THE PRESS TUESDAY, MAY 24, 1988. The politicians’ open door

Press, 24 May 1988, Page 12

THE PRESS TUESDAY, MAY 24, 1988. The politicians’ open door

Whatever their political hue, members of Parliament have a duty, once elected, to all in their constituencies. A member might be reckoned to represent this or that political party; a more accurate assessment is that the member represents an electorate; the best interpretation is that the member is expected to speak for and act on behalf of the people who live in that electorate. If democracy is to be valued and supported by those who must use it and live by its results, they must be assured that there is an avenue by which their concerns and wishes can be brought to the attention of the people they have elected to govern. This was, in essence, the thinking behind the creation of electorate offices after the 1984 General Election. The scheme was sound. Each member of Parliament would be entitled, at public expense, to an electorate office, an electorate secretary to run the office, and reasonable expenses. Ninety-six members of Parliament have taken advantage of the scheme; the only one not to have an electorate office so far, the Minister of Maori Affairs, Mr Wetere, is in the process of establishing one. The issue now being raised, though, is whether some members are taking too much advantage. A sensible proscription in the rules governing electorate offices is that they shall not be used for party headquarters or for political purposes. Taxpayer subsidy of political parties is a different issue altogether. The electorate offices are meant to be the members’ open doors to the public. They are meant to assist politicians to deal with local issues and the day-to-day problems with which constituents constantly confront their members of Parliament. The offices are also meant to be a means of assisting people to bring those problems to the attention of their members of Parliament. The member for Fendalton, Mr P. R. Burdon, has supported reports in an Auckland newspaper of abuse of the system with a call for an Audit Department inquiry, and says he has evidence of his own of "serious abuses” that he will give the Auditor-General. The allegations chiefly concern party work being done in electorate offices, or instances where the rentals being paid for electorate office space is finding its way into the coffers of political parties. There are clear rules against such things. The responsibility for administering them belongs to the Parliamentary Service Commission,

whose chairman is the Speaker of the House, Mr Burke. If the rules are being flouted to the extent that has been suggested, however, it might be appropriate for the Audit Department to step in, at least to assist in establishing procedures that will limit the scope for misdirecting resources.

The cost to the taxpayer of the electorate offices is not itemised in the Estimates of Government Expenditure; it forms a part of the vote for “Support services to Parliament.” If each office had a secretary for the allowed maximum of 40 hours a week, claimed close to the full allowable rent (say, $6OOO a year of the $7500 permitted), claimed full expenses and a reasonable sum for telephones and stationery (which are reimbursed in full for the actual cost), the cost to taxpayers for each office would be about $40,500 a year, or for all 97 electorates a total of almost $4 million.

This is not an extravagant sum. Applied to its stated purpose it is a small enough price to pay for improved lines of communication between the governed and their elected governors. It might be that closer investigation will show that abuse of the system is by no means as widespread as has been suggested. It would be a pity — and almost certainly unnecessary — if breach of the rules governing electorate offices led to their closing or even to a reduction in the access that constituents now have to their members of Parliament.

The issue is not the cost, but the way in which public money apparently is being spent. It might prove to be that a simple device such as time-sharing of the secretarial services for electorate and party work — with a corresponding sharing of the costs — is an appropriate solution to the efficient use of electorate offices and staff. On the other hand, attempting to find clear-cut definitions to distinguish electorate business from party business in all instances might not be simple at all. There exists a pretty substantial grey, area that would allow for conflicting interpretations of what borders on the political and what does not. Indeed, there is a risk that the present debate on electorate offices will become highly politicised. This would be unfortunate and is perhaps the most compelling argument in favour of a quick and thorough appraisal by an authority such as the Audit Office of what really is going on.