. 
It is necessary for this legislation to be brought to the House at this time to provide for the continuation of funding entitlements following the close of polling at the general election later this year. Section 7B of the Parliamentary Service Act 2000 requires that funding entitlements administered for parliamentary purposes must relate to specified persons and those specified persons are members and former members. There are no references in the legislation to candidates for election. Therefore the Parliamentary Service is constrained from maintaining the longstanding practice of giving administrative and support services to candidates who are to become members of Parliament. 
It is clearly stated in the Constitution Act 1986 and the Electoral Act 1993 as to who is a member of Parliament. Members are persons who are elected in accordance with the Electoral Act 1993 and they continue in office until the close of polling day at the next general election. From the day after polling day until the day elected candidates take office there are in one sense therefore no members of Parliament in existence. As the Parliamentary Service has authority to approve expenditure in respect of members of Parliament and former members it is doubtful at best as to whether the service can continue to approve expenditure for certain candidates for election from election night to the time when people are declared to be elected. 
It should be noted that this does not apply to Ministerial Services since there is a period after an election when a person can continue to be a Minister even though he or she has not been elected as a member of Parliament and therefore authority to continue expenditure for Ministerial Services continues and does not require further legislative authority. 
If the legislation is not passed it creates the risk of incurring unnecessary but not avoidable additional expense for the taxpayer and the Parliamentary Service because contracts for certain support arrangements would have to be cancelled and then re-established some 2 weeks later. It could prove to be at the least very inconvenient for the short period between the election and the time when candidates formally become members because the service is currently constrained from providing entitlements to candidates. The bill therefore recognises that candidates need to be supported by the Parliamentary Service after the election and that the Parliamentary Service requires clear lawful authority to provide this support. There will be no new entitlements of costs compared with previous practice as a result of this bill. It merely in effect codifies current practice. 
I think that the Standing Orders Committee will need to look in particular at the provisions under new section 9A(4) in terms of how it is decided who these people are who are the candidates who are going to be elected. At the end of the day the bill provides in clause 4 that such a person is a person who “(a) in the opinion of the General Manager (formed in the light of the election night results) it is clear that the person will be declared elected;”. There is of course a certain degree of uncertainty around that. The past practice under first past the post was actually relatively simple. The person who was ahead on election night was presumed to be a member of Parliament and services began to that member including pay and rations from the next day. 
Under MMP of course it is slightly more complicated. Not only is the complication the fact that special votes can change the result in the electorates but as a consequence that can lead in some cases to significant changes to the provisions for list members. Members will recall one election when on election night the Green Party did not qualify for Parliament but once the special votes were counted the Green Party qualified to be within Parliament. That of course significantly changed the entire membership of the House at that point. 
I think there is no way of avoiding some degree of uncertainty in that fashion under the new arrangements because as happened at that point Green members were not serviced by the Parliamentary Service on election night to the time of declaration of the results but nor was any money clawed back from other list MPs who had temporarily been serviced and who then ceased to be members of Parliament when the Green Party was returned to Parliament. So there will always be some uncertainty around the edge but the broad continuity needs to be maintained. Once this matter has been drawn to the attention of the Parliamentary Service it has no choice but not to fund candidates from election night onwards because the illegality has been drawn to its attention and this must be fixed before the next general election. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 This Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill is one of those bills that is necessary for the protection and indeed the promotion of democracy in our country. I think Dr Cullen has very adequately outlined what the bill sets out to do. He used the example of the Green Party facing some difficulties as a result of this law or potentially facing those difficulties but what I would add is that all of the parties in this Parliament have I think faced that situation at some time or another. 
The reality is that in New Zealand we take a pretty simplistic approach to things. We have just the one House and we have a complex electoral system in MMP. The two of them need to be melded in a way that means that if someone is thought to be or is declared to be the winner on the night of an election and the party wants to engage in activities that are appropriate beyond an election as Governments are formed etc. then the expense of calling that person to Wellington is quite rightly met from a fund that recognises the costs of running the democratic institution. Certainly people have come here immediately after an election only to find themselves 2 weeks later to be no longer part of the institution and out. I do not think it is right that those people should face that expense on their own. I think it is only appropriate that when people are summoned here they should have their basic expenses met. 
I know that people listening out there will be thinking that this is some sort of a clever featherbed deal. It is not. It is pretty straightforward. It will not cost the State any exorbitant amount. I think people should rightly accept this cost as being part of our democratic arrangements ensuring that in a country like New Zealand access to the legislature is not determined by a person’s own resources but rather by the people who choose to elect them on a ballot paper. 
We look forward to the deliberations of the Standing Orders Committee. We will participate fully in those. There will be an opportunity for people to make submissions to that committee over a relatively brief period of time and I suspect that the basic principles outlined in this bill will be upheld. 
The National Party is very keen to support this bill through its first reading to ensure we uphold the idea that anyone who is elected can come to Parliament freely and unimpeded by any personal situation or for that matter any barrier put in front of them by the State. With that I will conclude my remarks and repeat that the National Party will support the first reading of this bill. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I rise to support the first reading of the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill and I follow on from the comments from the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House who have set out what an important bill this is for several reasons of the practicality of running our Parliament. It is clearly needed to enable the Parliamentary Service to maintain its longstanding practice of giving administrative and support services to candidates who are to become members of Parliament either because they have gone into the general election as a member of Parliament or because of their candidacy being successful either in a constituency seat or by way of a party list based on the support that their party received in the general election. 
If we do not pass this legislation we do face the risk of there being a number of adverse effects which I do not think serve any political party member of Parliament or most important member of the public well. It would put at risk a whole range of services that MPs are able to deliver to their constituents which is not a beneficial outcome at all. 
Without this bill there will be issues about the ability of the Parliamentary Service to continue funding electorate offices for example. That would mean completely unnecessary costs would be incurred as things like leases for electorate offices are broken only to be re-established once the formal declaration has been announced and also in relation to things like power bills and telephone bills. I think it is worth mentioning those; as Mr Brownlee indicated these are very practical matters. It is not about feathering any nests but power bills need to be paid rents need to be paid and most important the salaries of those who support members of Parliament in electorate offices and out-of-Parliament offices need to be addressed. 
There is one other point that I think is important from a fairness point of view and it relates to the state of political parties during coalition negotiations following a general election. This legislation impacts on members of Parliament not on Ministers. The arrangements for supporting Ministers are of course made by Ministerial Services under the Department of Internal Affairs and Ministers act under warrants. That is why it is important to widen it out to all members of Parliament so that members who are elected at an election can continue to come to Wellington while those talks are continuing. The parties that are most benefited by this legislation are those that do not have Ministers within their ranks. 
The legal advice to the Parliamentary Service made it clear that it would not be able to continue its longstanding practice of providing support to those who would clearly be elected as members of Parliament following an election which would mean in effect that following an election Ministers would be able to be supported and MPs would not. Clearly that is not a tenable position and the Government is moving to address that. 
Dr Cullen indicated that he would be moving an instruction to the select committee for the bill to be reported back by 21 July. That is a very sensible approach because it will need to be passed in time for the formal processes to be completed and for Madam Speaker to issue her directions in accordance with it. Having the bill back in the House in late July means that we can realistically aim to pass it by early August at the latest. That will allow the process for the Speaker’s directions to be completed well in advance of the general election. 
This is a sensible bill. It is a practical bill for the operation of our Parliament and it is supported by parties across the House. There is a need to progress the bill expeditiously and I commend it to the House. 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 I want to make a short contribution on the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill. In essence this bill is a bit of a tidy-up because currently there is no legislation to cover the gap between the time of the polling booth closures and the time when candidates officially become MPs and take office. 
This bill is an important step forward and we have heard from previous speakers that it is important particularly in relation to covering office rentals and telecommunications. We all know that if those services are not continued then there is a reconnection fee and that would be of considerable cost to the taxpayer when it is weighed up across all MPs’ offices and the vital communication services that are provided to them. 
The crux of this bill is covered in subsection (3) of new section 9B in clause 4. It will allow the General Manager of the Parliamentary Service to cover the criteria. The directions will come through the Speaker as is set out in new section 9C. New section 9D is also an important aspect for the Standing Orders Committee to look at. 
National supports this bill. One of our MPs actually came into the House for just a few weeks at the 2005 election. Katrina Shanks came into the House at that time but when the special votes were counted she unfortunately could not stay. Lo and behold when Dr Brash stood down Katrina Shanks came back into Parliament and she is making a wonderful contribution. This bill will cover the period of 2 weeks that otherwise would not be covered by legislation. 
I was pleased to hear from Mr Hughes tonight that he has ruled out an early election. This bill will come back to the House at the end of July and be passed in August. I have heard from Dr Cullen and Mr Hughes that an early election following the Budget has obviously been ruled out and that we will have to hang on until August and possibly right through to November and we are ready for that. National supports this bill. We look forward to the Standing Orders Committee reporting it back in July. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 United Future joins other parties in supporting this bill. I will not go over the history of the reasons why such a measure is necessary. I want to make just one observation. It is a sad commentary on our times perhaps that we now face the requirement to legislate for what was always regarded to be the case. In fact in earlier times we would have simply carried on the way that we were and none would have been too concerned about it. I recall the famous case of the gentleman whose name temporarily escapes me who in 1954 took this Parliament to court because he discovered that the writs for the calling of the 1946 election had been issued improperly and he therefore contended before the court that not only was that election invalid but every subsequent action of the Government between that date and the date in 1954 when he lodged his action was equally invalid. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Was it Kevin Brady? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: No I do not think his name was Brady. When the Supreme Court heard the case it ruled that he was correct but that the consequences of giving some effect to the decision would be simply impractical so it let matters lie. That was an eminently sensible solution. Unfortunately such solutions do not seem to be de rigueur today and when we become apprised of a situation such as this which we all know is a nonsense we have a requirement for legislation to put right what we have always thought was the case. If that is the way we do things in this day and age so be it. However it is an unfortunate situation and it makes one wonder what else we will discover in due course that we have long thought was legal and permissible is not and needs to be corrected. 
This is not a particularly controversial matter. It is a straightforward matter and I welcome it going to the Standing Orders Committee and soon being back here to be passed into law so that the next group of members of Parliament who may be affected by it can rest easy on election night that whatever their fate they will at least get their allowances paid between that date and the return of the writs. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill be considered by the Standing Orders Committee 
 and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 21 July 2008. 
Motion agreed to.