Shirley Ken: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Shirley Ken: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:21971] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 The Parliamentary Service is unique as a Crown body in many respects. Its governing body is actually a commission of politicians. I think we all agree that politicians do not make a good governing body. The other somewhat unique aspect is that the equivalent of the Minister is the Speaker of this Parliament. In terms of the expenditure of taxpayers’ money the Speaker is accountable on behalf of the Parliamentary Service. 
It is in that light that I debate this particular item of the estimates. We have a  
Members’ Handbook of Services 
 prepared by Parliamentary Service staff that specifies quite clearly what is appropriate for members of Parliament to spend taxpayers’ money on out of Vote Parliamentary Service and what is inappropriate. It is spelt out very clearly. 
I have to say that a few months ago I became very concerned when I saw advertising on bus stop shelters all over the countryside sprouting up and I have a photograph of one. They were in Labour Party red and had the message: “You’re better off with Labour”. That was the only message on the advertisement. The Labour website and the Labour Party’s logo were there in Labour Party red; and then blow me down I saw a parliamentary New Zealand House of Representatives crest on it. One could only assume that this was a means on that basis for the Labour Party to be dipping into the trough of the taxpayer to fund Labour’s electioneering campaign with a basic message saying: “You’re better off with Labour”. I ask the Speaker in the chair whether that is appropriate. 
I was so concerned that I wrote quite a long letter to the Speaker who is in charge of the Parliamentary Service Commission outlining my concern and drawing her attention to the  
Members’ Handbook of Services 
. I refer the Committee to rule 1.33 and under 1(b) it defines parliamentary business very very clearly. There are three bullet points. The first point covers what is not included in parliamentary business which is “soliciting subscriptions or other financial support for a political party or candidate at an election.” The second bullet point which is the one I draw the Committee’s attention to states that parliamentary business is not “party political promotional or electioneering material for the purposes of supporting the election of any person or party.” 
In my view the Labour Party’s hoardings—their bus-stop shelter advertisements around the countryside—paid for by the taxpayer through Parliamentary Service were clearly not parliamentary business; they fell fairly and squarely under that second bullet point about “party political promotional or electioneering material for the purposes of supporting the election of any person or party.” It is very clear indeed. 
I was disappointed that the Speaker took over a month to reply to my letter expressing concern. A number of issues arise from that which I want to put to her now. Firstly did she receive advice from Parliamentary Service staff following receipt of my letter of 8 June about Labour election advertising because in her reply she indicated that it is normal to seek advice? Did she seek advice and if so what was that advice? Is she prepared to tell us what that advice was? My second question is whether the Speaker received advice from Parliamentary Service staff following my letter to her of 8 June concerning Labour election advertising; if so did she follow that advice? So I would like to know what the advice was whether she followed the advice and if not why not. 
With reference to my letter to her of 8 June in her reply she referred to the matter as a marginal call. My question is whether that was Parliamentary Service staff labelling it a marginal call or whether that was her interpretation? I would appreciate a response to those questions.