KEY POINTS:
The Green Party could be the surprise package of this election. Already some polls give them high enough numbers to offer Labour hope that left-leaning parties might be within reach of National-Act on election night. Be that as it may, the Greens have produced at least one set of policies that should find some appeal across the spectrum.
Drawing lessons from the disgrace of Winston Peters, the Greens have proposed a cleaner and more transparent regime of political fundraising and influence peddling. But they go further to suggest ways of making government more open and accountable.
They want Cabinet minutes and decisions made public within one month and a more effective Official Information Act, which would bind Parliament as well as the public service. They want the election date fixed, rather than being set by the governing party to suit itself, and kept a strategic secret as long as possible.
On political fundraising, they propose the identification of all donors giving more than $1000, a limit of $35,000 a year on the donations any individual or entity can make to a party, and a register of lobbyists which would disclose their clients, methods, subjects of interest and their targets.
While these are worthy of consideration, the need for them should not be exaggerated. The conduct of Mr Peters in this Government is being taken in some quarters as evidence of a wider malaise. It is not so, for two reasons.
First, a small party in a pivotal position is much more prone to pressure from its donors than a large party. A party such as New Zealand First can lend its support to a Government for a few policy trophies, none of which may be important to its large partner. Mr Peters' tax arrangements for the racing industry come into that category. It is not as easy for an MP of a larger party, even its leader, to push a particular interest through Government policy-making procedures.
Second, modern economic policy is inimical to selective favours for any sector. Both major parties are wary of distorting market signals to investment by offering subsidies or tax breaks to particular industries and their economic advisers are always alert to that risk in any policy the party contemplates. Act is even more committed to neutralising public influence and the Greens hold all industries to consistent measures of sustainability.
Only NZ First still advocates selective Government support for sectors that it considers to be of national value, which leaves the Peters party unusually susceptible to pressure from lobbyists seeking special favours.
Its disappearance from our politics on Saturday, which even the Prime Minister now considers likely, would remove the immediate need for the rules the Green Party suggests. But it would be as well to consider them anyway.
The Electoral Finance Act, which the Greens regrettably supported, has left the transparency of political donations as unsatisfactory as the excessive regulation of non-party campaigns. So long as donors and campaigns are publicly identified, politics can be open to all who wish to participate.
As for the Greens' open government suggestions, why not? Cabinet papers would show when the Government has acted against advice and force it to justify doing so. The Greens reasonably suggest an exception for matters of national security. They would tighten some of the exemptions for compliance with the Official Information Act, and not before time. And a register of lobbyists would complement the identification of donors, producing a useful disinfectant against anyone currying favours for cash.
