Parliamentary Funding of MPs

NANDOR TANCZOS (Green): I begin by referring to Mr Brown, who said that we are not here because of our talent. I just want to assure him — and I do not care what anybody else says — that I do not think he is entirely useless!

The Greens are supporting the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill, but not because it is a good bill in our view or because we think it makes this place a lot more democratic. We are supporting this bill because we think that we have no choice. Neither Labour nor National has come up with a clear set of guidelines that really addresses the concerns of the Auditor-General about how taxpayers' money is spent by political parties during election years. So we are supporting this bill because it has been impossible to get agreement on a more democratic process that is able to deal with new technologies, new ways of communicating, and new, more appropriate ways of involving young people in political debate, and that is able to communicate the work that we do here with people, more generally, in the public.

We see this bill as a kind of holding action that simply extends interim guidelines and slightly improves the previous situation. But it fails to address messy and ambiguous legislation, under which MPs remain unclear about how we use some of our Parliamentary Service funding, and this continues to cause concern amongst the public about the way public money is applied. We would rather have a different process entirely. The Green Party would rather have a process that took these kinds of decisions out of the hands of those with the biggest vested interest — us the politicians — and put them into the hands of the citizenry. We have long promoted the use of a citizens' assembly where people from many walks of life, including outside experts in the parliamentary process, can look at the way taxpayers' funds are used by political parties and make decisions around them.

We would apply this process not just to this bill but to the Electoral Finance Bill. We think it is vital that we open these questions up to the people of New Zealand not just through a submission process — and that word "submission" is itself instructive in terms of how we view the public — but through giving some real decision-making over to the people that is grounded in comprehensive information and discussion. Unfortunately, there is no time for that this year, though we have been lobbying hard for it. We still hope we can have a citizens' assembly at a later date — a citizens' assembly where political parties do not decide the rules around what they spend and how they spend it, but where we have a more democratic process to come up with clear and fair guidelines, and, most important, a process that benefits not just the big parties but all parties. This is not a novel idea. An independent inquiry into campaign finance reform along these lines has been recently used in Canada. We believe that one could start in early 2009, or even before, if we could get support from other parties.

When it comes to the substance of this bill, we say that of course we must use parliamentary resources to explain and promote the work of Parliament and parliamentarians. That is our responsibility and obligation as members of this House. MPs are elected to pursue policies and to promote political philosophies on behalf of the public. Debate, discussion, and persuasion are what we are all about — in here and in public. Discussing the business of this House, debating the ideas associated with the business of this House, and hearing feedback from members of the public are vital parts of our jobs.

However, after the 2005 election the Auditor-General ruled, for example, that newspaper advertisements inviting the public to discussions with Green MPs on climate change and oil depletion were out of order, even though the adverts made no reference to the election. I myself held a public meeting on Waiheke Island to talk with young people about their rights under the law, because they were being harassed by the police. That, according to the Auditor-General, was electioneering, even though the intended audience was under 18 and unable even to vote! Whatever else the Auditor-General's ruling provoked, it demonstrated very clearly that we need clear rules about what is OK and what is not. Although we did not necessarily agree with the Auditor-General's decision, we respected the fact that he is the umpire and paid the money back.

Next year there is another election, and we want to know clearly where we stand. We want to be able to do our jobs as MPs in informing the public about policies, and about the business of this Parliament and the issues that it is discussing — or not discussing, given that we continue to ignore important issues.

We do not think this bill has found the perfect solution, but we think it is better to have clear rules than not to. We cannot have a robust democracy if the public does not know what is going on in Parliament or what MPs and parties stand for. This House is a pretty strange, self-referential world, and members easily become more and more divorced from ordinary people and their concerns — particularly the concerns from certain sections of the public. This is especially true of young people, who increasingly use new modes of communication that are unfamiliar to many members of this House. This bill reinforces that divorce between young people and our Parliament through its lack of recognition of those new modes of communication. In our view, that is one of the reasons why we need a citizens' assembly — to allow some new perspectives into these discussions.

As I have said, we view telling the public what we think about legislation and issues of public concern as being a core part of an MP's job. Letting New Zealanders know what our policies are on issues like student loans, climate change, health care, and their human rights is a part of our work. We cannot have spending rules that prohibitively restrict that kind of communication. Part of being a good parliamentarian is holding public meetings where people can ask questions and get answers. Those meetings can now be virtual. Using new technologies — and being clear that we can do so by using parliamentary funds — to communicate with young people, especially, should be part of being an MP. This enhances the robustness of our democracy and improves the ability of all New Zealanders to take part in political discussion and promote ideas that they believe in.

It can be difficult to draw a line between where the work of a parliamentarian stops and electioneering starts. We acknowledge that. This will continue to be difficult. For example, Labour has promised not to have another pledge card this election, even though under this legislation that is still possible.

Although we are supporting this bill, we are not supporting the status quo. We are supporting this bill, although wanting to have much clearer guidelines in future elections, and in the meantime we are seeking much clearer guidelines from the Speaker. We have already started the process, as members know, of seeking clearer rulings in respect of the way in which some of our funds are spent. We hope to continue that dialogue. With this unsatisfactory patch-up job I am afraid that the Speaker's job will be much harder, as ours as parliamentarians is, in terms of trying to interpret old-fashioned guidelines when we are trying to use new technologies, some of which are not all that new — for example, websites. Again, we are already in dialogue with you, Madam Assistant Speaker, as you know, about the use of websites. What about newer technologies like YouTube and iPods? In this context it is ridiculous that we are doing a patch-up job on old legislation that does not even have rules on these kinds of new media.

Although we have misgivings about this bill, we would be in a worse position without it. If we argue, as National seems to be arguing, that we cannot use parliamentary funding to get our message to the public, then we would be accepting that only those who have rich corporate backers should be able to discuss political ideas. We do not believe that the wealthy should have the upper hand in political debate simply as a result of their wealth; nor do we believe that a poorly informed citizenry can support a democracy. Democracy is about the active engagement of the people of our land, and we will be the worse for having rules that inhibit that engagement.