Editorial: Politicians in glasshouses shouldn't ...

Two ago, Phillida Bunkle, then an Alliance MP, persistently protested her innocence after it was revealed she had claimed an out-of-Wellington living allowance while enrolled in Wellington Central. Her strategy was flawed. Every protest merely highlighted the fact that she had told voters one thing and done another. An inconclusive report from the Registrar of Electors could not save her political career.

Now, Act must address the same mistake. After selling itself to voters as an anti-sleaze party, and tormenting Ms Bunkle as a way of underpinning the portrait, it has been found to have run an elaborate and secret staffing scheme. The arrangement smacks of manipulation, if not abuse, of the MPs' entitlement system to boost parliamentary funding - and of a party saying one thing and doing another.

Act's leader, Richard Prebble, is protesting innocence and raising red herrings. That will not work, as Ms Bunkle would attest. He has yet to speak on the real issues involved in Act parliamentary researchers and press secretaries being paid from a general parliamentary budget as out-of-Parliament support staff for 32 hours a week to work in an electorate office in Wellington - but working most of the time in Parliament. Money which should come out of the party's parliamentary budget to pay researchers and press staff is freed to be used elsewhere. To make matters worse, the office the "out-of-Parliament" staff supposedly worked at is in a home owned by Mr Prebble's family trust in Pipitea St, near Parliament.

The Act leader rejects the notion that this is a sham office. He talks of an efficient use of resources and, quite irrelevantly, the long hours the staff work. He also says the scheme has been approved by Parliament's administrator, the Parliamentary Service.

If such is the case, that verdict should now be subjected to greater scrutiny. Parliamentary entitlements are notoriously complicated; some can be pooled, some cannot. But the Parliamentary Service general manager has noted that a salary entitlement to pay for an out-of-Parliament staffer cannot be transferred to pay for, say, a press officer in Parliament. Pooled funds are entirely different. If, says John O'Sullivan, there were clear contractual arrangements that people were engaged in particular services at a particular location, and these were not followed regularly, that "would be a matter of concern".

Clearly, the scheme caused ructions within Act's ranks. People in glasshouses need to be particularly careful. It is not difficult to imagine the palpitations among some in the party when Mr Prebble campaigned against Ms Bunkle and Marian Hobbs (the latter was cleared of entitlement wrongdoing). Equally, it always seemed ironic that Mr Prebble should criticise a Higher Salaries Commission questionnaire on MPs' private housing arrangements, describing it as "intrusive". Act had, after all, played a major role in creating the climate that prompted heightened scrutiny.

Now, Mr Prebble has no option. He must declare the full details of the staffing scheme. If it was not a sham, why were staff told their jobs could be at risk if it was revealed? Is it still running? What rental is Act being charged on the Pipitea St office? Is the party, for example, a guarantor of a mortgage? Only if such questions are answered will the public be convinced that Act is not playing fast and loose with MPs' entitlements. And that the scheme's complexity does not tell the tale of its intent.

Even then, people may prefer to see the real issue as one of principle, not legitimacy. The law is never the ultimate arbiter of conduct. One way or another, it is becoming increasingly rocky inside the Act glasshouse.