Estimates Debate — Vote Parliamentary Service

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.

I thank the member for raising this matter. As he correctly said, he raised it with me. I apologise for the time that it took to respond, but it did take time, because I received several different streams of advice from several different parties, including Parliamentary Service. At the end of the day, the decision was mine to take. I took that decision.

As I said to the member, it was a marginal call, and I agree with the Auditor-General that certainly it is time that these whole guidelines, as they are characterised—not rules, but guidelines—need to be reviewed. Therefore, I hope that the Parliamentary Service Commission will see itself clear to be able to address this issue, if not before the election—unfortunately because time does not permit—but certainly in the new Parliament. It seems to me that that is a matter of urgency.

Vote agreed to.

Vote Audit agreed to.

Vote Ombudsmen agreed to.

Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment