KEY POINTS:
If a major shareholder plundered company funds to maintain a jet-set lifestyle or fight off takeover attempts, someone would blow the whistle.
Just ask Canadian billionaire Conrad Black who's defending himself against charges he fraudulently helped himself to Hollinger's cashflow to maintain his extravagant lifestyle and social position without first asking shareholder permission.
But somehow our ruling Labour Government seems to think it's okay to try to square away private deals with minority parties, such as United Future and NZ First, so it can get control of $1.14 million of taxpayer funds to fight the next election. And rort some other election spending rules so it can more easily remain in power.
That's what's really going on at the Beehive this week as Labour's "coalition managers" build the numbers so they can try and ram through legislation to get state funding of political parties in place for next year's election.
Right now it seems the leaders' of the two smaller coalition partners are sufficiently troubled by this poor governance to raise publicly their concerns.
Winston Peters believes parties should have to "prove their market share" by raising money from the public rather than be rewarded by state funds on the basis of their incumbency. United Future's Peter Dunne is wary of a proposal that involves dolling out funds to parties outside Parliament on the basis of how they rated at the last election.
But that's not where the questions should stop.
Any forensic accountant - or Serious Fraud Office investigator - looking into this unseemly dealing would quickly do a double take.
They would question why Labour needs to rush through state funding without first asking all those taxpayers who are qualified to vote to give their mandate through a referendum at next year's election.
Could it be that - despite Labour president Mike Williams' denials - the party has found itself clean out of cash after it was forced to refund the $800,000 of taxpayers' funds it unlawfully raided from the parliamentary purse to bolster its campaign for the 2005 election?
If so, the cosy deal that Labour is trying to stack up is nothing more than a taxpayer-funded money-go-round to bail out its finances.
But if Williams' protests are true - and Labour does have sufficient fund-raising capacity for the next election - then he should urge the Government to take the right step and seek a proper political mandate.
Other parties such as National - which is prepared to mount another election campaign with private funds raised from the public - are being told to take a running jump.
Rather like the "anti-smacking" legislation this deal is being put together behind the scenes robbing New Zealanders of the possibility that a conscience vote might just deliver a defeat.
For a Government which has made shareholders' rights a motif for its own corporate law reforms, this all smacks of abuse of privilege.
Helen Clark's Cabinet won't see it that way.
Labour Cabinet ministers believe state funding will even the score between their party and National, which they believe can better access private campaign funds from wealthy supporters.
To try and further ensure that doesn't happen, Labour wants to change the disclosure rules to limit anonymous donations, or trust donations, to $5000. This would effectively stop National from ponying up big amounts - like the $1.66 million funnelled to it through six trusts at the 2005 election.
Many would support such a move.
But Labour is attempting a frank gerrymander by then trying to reserve a special position for the unions on third-party election funding. The $60,000 limit will not apply if they are "communicating directly" with their members.
But why should trade union leaders expect that all their members vote Labour?
And why should such union funds be diverted into one-way campaigning without first asking the members whether they might want to put some of their fees towards political alternatives?
The Herald has disclosed that Labour's proposals fall into five major categories: transparency of donations; restricting third-party campaigns; clarifying election expenses; beefing up enforcement of the law; and state funding.
If it wants to be taken credibly, Labour should get Justice Minister Mark Burton to release a policy paper and form an all-party agreement on the options which can be taken to referendum.
Instead it runs the risk that New Zealanders will think they're being taken for granted.
When the voters, or shareholders for that matter, start to think that way it just gets dangerous.
Ask Conrad.
