KEY POINTS:
Undoubtedly the most damaging headline suffered by a party at the last election appeared on the front page of the Herald.
It read, "Dr Brash: I am not a liar". The National Party leader had made that remark after admitting what he had earlier denied: that he did know the Exclusive Brethren were behind pamphlets attacking Labour's allies, the Greens.
His admission, midway through the election campaign, did as much damage to National as anything published by the Brethren did to Labour. It is worth recalling this in answer to those who accuse us of political bias in our efforts to stop the Government's Electoral Finance Bill. But more importantly, it illustrates that independently financed campaigns can be a double-edged sword.
The bill would severely restrict the amount any organisation other than a political party can spend in putting a point of view to voters in an election year. It is prompted almost entirely by the silliness of seven Exclusive Brethren in 2005, whose efforts Labour blames for its loss of support in smaller cities.
National, with somewhat more evidence, blames the same campaign for tarnishing its leader's credibility and costing it crucial votes. With friends like the Brethren, who needs enemies?
The clumsiness of political causes with more money than sense, though, is no reason to muzzle them. Labour sounds obsessed by the supposed power of money. Declaring the Government's resolve to proceed with this repressive legislation, the Prime Minister says, "The National Party benefits enormously from big money in New Zealand politics."
Money is only as good as the message it brings. For some voters at the last election the Brethren's material would have resonated with their own moral unease at some of the social legislation the Government has passed. Others, probably many more, would have dismissed it as the ranting of religious oddballs. Not many, though, would have felt a need to control it.
New Zealand is a liberal democracy. Its political culture allows free speech and holds that anyone can contribute to debates that influence its democratic decisions. Most New Zealanders probably suppose their elections are less regulated than in fact they are. Laws already try to limit the donations given to candidates and parties, the amount they can spend and the broadcast advertising time each is allowed.
The law also forbids others from publishing material that declares support for a candidate or party without their authorisation, lest it breach their spending limit. The Brethren took care that theirs did not expressly support National while it attacked Labour. Labour is determined to bring that sort of campaign under control from now on.
Its bill will insist that any group wanting to spend money on political campaigns in an election year will have to register its intention and its right to spend its own money will be restricted. The weight of criticism of the bill before a parliamentary committee will no doubt lighten its restrictions a little, but only a little. The spending limit might be doubled, the definition of a political campaign narrowed, but elections will be less free.
At the same time that private money is to be brought under tighter control, public money is to be more readily available to parties for campaigning purposes, and now it seems departments of state may be given an exemption to the paid publicity restrictions in the bill.
The Government is clearly determined to pass this repressive bill in the belief that money, not messages, wins elections. It insults the intelligence of voters, breaches a human right and curtails democratic debate, for the sake of its own survival.
