KEY POINTS:
Act MPs Rodney Hide and Heather Roy don't know whether to continue distributing thousands of taxpayer-funded booklets they had printed last year before the Electoral Finance Act.
They are worried it could count against their election expenses and tip them out of Parliament if challenged.
"I've put everything on hold until I can figure out what the implications of the Electoral Finance Act are for Epsom," Mr Hide said last night.
"We've had legal advice on this, we've been to Parliamentary Service and everyone is totally confused by the Electoral Finance Act."
There are two questions about the leaflet that neither MP has an answer for: Would it be considered an election advertisement if it were distributed this year? If so, would it have to count as an election expense?
Mr Hide said all parliamentary parties were in a similar situation but many MPs did not realise it. He had heard reports that some MPs may already have spent more than their $20,000 electioneering limit on material that could be considered election advertising.
It was easy to spend $10,000 on an electorate mail-out and if it referred to a party website, it could be in breach of the law, he had been advised.
The Act booklet refers not only to the website, but has every appearance of being an election advertisement. It was approved and paid for from the public purse.
Neither MP could say how many were printed, how much it cost and how many had been distributed.
Any leaflets distributed last year, before the regulatory period took effect on January 1, are legally safe.
But if the leaflet was distributed this year and deemed to be an election advertisement, it would be unlawful because it did not have proper party authorisation - an offence that could cop party secretary Nick Kearney a conviction and $40,000 fine.
It could be unlawful on a second count and this is the issue vexing some parties.
They are not sure whether the expense of producing the booklet would be counted against the party's total cap, or the relevant candidate's $20,000 cap in an electorate where it was distributed or neither.
"I haven't got any clarity on that," Mr Hide said.
Labour intended with the Electoral Finance Act that parliamentary produced material be exempt from election returns. The relevant clause says that "election expense does not include the cost of any publications that relate to a Member of Parliament in his or her capacity as a Member of Parliament".
But Mr Hide said both Parliamentary Service and the Electoral Commission had advised parties that just because material was paid by Parliament did not mean it could not count in the MP's election returns.
