David Thornton: Political penalty should fit the crime

In a democratic society the power of the people lies in their right to vote in a fair and lawful election process. Any illegal or corrupt practice in that process diminishes the value of that basic democratic right.

The uproar about alleged election overspending by Labour has largely centred on the issue of where the money came from - in this case taxpayers through the Office of the Leaders' budget.

With National's alleged overspending the issues are, failing to allow for GST in broadcasting expenses, and responsibility for the cost of the leaflet campaign by the Exclusive Brethren.

Another disturbing element in this alleged overspending is the role of the Speaker who is responsible for the Parliamentary Service Commission, including its expenditure.

And it is also worthy of note that the Auditor-General raised a whole raft of concerns he had on election issues in a report to Parliament in June before the election.

All the issues raised thus far are about detail whereas voters should be looking at the more important issue of the penalties for breaching the law governing the election process. Will the punishment fit the crime if a crime has been committed?

The probability that Labour will be found to have exceeded its spending limit at the last election by almost 20 per cent is startling in itself, but the worst aspect is the derisive penalty that the law allows. The lightest of slaps with the wettest of bus tickets.

If Bob Clarkson had been found to have spent more than the legal limit on his election expenses he would have lost his Tauranga seat and been debarred from standing in the ensuing by-election.

The logic is that by spending more than the legal limit a candidate gains an unfair advantage over other candidates. The limits are imposed to ensure that money is not the dominant factor in the electoral process.

However, if the Labour Party is found to have exceeded the expenditure limits in gaining the largest number of seats in Parliament [just] all those Labour members will retain their seats in Parliament until the next election whenever that may be.

So who does face the music for crimes against the democratic election process?

The law states that only the secretary of the offending party can be held accountable to the tune of up to 12 months' imprisonment and/or a fine of $3000 or $4000, depending on the nature of the offence.

If National is found to have exceeded its spending on television broadcasts it is liable to be punished under the provisions of the Broadcasting Act, a fine up to $100,000.

If the Exclusive Brethren alleged intervention is upheld then it is possible that that organisation could be adjudged to have broken the electoral law and be held accountable under that law. If National was found to be a guilty party on that issue its party secretary would be open to the 12 months' prison sentence and/or the minuscule fine.

This crime of illegal or corrupt practice strikes at the heart of our electoral system where, under MMP, the party vote is the deciding factor as to which party will dominate the Parliament. Any illegal or corrupt action in relation to canvassing for that party vote should, if proven beyond reasonable doubt, warrant severe punishment.

But, under our existing laws, any Party can, with impunity it seems, blatantly disregard the law and then continue to benefit from the wrong-doing.

With the party vote being the deciding factor in the make-up of Parliament, surely any party exceeding the spending limit should be expelled.

But that would seem to be an unworkable solution. What punishment should there be?

In this case the crime is to use unfair means to gain control of the nation's law-making assembly - the supreme governing body in a democratic society. Surely such a crime should not be rewarded by letting the culprits retain their ill-gotten positions.

If the penalty for breaking electoral law by a winning party was a fresh election, any party deliberately flaunting that law would surely face the wrath of the voters at an ensuing fresh election. Minor parties could have their party vote disallowed and their list seats redistributed among the remaining parties.

Draconian measures are needed to defend our right to a fair and honest election process.

* David Thornton is a commentator on local government and chairman of Glenfield Ratepayers & Residents Association