KEY POINTS:
Prime Minister Helen Clark yesterday flatly rejected a suggestion that the Government ditch its proposed electoral spending law and start from scratch.
But the Government appears to have slowed down the pace of the Electoral Finance Bill in a bid to take the political heat out of mounting opposition.
The bill imposes restrictions and spending limits on non-party political advertising.
At the same time, MPs have liberalised their own parliamentary spending laws so that anything that does not specifically solicit votes or money can be taxpayer funded.
After yesterday outlining the overhaul that anti-terrorism laws would get from the Law Commission, Helen Clark rejected a suggestion that electoral finance law should get a similar overhaul with a one-word answer - "No".
She justified the bill on the grounds that "the National Party benefits enormously from big money in New Zealand politics."
"That was very much on display at the last election," she said in reference to a $1.2 million advertising campaign against Labour and the Greens by members of the Exclusive Brethren Church.
Many submissions on the bill, including those from the Law Society and the Human Rights Commission, said it should be abandoned rather than amended.
"There is no one part of the bill that is problematic," the Law Society said.
"Its cumulative defects make it irredeemable."
Parliament's justice and law select committee had been expected to report the bill back with amendments today or tomorrow. But that is now expected later in the week, possibly Friday.
The Herald front-page editorial yesterday against the bill has renewed scrutiny of it and opposition to it.
National Party leader John Key repeated his promise to repeal the law if elected, and condemned the smaller parties believed to be supporting it - New Zealand First, the Greens and United Future.
"The smaller parties who are supporting this draconian bill should hang their head in shame and I call on them to reconsider their support," Mr Key said.
"In a couple of weeks, the legislation may be law and it will be too late. Labour will have written self-serving rules governing political debate in election year. That is a disgrace."
Labour, the Progressives, New Zealand First and the Greens will muster enough votes to pass it - although the Government is anxious that the bill not be further tainted by having to be passed under urgency.
Helen Clark said New Zealand had "rather looser electoral law" than many countries when it came to big money getting involved in elections.
"This bill is an attempt to deal with that."
An interview scheduled by the Herald with new Justice Minister Annette King was cancelled yesterday.
She issued a short statement instead: "I am sure that the bill as it is reported back will reflect many of the views of organisations and political parties who have made submissions. The select committee process has been the proper one to hear such submissions, and I am sure the new bill will reflect the majority wishes of an MMP Parliament."
It is thought that the select committee will be considering a deal put up by the Beehive to give Government departments immunity from the bill if the new definition of political advertising is broad enough to include their advertising.
That would nullify any legal challenge opponents of the bill could mount in election year over, for example, Inland Revenue promoting the Government's flagship policy of Kiwisaver.
Critics say the bill will advantage governments by effectively limiting opponents, to spending over virtually a year what National spent previously in the three months before an election.
But departments will be able to continue promoting Government policy.
Neilsen Media Research figures show Inland Revenue spent almost $3 million promoting Kiwisaver between June and August this year.
The figures show total advertising expenditure by Government departments was $58.6 million in 2003, $59.4 million in 2004 and $69 million in 2005 - an election year.
Business New Zealand chief executive Phil O'Reilly said yesterday that if Government agencies were truly carrying out information campaigns, they would not need an exemption.
The Public Service Association yesterday took issue with being described as a strong supporter of the bill.
"We support the bill's aim of strengthening parliamentary democracy through greater transparency of the electoral process." said national secretary Brenda Pilott.
"But we believe it is badly constructed and won't deliver that aim unless there are major amendments."
