CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) Link to this
I seek leave to take clauses 1 to 5 of the Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill as one debatable question.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) Link to this
Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This comment is addressed to Ms Bennett. It has just been drawn to my attention by people who have watched a video of question time in the House earlier today that Ms Bennett was waving rather than making a one-fingered gesture. It did not look like that from this angle. I apologise to her for the comments that I made.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) Link to this
The member has offered an apology. That is acceptable, I am sure, but it is beyond the scope of the Committee to deal with it.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
I understand that, but this is the first opportunity I have had to raise the matter.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) Link to this
Breaching the rules with good intention, I assure the member, is usually acceptable.
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) Link to this
I rise to take a brief call on the Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill, and to bring to the attention of members of the public the reason for having the Committee stage of the bill, which will then be voted to go through to the next stage.
This Government bill proposes an interim meaning for the term “funding entitlements for parliamentary purposes”, where it is used in the Parliamentary Service Act 2000, and will apply until 31 December 2010. Generally speaking, the bill maintains the legislative framework that has been in place since the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Act 2007 was passed, and it preserves the convention observed by members before then, which was that parliamentary publicity entitlements should not be used for electioneering.
The bill actually goes further than that. Clause 4 of the bill, “Interim meaning of ‘funding entitlements for parliamentary purposes’ ”, is quite specific in that it covers “funding entitlements for parliamentary purposes” and includes “funding for all or any of the following purposes: (a) the performance by a member of Parliament of his or her role and functions as a member of Parliament: (b) the performance by a recognised party … of its role and functions as a recognised party: (c) the provision of travel, accommodation, and attendance services in accordance with any determination made by the Speaker … (d) the provision of communications services”.
Clause 4(d) is the clause that states “(other than services including electioneering)”. That is quite an important point, and it goes to the heart of the point that the press have been making around the use of parliamentary services while electioneering. Clause 4(d) specifically excludes communication services, which means that one cannot use any parliamentary services or parliamentary expenditure to promote electioneering purposes. That point goes to the heart of the matter, whereas the wider clauses allow travel in respect of other parliamentary purposes throughout the entire period of a member’s term, which would be for 3 years. That is an important point that not only members of the House may be interested in but also the wider public.
The bill is important. It maintains a clear definition of “parliamentary purposes” going forward. It allows us to have that definition while a review is under way, which the Hon Simon Power has started to conduct. It is a cross-party review, which will allow us to get to a clear definition so that we will not have to roll this bill forward in the future. That is a positive step forward. It is step that is genuinely cross-party in this instance, and is a definite step forward. I commend this bill to the Committee, and I look forward to the third reading and to taking the legislation through. Thank you, Mr Chairperson.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) Link to this
The Labour Party will not be taking a lot of time on the Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill. It is not hard legislation; it has to be supported. The task that Simon Power has taken on is a considerable one. To get the definition right may not be quite as easy as Mr Tremain has indicated it will be. I think the one thing Simon Power has going for him is that he now has Rodney Hide within the ministry, and he will be able to draw on his experience in these matters and ensure that we get something that will not be criticised. However, in order to get something that works, I suggest he work with Rodney Hide’s colleague Roger Douglas.