Gordon Campbell | Parliament TV | Parliament Today | News Video | Crime | Employers | Housing | Immigration | Legal | Local Govt. | Maori | Welfare | Unions | Youth | Search

 


Auditor-General's response to Hon Trevor Mallard's request

Auditor-General's response to Hon Trevor Mallard's request

25 June 2013

In response to a letter from Hon Trevor Mallard, the Controller and Auditor-General has confirmed that, for as long as the United Future party is recognised as a party for parliamentary purposes under Standing Orders, there is lawful authority for the party to receive party funding under the relevant legislation.

It follows that, if the Speaker ceases to recognise United Future as a party for parliamentary purposes, its funding entitlements will change accordingly.

Funding entitlements are administered by the Parliamentary Service under the Parliamentary Service Act 2000.

In considering Mr Mallard’s request, the Controller and Auditor-General took into account the relevant appropriation, the Parliamentary Service Act 2000, the ‘Directions by the Speaker of the House of Representatives 2011’, and Speaker’s ruling, on 6 June 2013, that the United Future party is for the time being recognised under the Standing Orders of the House.

A full copy of the Controller and Auditor-General’s letter to Mr Mallard has been published on our website.

Notes to editors: The Controller function

The Auditor-General considered this matter using her powers as Controller, which are set out in section 15(2) of the Public Audit Act 2001 and sections 65Y to 65ZA of the Public Finance Act 1989. The controller function is one of the constitutional checks and balances in our Parliamentary system.

The Controller provides independent assurance to Parliament that spending has been incurred for purposes that are both:

• within the scope of the relevant appropriation (or other parliamentary authority); and

• in accordance with the lawful authority provided by Parliament for the activity concerned.

Put plainly, before a public entity spends money it must have an appropriation (that is authority) from Parliament and the expenditure must be for a legal purpose. Both tests must be satisfied or the Controller can either require reporting to the House of Representatives or can stop funding. The controller function is a legal requirement and is not a discretionary. Checks on the authority and purpose of government expenditure are carried out throughout the year but the sanctions are used rarely.

--

Funding for Hon Peter Dunne

On 6 June 2013, the Hon Trevor Mallard wrote to the Office of the Auditor-General. Below is the reply that we have sent.

25 June 2013

File Ref: EN/GVT-0017

Hon Trevor Mallard
PO Box 18 888
Parliament Buildings
Wellington 6011

Dear Mr Mallard

Funding for Hon Peter Dunne

1. I refer to your letter of 6 June 2013 in which you ask me to confirm whether funding being provided to Hon Peter Dunne’s office is being spent within the scope and purpose for which it was appropriated and, if it is not, to take steps to ensure that the funding ceases.

2. Your request follows the de-registration of the United Future Party by the Electoral Commission, and the subsequent question that was raised about whether United Future is still recognised as a party for parliamentary purposes under Standing Order 34(1).

3. On 6 June 2013, the Speaker of the House issued a ruling in which he said he had given United Future a period of approximately six to eight weeks to re-register under the Electoral Act, but that in the meantime the United Future Party remains a ‘recognised party’.

4. We considered your request in terms of the Auditor-General’s responsibilities as Controller under section 15(2) of the Public Audit Act 2001, and sections 65Y to 65ZA of the Public Finance Act 1989.

5. The Controller is required to provide independent assurance to Parliament that the expenses and capital expenditure of government departments and Officers of Parliament have been incurred for purposes that are both:

• within the scope of the relevant appropriation (or other parliamentary authority); and

• in accordance with the lawful authority provided by Parliament for the activity concerned.

6. In considering your request, we have therefore reviewed the terms of the appropriation and the relevant legislation. The relevant legislation in this case is the Parliamentary Service Act 2000, which incorporates by reference Directions by the Speaker.

7. We have also taken into account the relevant Standing Orders of the House, and the terms of the Speaker’s ruling on 6 June 2013.

8. Having reviewed these documents, I am satisfied that, for as long as United Future continues to be recognised by the Speaker as a party for parliamentary purposes under the Standing Orders of the House, there is lawful authority for the payments that are being made to it under the relevant appropriation. It follows that if the Speaker determines that United Future is no longer entitled to be recognised as a party for parliamentary purposes, its funding entitlements will change accordingly.

9. In the rest of this letter I have explained our reasoning in more detail, beginning first with the appropriation.

The appropriation

10. The relevant appropriation is set out in the Appropriations (2012/2013 Estimates) Act 2012.

11. Under that Act the ‘Party and Member Support’ for United Future for the financial year 2012/2013 is set at $187,000. Actual expenditure against this appropriation as at 31 May 2013 was $83,415.00.

12. According to the Estimates of Appropriations 2012/13, the scope of this appropriation is:
‘limited to funding for the United Future parliamentary party to support its Leader’s office, research operations, member’s and, during the immediate post-election period, electoral candidates’ and former members’ parliamentary operations as allowed under directions given by the Speaker.’

13. The appropriation provides for payments to be made to the ‘United Future parliamentary party’ and is to be used for various purposes ‘as allowed under directions given by the Speaker’.

14. The appropriation itself does not specify that the party must be registered under the Electoral Act 1993 or ‘recognised’ under Standing Orders. However, the appropriation by itself is not lawful authority to engage in a particular activity. The activity must also have the necessary parliamentary authority.

15. In the case of funding entitlements for parliamentary parties and members, that requires us to consider the Parliamentary Service Act 2000, which incorporates by reference the Speaker’s Directions.

The Parliamentary Service Act 2000and Speaker’s Directions

16. Like the appropriation, the Parliamentary Service Act requires funding entitlements to be administered in accordance with directions given by the Speaker.[1] The Speaker’s Directions are set out in the ‘Directions of the Speaker of the House of Representatives 2011’.

17. Both the Parliamentary Service Act and Speaker’s Directions contemplate that funding entitlements for parliamentary purposes are intended for ‘recognised’ parties.[2] The term ‘recognised party’ is defined in the Parliamentary Service Act as ‘a political party for the time being recognised for parliamentary purposes under the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives.’[3]

18. The allocation of party and member funding is set out in Part 4 of the Speaker’s Directions. It includes:

• an annual allocation of $100,000 (excluding GST) for each party, plus $64,320 (excluding GST) per non-Executive member in the caucus, which can be used to fund the party leader’s office [4]

• an annual allocation of $22,000 (excluding GST) per member in the caucus to fund the whip’s office and research operations [5];

• allocations for individual members of varying amounts depending on whether they are constituency or list members [6]

Standing Orders

19. The recognition of political parties is addressed in Standing Order 34.

20. Under Standing Order 34 a political party ‘registered under Part 4 of the Electoral Act 1993, and in whose interest a member was elected at the preceding general election of at any subsequent by-election’ is entitled to be recognised as a party for parliamentary purposes.

21. Our understanding is that, according to parliamentary practice, parties are recognised by the Speaker, and that the Speaker recognised United Future as a party for parliamentary purposes following the general election in in 2011.

In his statement on the status of the United Future party following its de-registration by the Electoral Commission, the Speaker says that:

• Standing Order 34 is silent on whether a party that ceases to be registered under the Electoral Act 1993 during the term of a parliament is entitled to be recognised, and gives the Speaker no express authority to cease to recognise a party on that basis;

• He has been given an assurance that United Future intends to file an application for re-registration, and that checks by the Electoral Commission are likely to take 6 to 8 weeks;

• The Speaker is responsible for ruling when questions of interpretation or application of the Standing Orders arise, and for cases not otherwise provided for in the Standing Orders.

• He will rule on the application of Standing Order 34 ‘if required’;

• In the meantime, the United Future Party remains a recognised party under the Standing Orders.

23. It seems to us that the effect of the Speaker’s ruling on 6 June 2013 is that, although the United Future party has been de-registered under the Electoral Act 1993, it remains for the time being recognised for parliamentary purposes. We note that the interpretation of Standing Orders is a matter for the Speaker in the first instance under Standing Order 2.

24. Accordingly, in our view the payment of funding entitlements for Mr Dunne, in his capacity as leader of the United Future Party, is lawful because the funding is:

• within the scope of the relevant appropriation;

• authorised under the Parliamentary Service Act 2000, in that the funding is for a party that is ‘for the time being recognised under the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives’; and

• allocated for purposes authorised by the Speaker under clauses 4.5 and 4.6 of the Speaker’s Directions 2011.

25. If the Speaker determines that the United Future party is no longer entitled to be recognised as a party for parliamentary purposes, its funding entitlements will change accordingly.

Yours sincerely


Lyn Provost
Controller and Auditor-General

-

1: Parliamentary Services Act 2000, section 7(b)

2: Parliamentary Services Act 2000, section 3B(1)(b); Speaker’s Directions, clause 2.6(1)(b)

3: Parliamentary Services Act 2000, section 3 (Interpretation)

4: Speaker’s Directions, clause 4.5

5: Speaker’s Directions, clause 4.6

6: Speaker’s Directions, clause 4.7


© Scoop Media

 
 
 
 
 
Parliament Headlines | Politics Headlines | Regional Headlines

Two Dead, One Injured: Suspect Arrested After Ashburton Shooting

Police apprehended Russell John Tully just after 5pm this evening following the armed incident in Ashburton this morning.

Canterbury dog section and AOS apprehended Tully not far from Lake Hood. No shots were fired although Tully will be treated for minor dog-bite injuries.

Tully is now in custody at Ashburton Police Station. More>>

 

Parliament Today:

John Key Press Conference: Ashburton Shootings, Judith Collins Inquiry

Prime Minister John Key has delayed the release of Nationals’ fiscal policy in light of this morning’s shooting at a Work and Income office in Ashburton... Key also answered questions about Judith Collins, and confirmed that independent inquiry will be held with regard to allegations made against Collins. More>>

ALSO:

Internet MANA: Georgina Beyer Rocks The Waka

“There is now, and always will be, a range of views about many issues within our movement and members are free to express them, but Georgina’s views on Kim Dotcom are not shared by the MANA Movement leadership or the vast majority of MANA members and supporters around the country” states MANA Candidate for Waiariki, Annette Sykes. More>>

ALSO:

IGIS Update: Inquiry Into Release Of NZSIS Information

The Inquiry would be conducted in private and individuals would appear before her separately over a period of more than a week. She does not intend to name those summoned to give evidence until her report is published. “I can confirm that all persons summoned will be required to appear under oath...” More>>

ALSO:

Gordon Campbell:
On John Key’s ‘Blame It On Judith’ Strategy

Right now, Prime Minister John Key seems intent on limiting the scope of any inquiry into his government’s dealings with Cameron Slater. The declared aim is to make that inquiry solely about Judith Collins’ behavior with respect to the Serious Fraud Office. More>>

ALSO:

Maori Council Lawyers' Statement: Supreme Court Decision On Maori Water Rights

“…the Supreme Court refused to give Pouakani people what they asked for, but may have given them something much, much better instead… the Supreme Court has questioned whether the Crown owns the River at all.” More>>

ALSO:

Gordon Campbell: On The Debate, And The Collins Accusation

Debating is a peculiar discipline in that what you say is less important than how you’re saying it. Looking poised, being articulate and staying on topic generally wins the day – and on that score, Labour leader David Cunliffe won what turned out to be a bruising encounter with Prime Minister John Key last night on TVNZ. More>>

ALSO:

Gordon Campbell: On Winston Peters' Latest Bout Of Immigrant Bashing

It is only one poll, but rather than cannibalising each other's vote, Colin Craig and Winston Peters do seem to be managing to find the room to co-exist... Few are questioning how Peters got to this happy place, and what it says about the mood of the electorate. More>>

ALSO:

More Immigration News: First People Trafficking Charges

The first people trafficking charges in New Zealand have been brought by Immigration New Zealand (INZ)... The defendants have been charged under the Crimes Act 1961 for arranging by deception the entry of 18 Indian nationals into New Zealand. More>>

Collins 'Misinterprets Media Reports': "Too Compromised To Remain Justice Minister"

Bizarre claims by Judith Collins this morning that she had been cleared of inappropriate behaviour by the Privacy Commissioner demonstrates she is too compromised to remain Justice Minister, Labour MP Grant Robertson says. More>>

ALSO:

Get More From Scoop

 

LATEST HEADLINES

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Politics
Search Scoop  
 
 
Powered by Vodafone
NZ independent news