KEY POINTS:
The Government's reaction to the Herald's call for the scrapping of the Electoral Finance Bill has been distinguished by much smoke and little light. Among the most opaque of responses was that of Michael Cullen, who inquired why this newspaper had chosen to raise the issue now. Would it not, he said, have been better to wait for the justice and electoral select committee to report back to Parliament, rather than highlight what was wrong before the revised bill had even been sighted?
The Deputy Prime Minister knows the answer to that perfectly well. When the bill returns to the House, the chances of any significant amendments will be diminished greatly. It will, to all intents and purposes, be in its final form.
The Labour Party, supported by the Greens and New Zealand First, has the numbers to shepherd it through its subsequent readings and to see it enshrined in law within two months. If any voices, be they that of the Herald or others, want to leaven this assault on democracy, they must speak out now. Procrastination invites a legislative fait accompli.
The Government has, of course, hinted there will be substantial changes. According to Justice Minister Annette King, these will "reflect many of the views of organisations and political parties who have made submissions". It was, therefore, important for the public to be fully aware of Labour's original intention and of the scale and nature of the opposition to the bill.
Labour's view that the National Party benefits hugely from the "big money in New Zealand politics" needed to be fully scrutinised. As did the slating of its response by the vast majority of submissions, including, perhaps most notably, those of the Law Society and the Human Rights Commission. The latter went so far as to describe the bill as a "dramatic assault" on freedom of expression.
Despite what Annette King says, the legislation that emerges from the select committee is unlikely to appease opponents' fears. The bill will almost certainly retain its most significant anti-democratic features. Any group wanting to spend money on political campaigns in an election year will still have to register its intentions, and its right to spend its own money will still be restricted. If there is a sop, it will probably involve a doubling of the $60,000 spending limit in the original bill. But money is not the point. Restricting freedom of speech during election years is.
It was important, also, that any examination of the Electoral Finance Bill did not ignore its close, equally odious twin, the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill. The latter, which could be passed this week, extends the law legalising the use of public money for political purposes that were ruled improper by the Auditor-General after the 2005 election. It is as if the public opprobrium for Labour's pledge card was a mirage.
In essence, the Appropriations Bill provides political incumbents with parliamentary money for their campaigning, while the Electoral Finance Bill prevents the public using its own money. In sum, this double-whammy represents an assault on this country's democratic wellbeing.
It is for these reasons that the Herald is voicing its concerns now. It wants members of the select committee to be fully aware of the bill's implications. It wants them to know also the strength of the opposition. This is the final juncture where significant changes can be made without a huge amount of face being lost.
This is the time politicians should heed the torrent of public disapproval, scrap this bill and refer the subject to a nonpartisan body where constitutional rule-making belongs.
