Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) Link to this

I move, That the Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill be now read a first time. At the conclusion of the first reading debate, I will move that this bill be referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee, with an instruction that the bill be finally reported back to the House by 15 June 2009. For reasons I will explain in my speech, it is essential that the bill is passed before 1 July 2009.

This is a short bill that provides an interim definition for the term “funding entitlements for parliamentary purposes” for the purpose of clarifying the principal duties of the Parliamentary Service. The bill provides an interim definition that is very similar to the meaning set out in the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Act 2007, which expires on 1 July 2009.

Generally speaking, the bill maintains the legislative framework that has been in place since legislation was passed in 2006, and preserves the convention observed by members of Parliament before 2006, which was that Parliamentary publicity entitlements should not be used for electioneering. As I have said, this has been a convention for many years. It was first provided for in legislation in 2006. The interim arrangements that were made in 2006 were renewed in 2007. Extending the current interim definition by passing the legislation will ensure certainty and transparency for all parties while a permanent definition is developed and enacted.

If the definition lapses, we will return to the unclear and uncertain situation that followed the Controller and Auditor-General’s inquiry into Advertising expenditure incurred by the Parliamentary Service in the three months before the 2005 General Election. That inquiry highlighted the need for Parliament to define very clear rules about services and funding for parliamentary purposes, and, particularly, the need to make a distinction between publicity that is for a parliamentary purpose and publicity that is not for a parliamentary purpose because it is, by its very nature, electioneering. The bill preserves the relatively simple and straightforward provisions of the current interim Act, and maintains the long-understood rule that members cannot use the fund for publicity or communications that solicit votes for themselves or their parties, that solicit donations, or that solicit for membership of their parties. The bill enables members to get on with the job they were elected to do. It also enables the Parliamentary Service to do its job, and avoids creating an environment of uncertainty for officials while the electoral finance review is in progress.

I think it is worthwhile reminding the House that the history of the interim definition is that the Controller and Auditor-General’s report on advertising expenditure during the 2005 general election concluded that some of the expenses that were met from the Vote Parliamentary Services appropriation were, in fact, election expenses, and should not have been paid by the Parliamentary Service. Members will remember that there were some famous examples of that. The most notable was the instance of the Labour Party’s pledge card, when the Parliamentary Service was required to pay for—not just in the 2005 election but also during the successive election—a pledge card that essentially outlined the Labour Party policy that would form the basis of any Government action, should Labour be successful in being elected. Of course, in 2005 a Labour Government was elected. The Controller and Auditor-General brought down his report, and, as a consequence, a process was enacted to see that the money was refunded to the Crown.

Following the Controller and Auditor-General’s report, there was a need to establish and define exactly what “parliamentary purposes” were, and, in particular, what was meant by “electioneering” when considering communications and publicity by members and parliamentary parties. Concern was also expressed that while the Controller and Auditor-General’s report focused on the advertising expenditure, it had implications for all expenditure under the Vote Parliamentary Services appropriation. The Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Act 2006 was subsequently introduced to give clarity to the phrase “parliamentary purposes”. One of the little-known facts is that the uncertainty created by the Controller and Auditor-General’s report at that time might have meant that all expenditure by all parties on any matter could have been considered somewhat illegal at that time. The legislation specified that publicity was within the scope of “parliamentary purposes” unless it included explicit electioneering. Basically, the Controller and Auditor-General said, and the law at the time was changed to say, that material could not explicitly seek votes, donations, or party membership. Although that had been the practice of political parties for some years, the Auditor-General’s report left open the question of what could be considered in that regard.

The 2006 Act expired in 2007 and was subsequently rolled over into the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Act 2007, which expires on 1 July 2009. The current interim definition needs to be rolled over to avoid a requirement of the Parliamentary Service to apply, and observe, a narrower definition of “parliamentary purpose” developed by the Controller and Auditor-General. The interim definition provides a brightline test, with a very clear guide about what is prohibited. That is generally considered to be satisfactory because it has stood the test of time. There were no incidents such as occurred in 2005 repeated in 2008. It has been maintained through two interim statutes, which have been in place for some 2½ years. The bill provides an interim meaning that is substantively the same save for some minor technical changes, which have been included. It has proven to be administratively practical by the Parliamentary Service since introduction. There has not been the need to require major changes in the practices of members and parties, which would have been the consequence of the Controller and Auditor-General’s approach.

The interim definition is clear about the publicity material that can be funded using parliamentary funds. It is preferable to have the interim definition continue so that the Parliamentary Service is not faced with having to develop new policies and guidelines for members before having to respond to any requirements that could arise from the electoral finance review. It is more sensible to allow this review to be completed, and, in the meanwhile, for the current definition to continue so that policies and administrative guidelines need not be changed twice in the next 18 months.

Developing a permanent definition has taken longer than was originally envisaged. The Government has already signalled that it intends to review the electoral finance rules, and will soon be releasing a discussion paper to facilitate that. It is worth noting that all political parties have signalled a willingness to participate in that review in order that there is settled law around electoral financing for future elections. Therefore it seems reasonable to allow the current legislation for the definition of “funding entitlements for parliamentary purposes” to continue so that where any changes need to be made they are done in conjunction with that electoral finance review. The Government expects the review to be completed, and any resulting legislation to be enacted, in this term of Parliament. That is why the bill provides an expiry date of 31 December 2010—that is, we expect the permanent definition to be developed by that date.

Although the bill maintains the status quo in most respects, there are a small number of technical changes to be included. The changes are as follows. First, the bill covers more than one financial year so the reference to appropriations needs to reflect that fact. Secondly, the new meaning of the bill excludes reference to inter-parliamentary travel programmes, as that is not funded from Vote Parliamentary Service but from Vote Office of the Clerk; it does not need to be there. Thirdly, the bill has been drafted to take account of the Parliamentary Service Amendment Act 2008, which allowed for the Speaker to make directions for services and funding entitlements to be available to certain electoral candidates in periods between polling day and the declaration date—that is, where a candidate is deemed to be elected on election night but not sworn in for some time later. That interim period left them totally uncovered. This bill takes care of that matter.

In the meantime, the interim definition is consistent with the purpose of the appropriations and has set what is considered to be an acceptable threshold for material to be considered as electioneering and therefore outside the scope of being regarded as for parliamentary purposes. I commend this bill to the House. I indicate that the bill will be referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) Link to this

I immediately signal that the Labour Party will be voting in favour of the first reading of the Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill. This bill has had a long history in the Chamber. It is not the first time the contents of this legislation have been debated. In fact, this is the third occasion on which our attention has been drawn to the contents of the legislation—as the Leader of the House indicated. What is different on this occasion is the calmer nature in which the House finds itself considering the bill, and, as ridiculously tempting as it is to quote back from some earlier Hansards when this issue was addressed by the Chamber, I will resist doing that, and say that I think it may be possible, finally, for the parties in Parliament to work together to come up with an enduring and proper definition of “parliamentary purposes”. If we are able to do that, then that would be a significant achievement for Parliament.

Clearly, we would not want to see the current definition expire on 1 July, but extending it only until the end of next year puts a responsibility on the House to come to a solution that will be a permanent definition, rather than an interim meaning of funding for parliamentary purposes. I am sure the Leader of the House will bring all his drive, energy, and determination to ensuring we achieve that target by December 2010. The Labour Party will certainly be working constructively with him in order to make sure that that can happen.

In the meantime, it is important to reinforce some of the points that Mr Brownlee made. First of all, this bill enables members of Parliament to do their work, but it draws an absolute line between the work of members of Parliament in terms of their constituency, their legislative work, and their representational work and what would be considered electioneering. It is very clear that it will continue to be against the law for the Parliamentary Service to fund advertising, in particular, for anything other than a proper parliamentary purpose. In other words, it will exclude electioneering—that is, to ask somebody to vote for a certain person or a certain party, to seek support for the election of a certain person, or, of course, to ask for donations or financial support for, or membership of, a political party, or for a financial donation to a particular candidate. Ruling those things out continues the practice that members of Parliament have been working under since we have been applying those new rules. I have to say that the processes that Parliament now has through the Parliamentary Service are far more robust than anything we have seen here before, and I think they will assist us in coming up with a permanent meaning of “funding entitlements for parliamentary purposes” Nobody would like to see the legitimate work of members of Parliament impeded but it is important that people know that that funding cannot be used for those areas I just mentioned.

The bill extends the time line for the definition until the end of next year, and I repeat what I said about the desire of Labour to work with the Government on it. It is true that many of the aspects covered by this bill are covered by conventions that have built up in Parliament over many, many years for representing and serving the people of New Zealand. Many of those conventions are now documented by way of the Speaker’s directions. That has been very helpful for members in terms of seeking funding for their work. I believe the pre-approval system of publicity, in particular, has ensured that members do not—particularly inadvertently—find themselves in a situation where they have not complied with Parliament’s rules when they are advertising for their purposes.

I pick up on the point the Leader of the House mentioned about funding for certain candidates. There is an important category, very rarely seen, where a member of Parliament may be elected on the night but not be able to be sworn in for a period of time, or, conversely, elected on the night, required to take part in post-election Government formation and planning but then not finally sworn in because of a change, either in special votes at a constituency level or in party votes across the country. Of course, we had an example of that at the last election: Mr Cam Calder, a National Party list MP, was named as a member of Parliament on election night but, in the final count, was not sworn in to the Chamber. I do not think anybody would want to see him have to fly to Wellington from his home in South Auckland and stay in Wellington for a period of weeks, only to find that he was not joining the Parliament and therefore needed to reimburse the money. I think the rules are very clear about tidying that up. It is probably appropriate in the case of Mr Calder because, of course, in the Mt Albert by-election the National Party candidate is a sitting list MP and if she was to be elected, it would be Mr Calder who would come to Parliament to replace her on the list—the people of Mt Albert would be sending somebody from Manurewa down to Wellington as their representative. So it is probably quite important we have those provisions in the legislation—not, that, of course, I see that scenario happening, but it is very important that the people of Mt Albert know that a vote for Melissa Lee is a vote for somebody called Cam Calder.

NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki) Link to this

I rise to take a call on the Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill in its first reading this afternoon. It has a short report-back time through the Finance and Expenditure Committee, but it is important that it goes through that process. In essence, this bill that we are addressing this afternoon will provide an interim definition for an important piece of work for the Government and the whole of the House. I say to members, as a little bit of background, that the definition is currently provided in the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Act 2007, which expires in July 2009. A roll over is needed so that the interim definition can continue until Parliament is able to consider a permanent definition.

I will talk a little bit about some of the things that have already been covered by the previous two speakers, and, indeed, will make my own personal remarks as well. The need for the bill came when the Auditor-General in 2006 conducted an inquiry into advertising expenditure following the 2005 election. Some changes were recommended—and, indeed, made—as a result of the rort that occurred with the pledge card. It is imperative that that mistake is not made in the future and that we learn from it.

Some measures in this bill relate specifically to electioneering, and that is an important part of this bill that we need to get right. There are two forms of publicity. One is around parliamentary publicity, where MPs are out promoting themselves in their own community so that their constituents come and see them in their electorate offices. Then there is the other one that crosses the line, and that is to do with electioneering.

Clause 4(3) of this bill defines the term “electioneering” to mean “any communication that explicitly—(a) seeks support for the election of a particular person or people; or (b) seeks support for the casting of a party vote for a particular political party or political parties; or (c) encourages any person to become a member of a particular political party or political parties; or (d) solicits subscriptions or other financial support.” It is great that this bill spells that out very, very clearly.

Another important part of this bill excludes from the funding for travel that which comes from the Office of the Clerk’s vote, and that is an important point to make in terms of the inter-parliamentary travel programme. It covers things to do with accommodation, communication, and travel outside of the scope of this bill.

It is important that we get this bill right. We need to ensure that it goes through the select committee process, and it should have wide-ranging support from the House this afternoon. It is great to hear that Labour has acknowledged that it believes that Cam Calder—who was a list member for the National Party for a short period of time before the special votes were counted and concluded—will come back into the House, given the opportunity that National has to secure the Mt Albert by-election. We are working particularly hard in that area, but we realise that it is a strong Labour electorate. We are getting on with the business at hand there, rolling out the proposal on the Waterview Connection—the very important road that will reduce Auckland’s congestion.

In conclusion, I say that this is an important bill. It also covers the amendment Act of 2008, and it is important that I remark on that. I spoke on that Act towards the end of last year when we found out that a member who was voted in on election night, not declared in the House, and not sworn in had a window of 6 weeks when that person was not necessarily funded in terms of support budgets for electorate offices—phones and leases were not covered. This bill captures that as well. This is an important bill, which is heading off this afternoon to the Finance and Expenditure Committee with a very tight report-back date of 15 June. I commend this bill in its first reading in the House.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) Link to this

The Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill deals with a very difficult public policy issue. In order for democracies to work, people who vote for political parties have to know what the different parties or members of Parliament stand for. It is very important that members of Parliament be able to express what they stand for and stand against, so that when people come to exercise their vote, they do so in the knowledge of what the people and parties stand for. Virtually everything that we do in this Parliament, or at least a great proportion of it, is highly politicised. It is the very nature of this place that it is political. It is nonsense to suggest that when we communicate with people about where we stand on a particular issue, we are not influencing their view of us as a politician or of a particular political party.

Therein lies the difficulty, because some people say we, as politicians, ought never to use the taxpayers’ money that is used to fund this Parliament to influence how people vote in the future. Yet everything we do is intended to have that effect. In the contest that we have in this Parliament every day, we have National putting a proposition in support of a piece of legislation—or not necessarily a piece of legislation, but a policy setting—and on the other side of the House we have another political party, Labour or other members of the Opposition, putting forward an alternative viewpoint. We are funded to do that. It is very important that it is a transparent process. It is important that people understand what we stand for.

This bill tries to draw a line between that sort of conduct and conduct that goes a step too far and uses public money to explicitly seek support for the election of a particular person. Some people would say that test is not the right test, and there should be some other test. The test that is in this legislation and has been in the legislation for the past couple of years has been termed the “brightline test”. This is where we try to draw a difficult line by saying any other line is so grey as to be impossible to properly police, because so much of what we do is so intrinsically political and so implicitly seeks the support of people at a future election that it would be caught by a grey line.

This legislation resolves that problem by imposing a brightline test. It says that in order for someone to infringe the rule that is set out in this legislation, that person has to explicitly ask for someone’s vote, explicitly ask someone to join a political party, explicitly encourage someone to become a member of a political party, or explicitly solicit financial support. And if one does any of those things, this legislation says it cannot be done out of money that is voted through Parliament. But if one does other things that are political, like the National Party does on any issue—be it Auckland governance, tax policy, or accident compensation policy; whatever the issue is—then it is perfectly proper for members of Parliament to advocate either in support of or against that proposition, and in doing so to highlight the role of the different political parties in support of, or in opposition to, the proposition that is being discussed.

I think that this legislation is appropriate, and that is why the Labour Party supports this bill. I go into the background of the difficult policy issue that lies behind this bill, because it is very difficult to do better than the brightline test that we have currently. That is why I am quite pleased to hear the National Party members today use moderate language surrounding this bill. It does represent, even as a stop-gap measure, a considerable reversal of National’s prior stance. National opposed this bill—or the Acts that already had these provisions in them—using very strong language. It described the bill as Mugabe-like legislation, and as utterly disgraceful legislation. It was described as a rort by some people who are now Ministers, and it was described as a disgrace by yet other National members who are now Ministers. But the reality is that the difficult public policy issue behind this bill is as I have described it.

This legislation allows politicians to do what people elect politicians to do, which is to take and to promote different points of view, but it does not allow them to go so far as to take that extra step of using the money that funds this place, and that funds politicians to go about their business, to ask people to vote for or fund politicians. For those reasons the Labour Party will be supporting this bill.

I say one further thing in respect of the underlying discussion that is taking place on appropriate rules around campaign expenditure. These are very difficult issues. I think the difficulty is shown by the rules that we had at the last election, which have since been repealed. The financial returns of the political parties following that election purported to show that less was spent by the National Party on that election than was spent by the Labour Party. We all know that in reality the amount spent in pursuit of election at the last election by the National Party was a lot more than was spent by the Labour Party in pursuit of election.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) Link to this

I rise to address the Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding of Parliamentary Purposes) Bill. Allow me to state from the outset that the Green Party will support the first reading of this bill and its referral to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. The bill will provide, as has been noted already, an interim meaning until 31 December 2010 for the term “funding entitlements for parliamentary purposes”.

The bill’s genesis goes back to the Auditor-General’s report of 2006 on advertising expenditure for the 2005 election. Legislation was needed to give clarity to the term, and this was done through the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Act 2007, which expires on 1 July this year. Thus a new interim meaning is needed that can be extended to the end of next year, within which time New Zealand’s electoral finance provisions will have been reviewed, and, no doubt, relegislated. Clause 4 of the bill before the House today essentially conveys three principal differences from the previous meaning that have been noted by speakers already, namely the time extension of 18 months, the exclusion of inter-parliamentary travel, and the provision of services and resources to certain electoral candidates whose particular circumstances have been noted.

I have to say, as the member in this House who came in on special votes and replaced Mr Cam Calder, I carry something of a feeling of personal responsibility, no doubt shared by 4.2 million other New Zealanders, in enacting that. In terms of his indirect candidacy in the Mt Albert electorate it is not for me to try to predict the result in any way, other than to express the confidence that it will be Dr Norman, the third candidate, who will win that electorate. But if fate did decree, by chance, that the election went the way of the National Party, I would simply set aside all other political considerations and extend a very warm personal welcome to Mr Cam Calder, should he come in. I am told on reliable authority that he is in fact the greenest of the BlueGreens in the National Party. He is a great man and the greenest of the BlueGreens, which may be rather a faint-hearted test in terms of green commitment, but none the less perhaps it is better than nothing in terms of a litmus test of the commitment of the Government to green issues. But it would be a pleasure, in that potential event, to welcome him to the House.

Let me just conclude by reiterating and recalling the proposal the Green Party put forward, when the issue was discussed last in November 2007, for a citizens’ assembly. We believe that under the current conditions there is something of a structural bias that accords inherent advantage to incumbents during elections—both individuals and parties—and we believe that that should be rectified, and a more level playing field restored by way of the House and its procedures taking further advice from the citizenry of this country. We look forward to further discussion of this in the committee, and we are prepared to support the bill as it stands. Thank you.

Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party) Link to this

Tēnā koe, tēnā koutou katoa. The Māori Party is pleased to support the Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill, which is, after all, a transitional measure. The bill is required to respond to the fact that the existing legislation, the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Act 2007, expires on 1 July 2009. An extension of the interim meaning is needed to allow time for a permanent meaning to be considered and enacted. This is simply part of the process that we understand to be taking place within the Government’s review of electoral finance. The new provisions in this bill are not limited to a particular financial year, and need to take account of the 18-month period during which time this bill is to remain in force.

This bill is necessary to ensure that this Parliament makes the appropriate investment in accountability and integrity for public money used for Parliamentary purposes. It comes out of a shadowy, murky past. Māori Party members can recall vividly the circus that fell out of the consequences of the Controller and Auditor-General’s 2006 report into advertising expenditure. That report responded to the inconsistencies and illegalities that were a feature of the 2005 election. The validation Act was passed with an interim meaning, and after that an Appropriation Act was passed to extend the interim meaning.

We have no interest in rehashing arguments and issues that arose in 2005, 2006, and 2007 about the ways that the purposes of parliamentary funding were used or misused to promote performance by a political party for political purposes rather than exclusively for its role and function as a parliamentary party. It is now on the record that we supported the Electoral Amendment Bill to repeal and review the Electoral Finance Act, and, within that, we hope that the definitions around electioneering and funding entitlements for parliamentary purposes will be well and truly worked out.

However, I cannot let the opportunity go by without referring the House to an editorial this morning in the Otago Daily Times. The editorial makes it blatantly clear that the forced disclosure of funding sources put upon political parties has to be seen as one of the problem areas that emerged under the aptly described “mysterious fog of the Electoral Finance Act, a piece of legislation … which no-one—least of all its architects—fully understood.” The editorial points out that “The distance between what the major parties spent on their election campaigns and what they listed in their donation returns is so great as to suggest sufficient loopholes still existed to legally exploit.” This is a shoddy state of affairs that we, as a Parliament, cannot ignore.

There is a specific anomaly identified in that while the previous Electoral Finance Act was presumably to constrain “secret trusts from making large donations without declaring the source … there was nothing to prevent one entity making many donations which were under the $10,000 disclosure barrier.” These are all excellent points of discussion that we hope to see will take place at the select committee stage of this bill.

There is one final statement from the editorial that I believe is appropriate to share with the House in supporting this debate that we are engaged in around transparency and accountability; that is, the revelation made this morning that “the Maori Party spent a mere $222,000 (but won five seats, and some might argue holds the most powerful minority influence in the Government)”. This is not a question around how much money is available. What is the extent to which secret trusts and corporate donors can back political parties? The disclosure from the official returns suggests that the level of spending had little to do with the outcome of the polls. This bill cuts to the very heart of what New Zealanders believe that Parliament should practice; that is, the practice of a healthy democracy where the tikanga of integrity, transparency, and accountability count. The Māori Party believes that it is such tikanga that give expression to rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga. We accept without reservation the need for the prudent management of public money. We are happy to continue the debate around what legitimate parliamentary purposes are, as opposed to electioneering purposes.

I end with some rather harsh words from political commentator Gordon McLauchlan in his book The Big Con: “it is not that difference of opinion on policy has engendered the anger, frustration and sense of powerlessness among New Zealanders. We are angry because the policies were borne of the dissembling, the betrayal and the lies of politicians. People feel democracy has let them down.” The public perception of politicians is frequently described as one of contempt, or at least mistrust. The level of dissatisfaction with politicians has been a feature of New Zealand politics mai rā anō.

We have a chance to change this view. This bill and the Electoral Amendment Bill enable us to have the opportunity to work cooperatively and collaboratively in consolidating definitions of parliamentary purposes to guide our future practice. Politics is absolutely fundamental to the fabric of our society. We owe it to the people and to the integrity of this Parliament to make sure that we get it right and, in doing so, improve the public perception of our performance. Na reira, tēnā koutou.

CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) Link to this

I rise to take a call on the Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill. With the Speaker’s leave, I would like to take the opportunity in this speech to allude to some of the events that occurred in my electorate last week. Before I get there, I start by touching on the bill. It provides, until 31 December 2010, an interim meaning of the term “funding entitlements for parliamentary purposes” for the Parliamentary Service Act 2000.

As the Leader of the House, Gerry Brownlee, said, it is a short bill that provides an interim definition for the term “funding entitlements for parliamentary purposes” for the purpose of clarifying the principal duties of the Parliamentary Service. A number of principal duties are defined in the Parliamentary Service Act. Section 7 alludes specifically to those principal duties. We see in section 7(a) that the duties include providing “administrative support services to the House of Representatives and to members of Parliament;” and section 7(b) continues: “to administer, in accordance with directions given by the Speaker, the payment of funding entitlements for parliamentary purposes.”

It is at this point that I wish to focus on the parliamentary purpose of travel that is provided for in this bill. That is one of the funding streams that is allowed as a parliamentary purpose. It provides for the needs of constituent MPs who would not be able to serve their role without that parliamentary purpose being defined. You see, one of the primary roles of a constituent MP is to support one’s community. Being able to get home quickly in times of tragedy is very important. This bill provides a means for that to take place. No more pertinent an example of this can be given than the events that occurred in Napier last week. I promised my community that at the first opportunity I had to speak in this House, I would somehow find a way, even before the general debate, to stand and acknowledge the people who were involved in that event. Given that I will be attending the funeral of Senior Constable Len Snee tomorrow, I take that opportunity now.

Words cannot describe the tragedy that took place last Thursday morning in Napier. The senseless loss of Senior Constable Len Snee is inexcusable and unfathomable. He was a local man whom many of us, including myself, knew. He was a hard-working police officer who got things done. He was a family man, a sportsman, and a community man. He was the type of guy whom we all respected and looked up to. My thoughts, my family’s prayers, and the thoughts of the entire Hawke’s Bay and Napier community are with you, Vicki, your awesome boys, and your extended family. Our thoughts are also with the families of Senior Constable Bruce Miller and Senior Constable Grant Diver, together with neighbour Leonard Holmwood. Their bravery and courage was simply outstanding. We cannot thank them enough for what they did last Thursday morning. We are all thinking of them and praying that they recover from this ordeal as quickly as possible. It has been said before, but if there is anything that our community can do for those constables or that civilian, then we are here for them and their families.

Our police are now mourning a mate, and they deserve our thanks for the excellent work done in bringing this dangerous situation to a close. Superintendent Sam Hoyle and Napier Commander Kevin Kalff led their teams strongly in a time of extreme crisis. As I walked around the various cordons and through the police station, it was clear that there was a steely resolve to get the job done, despite the fact that three of their best had fallen. Incidents such as this demonstrate the bravery and operational expertise that makes our police force exceptional.

Faced with an incredibly dangerous situation and loss of life, our community responded, pulled together, and supported those who were displaced or who had suffered. I thank, on behalf of the community, Barbara Arnott and her civil defence team ably led by Dennis Morgan. To arrive home early on Thursday night from Parliament and see the level of organisation that was already in place was remarkable. Their actions meant that Napier residents knew someone was in charge, and that kept people calm. Although many others deserve to be thanked, I cannot finish without acknowledging the work of the Salvation Army, which from the word go had its mobile kitchen set up in Thackeray Street, and which fed literally hundreds of people throughout the course of this crisis. I will close this part of my speech by again saying that the thoughts and the support of the entire community are with the families of those who have suffered in this terrible tragedy.

This bill allows members to get the job done that they were elected to do. Allowing members to go home to support their community at times of tragedy is a key part of the bill. On that point I say that I support this bill entirely. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) Link to this

I move, That the Finance and Expenditure Committee consider the bill and report finally to the House on or before 9 June 2009.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) Link to this

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to record my thanks to the House for its indulgence in respect of the slight straying off the topic by Mr Tremain. I think it was a generous move by the House, and it should be recognised.