Locke Keith: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Locke Keith: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5926] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the Green Party to follow up on what our co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons said in the first reading debate. We will be abstaining on the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill and I want to explain briefly why. It is for two reasons. The first reason is in terms of the content of the bill itself. The bill has many good points that help in looking forward and the process of clarifying what is appropriate expenditure on MPs’ parliamentary business. But we are also concerned that the bill as it stands may convey the impression and the feeling that MPs can relieve themselves of the responsibility for spending money inappropriately. The Auditor-General as the referee has determined that that is the case and we do have respect for his office in this parliamentary system in our system of government whether he is right or wrong or whether or not some of the expenditure was misspent. In our case some of the money was wrongly spent but in some cases of course we challenged that finding. 
We will also be abstaining because we have a confidence and supply agreement with the Labour Party in Government and that is an agreement to abstain on motions deemed to be those of confidence and supply—which this one has been defined as. I would like to point out quite clearly that the Green Party will be repaying every cent of the money deemed by the Auditor-General to be inappropriately spent. It is not easy for the Green Party as a small party with six MPs in Parliament to do so just as it is not easy for some of the other parties to do so. But we will do our duty in that respect. We will keep our faith with the process. 
We will also be working constructively with other parties in this House to clearly refine the laws on MPs’ expenditure—what parliamentary business actually is etc. etc.—because the report of the Auditor-General has put all MPs in the very uncomfortable and untenable position of not really knowing what is acceptable and what is unacceptable at any point in the electoral cycle. It is particularly problematic for small parties that are mainly made up of list MPs. For instance in one of my own portfolios I am the foreign affairs spokesperson for the Green Party. Most of the subjects I speak on like North Korean nuclear tests have nothing to do with legislation in this House but those subjects are just as important for the people of New Zealand and the people of the world in both a political and a parliamentary sense. So the Green Party in promoting the Green attitude on North Korean nuclear testing—on which we have been very critical and on which we have tried to put forward some constructive solutions—deems that very much to be parliamentary business. Also of course I in my role and other Green MPs in their roles want to get our views out to as many New Zealanders as possible—to all New Zealanders if we can—so there should not be any restraint on our ability to do that in terms of it being deemed to be a parliamentary purpose. 
So these are the sorts of things that we want to clarify as the discussions continue with the Parliamentary Service Commission the parties and the Speaker and with proper legal advice as we go through. The Green Party will be very much a part of that process. 
We also hope there will be a much clearer definition not only of what is appropriate for election spending but also of money coming into the coffers of political parties for the financing of elections. We want a very clear definition in order to get away from these big anonymous donations which can skew the electoral process. In a number of respects problems have been identified with large anonymous donations and the way they are put into trust accounts—particularly by donors to the National Party. Third-party spending is also quite a vexed question. We do not want to stop groups outside political parties from engaging in the democratic process but we do not want it to be a cover for parties to in fact lift their spending caps through third-party campaigns and donations. So we want to be part of the process of defining that matter. 
This whole issue has been very difficult for all of the parties but in another way we should look on the positive side. It has forced us to grapple with the issue of parliamentary spending to grapple with our accountability to the public of New Zealand and to grapple with election financing by parties and third parties. With that positive perspective the Green Party abstains from voting on this bill.