KEY POINTS:
Taxpayer-funded advertising by MPs that is supposedly not electioneering will be able to carry authorisation as election advertising from party officials outside Parliament.
The move is designed to cover the butts of parties against prosecution under the controversial Electoral Finance Act, which could cover a lot of parliamentary material.
That means that pamphlets and letters paid out of the public purse with the parliamentary crest on them will also be able to carry the phrase "Authorised by Labour Party general secretary Mike Smith" or "Authorised by Act secretary Nick Kearny" without losing their public funding.
A party office-holder who has nothing to do with Parliament will now lend his or her authorisation to the contents of parliamentary material.
The authorisation of the spending will remain with the Parliamentary Service.
But the outside party organisation will also have to keep much greater tabs on the content and cost of parliamentary spending because it may have to be counted in the party's returns.
The move confirms that the historic arm's-length separation between parliamentary wings and organisational wing of a party outside Parliament is disappearing.
And it confirms there is a great deal of caution and uncertainty around the interpretation of the Electoral Finance Act.
Act leader Rodney Hide has called the act a "bugger's muddle", and National deputy leader Bill English said the uncertainty around it had "virtually paralysed" parties' spending plans from January 1, when the new regulated period began.
Parties sitting on large piles of glossy brochures paid for by Parliament will be able to put a "party-secretary" sticker on them and start distributing them.
At the heart of the problem are two sets of different laws governing what MPs spend on advertising - one for MPs, and the other, the new Electoral Finance Act, for all candidates including MPs.
Parliamentary material can be counted as election advertising under the act and if it does, it could attract a $40,000 fine without authorisation. The threat of that has made MPs very cautious about what public money they spend on advertising.
Electoral Commission chief executive Helena Catt fuelled the caution of political parties, saying she would not exempt material as being advertising simply because it had a parliamentary crest.
What really surprised MPs was that she said if it was advertising, it should also be counted against a party or candidate as an election expense. MPs passing the law late last year believed the act gave their parliamentary material an exemption on the expenses ledger if it was produced in their capacity as an MP.
But Dr Catt said Parliament gave the commission virtually no guidance as to what that term meant and the commission was working towards producing its own guidance.
The new general manager of Parliamentary Service, Geoff Thorn, who is responsible for the running of Parliament, said he could not advise parties to put the authority on their material.
"What I can do is tell them that if that authority is on there, that doesn't stop us from actually paying for publicity that has a parliamentary purpose."
Mr English said in Parliament that the extension of the regulated period from three months to the start of an election year was "the cause of most of the problems that politicians are having in trying to apply the law."
The law had driven politicians to the "ridiculous position that activities that are regarded as legitimate parliamentary activities will also count as an election advertisement, and will therefore have to carry an authorisation by someone who has nothing to do with Parliament."
Justice Minister Annette King said the period was extended because National had tried to get around the three-month rule through hoardings it put up earlier.
"National carried out a rort then and it does not like the fact that one has to be clearer now about what one is doing."
Labour chief whip Tim Barnett said it had not decided whether to put the party authorisation on any parliamentary material.
