Kiwiblog

David Fisher at HoS reports:

A key aide to a Government minister asked for money in an email that also discussed putting “political pressure” on an issue.

Maori Affairs Minister Pita Sharples’ electorate manager Martin Cooper wrote to a local property owner that he wanted money, then spoke of contacting a Government minister.

It led to a call for police to become involved after details were passed to Local Government Minister Rodney Hide.

Cooper named Hide as one of the people he planned to write to as part of a campaign of “political pressure”.

“I’ve never seen a more serious situation with anyone employed by Parliamentary Service,” Hide said.

I agree. If Cooper was an MP, he could be facing the sort of issues that Taito Philip Field did. As a parliamentary staffer his actions may not be illegal, but they certainly are grossly unethical. You do not and should not charge money for work you do, unless it is entirely in your own time and your own resources, and has nothing to do with your parliamentary job.

The Parliamentary Service should conduct an inquiry, regardless of the wishes of the MP he works for. They are the employer.

The Ministry of Justice has just released to me (thanks to the officials) under the OIA the background papers on electoral finance proposals to date. Still working my way through them, but one stands out as interesting.

It is a paper from the Parliamentary Service dated 2 September 2009 on aligning the definitions of what is election advertising for both parliamentary and Electoral Act purposes.

It reveals that the Parliamentary Service proposes that the standard definition of explicit electioneering (for purpose of being able to use parliamentary funding) will continue to be narrowly defined (the status quo is no explicit solicitation of votes, money or members) but that during the regulated period this will change to a broader persuasive definition.

This is a very good move, as it would not allow pledge cards and the like to be funded during the regulated period. In fact it would prevent parliamentary funding (during the regulated period) any publications that might be seen to persuade someone to support a party.

This is in the fact the position I have long advocated. It would be too restrictive to have the broader definition through the entire three year electoral cycle (it would be unworkable and probably ban MPs newsletters) but once you get close to an election, then any material which is persuasive would not be allowed.

Now this is only the proposal of the Parliamentary Service, and has yet to be adopted by the Parliamentary Service Commission itself. Hopefully they will do so.

If the regulated period is set to start 1 August in election year, it would mean the status quo applies up until 1 August 2011, but after 1 August 2011 the Parliamentary Service could refuse to approve funding for any material that is seen to be persuading people to support a party. This will limit a party’s ability to use taxpayer money to find their election campaigns.

Vernon Small writes:

The Green Party needed a mini-scandal about its accommodation allowances like it needed to lose a senior MP with thwarted ambitions or have its kuia head for the hills before the next election.

Challenging times indeed. Despite that I think the Greens are fairly well positioned to grow their vote at the next election. They can point to successfully advocating the home insulation scheme to both Labour and National, and make a case that while they are a left wing party, they can “green” the Government, regardless of who it is.

As the party making all the noise about reviewing parliamentary perks, it has exposed itself badly with the revelation that two of its MPs were essentially – if accidentally – double-dipping on rent for the Thorndon house owned by the party’s superannuation fund.

At this stage, just how the information came to light is unclear.

The Greens are sure they spotted it when they did an annual market rent review on the property in May or June and were preparing their disclosure of expenditure before the general release of MPs’ spending by Speaker Lockwood Smith in July. That was an attempt at a public relations coup that now looks hollow.

This is easy to resolve. The Greens simply need provide the e-mail or correspondence to The Parliamentary Service advising them of the “error” they discovered.

Ms Turei does concede that if they had provided a rent review of the house in February, as Parliamentary Service requested, the mistake would probably have been avoided.

So why was it not done?

But the failure to pay back the extra $6000 when it was discovered in June – even if that required a special meeting of the superannuation fund trustees – ceded a lot of the moral high ground. (More so, because when asked about it weeks ago by The Dominion Post after a tip-off from within Parliament, the Greens said there had been only a minor adjustment – not, as it turned out, an overcharging of $500 a week – and implied it was at the Greens’ own initiative.)

This is the part that spells very bad judgement to me. If I was advising the Greens, I would have insisted that it be paid back within days, and then do a press release advising of the error. That would have been a minor minor story.

From Parliamentary Service’s perspective, general manager Geoff Thorn could not be clearer.

“The double payment was identified when the service was reviewing processes for dealing with claims for Wellington accommodation in May of this year.

This is quite contradictory to what the Greens say. Now again, there is an easy way to resolve this. The Greens merely need provide the e-mail or correspondence where they alerted The Parliamentary Service to the error.

It is an important distinction. The party that found a mistake, corrected it and paid back the difference? Or the party that was caught out and reluctantly handed over the cash three months later?

Indeed, and in fact there is a lot of murkiness now. We have:

1. How did the error occur in the first place?
2. Who decided the level of rent to charge for Delahnuty after she moved in with Fitzsimons?
3. Why was a market valuation not done in February, when the Parliamentary Service asked for it?
4. Is there any proof of the assertion by the Greens they spotted the error, rather than the Parliamentary Service tell them about it?
5. If not, why did they assert they found the error?
6. Why did they tell the Dominion Post it was a minor adjustment, when it was almost $500 a week?
7. Why did they not reveal the error, at the time they were trumpeting their commitment to transparency?
8. Why did they wait three months to pay the money back – in fact only paying it back when TVNZ started asking about it?

Now I am not suggesting foul motives for the above, but it does suggest incredibly poor and sloppy management – both political, but also administratively.

Either way, the news has turned the spotlight back on the Green MPs’ pension scheme which buys houses and flats for its MPs and charges Parliamentary Service for their rent.

It is within the rules, and Mr Donald made sure of that when he set it up in 1998. (Ever aware of perceptions, he went around the press gallery to tell reporters what he had done, so there could be no accusations of underhand dealings.)

Rod was a very smart man.

But the scheme was always a ticking time bomb of bad perceptions, especially when, in the wake of the Bill English accommodation furore, the public is attuned to MPs using the perks of office to build up their own nest eggs.

It is a nest egg for the Greens that has already been depleted from four houses to two, as retiring MPs have withdrawn their entitlement.

It will take another big hit when MP Sue Bradford leaves later this month and an even bigger one when former party co- leader Jeanette Fitzsimons quits before the 2011 election.

Not necessarily. The new MPs may move into the houses used by the retiring MPs.

There has finally been some attention paid by the media to Labour’s “information kit for the over 60s” which their MPs are posting and handing out in the tens of thousands.

Matthew Hooton has blogged on this several times in recent days.

This is a continuation of Labour’s 2005 pledge card strategy where Labour tries to get the taxpayer to pay for material it can use during the election campaign – and also tries to not have it count towards as part of their $2.4 million spending limit.

There are two questions involved:

1. Is it appropriate and legal for the info kit to be paid for by The Parliamentary Service (taxpayers) for distribution during the election campaign?
2. Does the info kit constitute an election advertisement under the Electoral Finance Act?

The answer to (1) is that it is legal – but, and this is important, only because Labour, NZ First and Greens rammed through a law change to over-turn the Auditor General’s interpretation of the previous law.

The Auditor-General could well have found, if the law had not changed, that this info kit was electioneering – especially as it was produced and distributed so close to an election. If it was a genuine info kit it would have been produced and distributed last year or even earlier this year.

But Labour First and the Greens changed the law (without even giving the public a chance to submit on the law change) so that only material which explicitly sought support for a party (as oppossed to implicitly) is covered. Under this law change Labour’s 2005 pledge card could be legally taxpayer funded again.

My solution to this rorting of the system is simple – ban taxpayer funding of such advertising in the last 90 days. If it was a genuine info kit then they can produce and distribute it when there is not an election a few days away.

This is all part of Labour’s strategy to hold its most marginal seats. Part One was the Electoral Finance Act to silence new candidates by extending the $20,000 limit in the regulated period from 90 days to all of election year. This is a limit of around 5c/voter/month. Part Two was changing the law so incumbent MPs could use taxpayer funded advertising during the election campaign. It is all designed to keep incumbent MPs in their jobs.

Considering the huge amount of interest in the pledge card last time, it is surprising it has taken so long for the media to cover this issue. Has TVNZ or Radio NZ told their viewers and listeners that Labour and “friends” changed the law to make these info kits legal?

The second issue is whether or not the info kits are advertisements under the Electoral Finance Act. I tend to think they are not. The issue for me is whether MPs should be allowed to use their taxpayer funded budgets so close to an election to be writing and sending stuff to tens of thousands of voters.

Some interesting answers to a series of parliamentary questions asked by Rodney Hide. Staff who work directly for an MP have a near unique clause in the employment contract which allows them to be dismissed for “irreconcilable differences” or a “breakdown in relationship” regardless of who is at fault. This recognises that an MP’s Office could not function with a a staffer an MP does not have total confidence in.  The staff tends to get three months salary if they lose their job under that provision.

The Speaker has confirmed that during this term of Parliament, 12 staff have lost their jobs under this clause. Now this applies to the 93 MPs who are not Ministers, so that that means around one in eight MPs have had a fall out with a staffer resulting in a job loss.

The total cost of payouts has been $117,561. This is on top of any personal grievance settlements.

Also of interest, one MP has been careless enough to have two staff terminated under this process.

And over the last three years, there have been three formal complaints of bullying from an MP against a staff member.

Incidentially the upcoming election means that hundreds of staff will lose their jobs, approx:

1. 300 Ministerial staff
2. 100 Parliamentary party staff (leaders office, research units, whips office)
3. 90 Executive Secretaries
4. 190 Electorate Agents

Many will get rehired, but there are no guarantees. Even if the MP you work for keeps their job, they are under no obligation to rehire you, and you only get a months payout.

UPDATE: Dom Post has a story also.

Another Phil Kitchin story in the Dom Post:

Remember this exchange in May:

Mr Peters answered questions in Parliament on May 10, 2006, about Winebox legal fees.

National MP Tau Henare, a former NZ First MP and caucus colleague of Mr Peters, asked the NZ First leader: “Who paid the legal fees for the Winebox?”

Mr Peters replied: “Who paid for the Winebox inquiry? Yours truly … I would never have thought Tau Henare would have the temerity to raise that question. Shame on the member. I had to carry the whole can by myself.”

Sounds very clear. Peters carried the whole can by himself. Except …

However, four bills obtained by The Dominion Post, all dated June 2, 1995, and from Mr Henry to former NZ First staff member Terry Heffernan, suggest Mr Peters appears to have misled Parliament. The bills total nearly $24,000 and were coded as being paid by Parliamentary Service.

Misleading Parliament is very serious. That should send him to the Privileges Committee. Oh wait, he is already there!

But who else may have been economical with their answers?

Mr Henry told the committee last week that he eventually received legal aid for his Winebox legal advice under an arrangement with the solicitor-general.

But till he received that legal aid, Mr Henry said his fees were either paid by Mr Peters or through fundraising he did himself.

Whoops.

Winston Peters labelled the NZ Herald Political Editor a liar, and is still calling on her and the Editor to resign. No-one can quite work out what for, but he is insistsing they should apologise to him and resign, despite the fact their work exposed the secret $100,000 donation to pay off Winston’s legal bills.

Now it seems they are also calling the Dominion Post liars. Today the Dom Post reveals:

The Dominion Post can reveal Mr Henry also received at least $45,000 for legal services – paid for by Parliamentary Service funds last year.

They seem very certain of their claim.

Asked to comment on whether taxpayer funds were used to pay Mr Henry, Mr Peters said through a spokesman: “That is a lie.”

Well who is telling the truth?

Incidentally it can be quite legitimate for parliamentary funds to include legal expenses – if they are tied to their parliamentary duties. But NZ First has not claimed that any payments to Henry were for legitimate parliamentary purposes. They have claimed there was never any payment at all.

It would be very unfortunate for them if the Dominion Post has proof to back up their claim!

The Electoral Finance Act is the gift that goes on giving.

The NZ Herald today reveals that Labour has had to centralise every single proposed communication by a candidate or MP, with a committee of two head officer staffers and three parliamentary staffers (yes parliamentary staffers approving election material).

So no candidate can put anything out until the weekly committee meeting approves it.

The act had broadened the definition to mean any form of words or graphic that could reasonably be regarded as designed to encourage or persuade someone to support a party or candidate.

The act is not working in the way that Labour had anticipated because it expected that most material its MPs produced under parliamentary funding would not be counted as election expense, whereas the Electoral Commission has no regard as to how material is funded.

It is actually established case law that it does not matter who pays for election adverts, as to whether they are adverts and expenses. Labour and allies tried to subtly change the law, but failed.

New Zealand First’s weekend post-Budget advertising campaign was paid for by taxpayers and carried a parliamentary crest, but was authorised as an election ad.

That means the party can’t be prosecuted if it is found to be an election ad _ but the cost of it will have to be counted against the party’s total election expenses.

This is correct that NZ First has no issues under the EFA. They are authorised and there is no way they will come close to their spending limit.

However I do wonder about The Parliamentary Service approving them, and whether the Auditor-General should be taking a look at them. The NZ First advertisements are blatant advertisements implicitly calling on people to support them if they want lower GST and more money for pensioners (Winston isn’t too hot on the idea of spending less than you bring in). Now Labour, Greens and NZ First passed a special law to make it easier for their election advertisements to be funded by the taxpayer. However even under this new law, the NZ First ads are pushing the boundaries. I really think the Auditor-General should take a look.