Dunne Peter: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — First Reading 
Dunne Peter: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:12956] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 When I first came to this House 23 years ago I recall very clearly being told by my senior colleagues at that time and by the officials of the legislative department that the funding that would be available to me as a member of Parliament to assist me in my activities as a member of Parliament could not be used to solicit support for my party to invite people to join my party or to invite people to donate funds to my party. 
Over the last 23 years those three core understandings have guided successive generations of members of Parliament and successive parties and Governments in this Parliament about the way in which the funding that is directed towards us as members of Parliament is to be applied. It is quite a separate situation from the provisions of the Electoral Act in so far as they relate to the funding of political parties—not members of Parliament but political parties—and political candidates for election purposes. 
The change occurred in the wake of the ruling of the Auditor-General after the last election which effectively stated that the long-held understandings set out in the  
Members’ Handbook of Services 
 and the various guidelines issued by successive Speakers and chairs of the Parliamentary Service Commission were now to be interpreted by him in a way that differed from all of the interpretations that applied previously. I do not want to get into an argument about whether he was right or wrong—that is history—but the reality was that he applied a different set of standards. He then challenged Parliament to review its rules but significantly he did not offer any advice as to what those rules should be. So Parliament was faced with a challenge to sort things out—“I don’t like what you’ve done despite the fact that I liked it previously. I’m not explaining to you why I’ve had a change of heart but you now sort it out.” 
Treasury then advised the Minister of Finance that on the basis of that advice from the Auditor-General there was a legitimate question about the validity of all parliamentary expenditure back to the time of the passage of the Public Finance Act in 1989. As a consequence of that advice the Minister of Finance brought to Parliament about a year ago legislation to validate that expenditure in terms of the provisions of the Public Finance Act given the warning implied in Treasury’s advice that there might be a question as to the expenditure’s validity in the wake of the Auditor-General’s report. 
Following on from that parties in this Parliament began informal discussions about a way forward. The chiefs of staff of the various parties have been meeting for many months now to try to work out what a new regime might be. It is fair to say that until about a couple of months ago—funnily enough about the time that the heat on the Electoral Finance Bill started to intensify—good progress was being made. At that point it all fell apart and we were faced with the situation—and we are still faced with the situation—whereby the legislation that was passed last year to give us breathing space until the end of this calendar year is rapidly running out of time and no replacement is in place. So if we do not pass a new Act now we face a situation whereby from the start of next year considerable ambiguity applies. 
There are various levels of interpretation as to what the situation might be at that point. The most extreme interpretation that is around is the same one that was raised last year which is that the absence of any legislation will lead the Parliamentary Service Commission and Parliamentary Service to effectively freeze all expenditure for the avoidance of doubt as to its legality. 
At the other end of the spectrum is the claim made in the House this afternoon that nothing much will really change and that the status quo will simply prevail. Well I want to remind the House what that status quo would be. It would be the situation we all thought we were in prior to the Auditor-General’s report. When it is clear that most of the parties in this House at that time had one set of understandings and expectations about that situation and that the Auditor-General had an entirely different set then simply to revert to that status quo is a completely unacceptable situation and a recipe for doubt and chaos going on into the future. 
So in the absence of agreement having been reached—for reasons that are nothing to do with this Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill but everything to do with a wider political game about the Electoral Finance Bill—it became necessary to bring forward further interim legislation which will apply until a date in 2009 to ensure that the understandings that were put in place last year in the wake of the original report and Treasury advice can carry on through next year for the avoidance of doubt. 
That is all this issue is about. It is relatively simple and mechanical legislation the need for which arises because of the turn of circumstances since the passage of the original bill last year. The debate that will be held over the next few weeks about the Electoral Finance Bill and its provisions is quite separate from this debate because this bill makes it clear in law for the second time that members of Parliament cannot use the funding advanced to them to solicit for votes to solicit for support for their particular parties or to solicit for membership and funding for their particular parties. That is a very clear definition of what constitutes election activity. It is prohibited for members of Parliament to use their public funding for electoral purposes. That is clear-cut well stated and unambiguous. 
The issue of political campaigning is dealt with by the Electoral Finance Bill and as I said that is a separate debate. But if one takes the argument that has been raised here to its logical conclusion it would go something like this: everything that members of Parliament do is directed towards their re-election so helping a constituent with a difficult immigration problem working through with a local community the ways in which a pedestrian crossing might be installed on a dangerous street and dealing with the myriad other examples we can think of that we all do week in and week out by that extreme definition all constitute election activity. 
One could say that that is a bit extreme; it is not quite as bad as that. There is a clear boundary here but I ask where that boundary is. If someone writes to me and asks me what my policy is on dangerous dogs if I send back a glossy pamphlet stating “Here is our policy.” then according to some lights I am breaching the law in terms of what is electioneering. If I write that person a letter crafted in my parliamentary office in parliamentary time and sent on parliamentary letterhead that is an OK activity. If I telephone that person from my office that is apparently an OK activity. 
The point I am making is that some very ridiculous boundaries are being drawn. This bill simply enables members of Parliament to get on with the job we have all been elected to do. If anyone suggests that this advantages incumbents of any particular political persuasion then I say to them that they are treating the New Zealand public as fools and the New Zealand public are not that. They see through cant and hypocrisy and they make their decisions election after election on whom they wish to support based on performance and on their perception of what is in the country’s best interest. I have never yet in all my time in this House come across a situation whereby an election has been decided on the way in which a party or an individual has used the funding advanced to them to carry out their duties as members of Parliament. That is all this bill is about. 
The high-flown hyperbole and debate should rest for another day when we debate the Electoral Finance Bill. But in the meantime we should get on with passing this bill to enable us to do the very job we were elected to do.