Editorial: New rules needed on spending

Claims of election spending breaches have been many and varied since last September's poll. So much so that there can be no clearer evidence of the need for a revamp of the rules governing what parliamentarians may spend taxpayers' money on. Yet the Prime Minister still seems keener to defend her own party's spending than kick that process into life.

Her deputy, Michael Cullen, was convinced the issue would have to be visited after a judgment concerning National MP Bob Clarkson did not read as Labour would have liked. Helen Clark, herself, was miffed by third-party endorsements when the Exclusive Brethren church made its ill-starred campaign contribution. Now, however, when a legal opinion bearing on Labour's own activities is delivered, her reaction is not to confirm that necessity but to seek sanctuary in unconvincing explanation.

The reason for her discomfort is the Solicitor-General's opinion that hundreds of thousands of dollars of election spending last year was unlawful. Roped in by this verdict could be Labour's $446,000 pledge card that was billed to Parliament, and letters sent by some National MPs to constituents during the campaign.

The opinion, supplied to the Auditor-General's office, which will soon report on election spending and publicity, says Parliament authorises expenditure for expenses incurred by MPs in their capacity as members. This does not cover activities in their capacity as election candidates. Election material is defined as something that is intended to persuade a voter to favour any candidate or party "and it is not necessary for advertising or publicity to expressly solicit a vote for it to fall into this category".

The opinion also states that if material could be seen as having a parliamentary purpose and an election purpose, it should be considered election material.

None of this seems hugely controversial. If it is incorporated in the Auditor-General's report, it should form the basis of a simple test for establishing when MPs and parties are misusing taxpayers' money.

There is also a mounting case for Labour to repay the pledge-card cost. But the Prime Minister will have none of this. She says that parties had simply used established practices from previous elections. "If this is what these reports are saying, it is like trying to change the rules of the game after it is all over and the ref has blown the whistle." That argument holds no weight. The Inland Revenue Department, for one, can demand repayment even if precedents suggest that should not be done. At least in this case, Labour would escape without the impost of a penalty payment.

The National Party says that should breaches be found by some of its MPs, those members would pay the money. Obviously, it sees itself in a strong position, given that its MPs would have relatively little to pay back. But as much as that is a platform for politicking, National should also be pushing for a cross-party agreement on spending which demands integrity and honesty.

That is important because the ongoing rumblings are degrading Parliament further in the public eye. It was hardly a matter for congratulation that the police, having found prima facie evidence against Labour's pledge card, declined to prosecute because other parties had also used parliamentary funds for advertising. Nor is Parliament's standing elevated by the spectacle of parties clubbing together to scorn the Solicitor-General's opinion.

Labour should be consumed by embarrassment, not intent on evasion. And that should be the catalyst for a set of rules that avoids a repeat of this unseemly behaviour. Parliamentary integrity demands nothing less.