KEY POINTS:
The public sees through the Electoral Finance Act fairly clearly. As one radio caller commented the other day, "The Labour Party is much smarter than the Exclusive Brethren. The Exclusive Brethren used their own money."
Labour's casual use of public funds for blatant political publications continues to astound. The party last week earned the dubious distinction of being the first to be found in breach of its own act. It distributed a booklet of boasts entitled, "We're making a difference for everyone", printed last year using Parliament's money. The Electoral Commission ruled that it was an election advertisement under the definitions in the act but decided to let Labour off with a warning this time.
The booklet was one of four recent political publications referred to the commission by the Herald. The other items were issued by National and Act. All have been accused by rival parties of breaching the legislation but none of the parties has been anxious to obtain clarification from the commission. Nor is the commission taking a pro-active approach to its new responsibilities, at least in respect of political parties; it has warned one or two non-party publishers that their material does not meet all the new rules for "third party" advertising.
It was staggering enough that governing parties would pass a law setting strict limits on independent campaign spending at the same time that they were retrospectively legalising their improper use of public money at the last election. But it was doubly dismaying to hear the Deputy Prime Minister, Michael Cullen, attempt to justify the latest outrage.
He invoked the rules set by a tame internal office called the Parliamentary Service that pays MPs' bills. The office will pay for their postings provided the document does not expressly solicit votes or donations, and Dr Cullen was under the impression that any material accepted by the Parliamentary Service was exempt from parties' campaign spending limits under the act. Not so, said the Electoral Commission when the Herald asked, unless the publication was handed out by an MP in his or her capacity as an MP. Fathom that.
At least it means parties in Parliament cannot claim a dispensation not available to others whose spending is caught by the Electoral Finance Act.
Predictably, the new law is spawning a school of pettifogging rules for the sake of restricting the political influence of anyone wanting to spend above $1000 in an electorate or $12,000 in a campaign of their own money. For example, the Act publication referred to the commission was found to be political advertising but since it was handed out to the press at a party conference, the commission was doubtful that it had been "published". It is seeking legal advice.
The National item, a booklet entitled, "A Blue Green Vision for New Zealand", was referred to the commission because it pointed to a party website that contained election advertising. The booklet was cleared. The commission has yet to rule on the fourth document, a balloon with Labour's logo on it. The learned minds of the Crown Law Office have been asked to examine the status of the balloon. Their advice is anxiously awaited.
The point of all this nonsense is to ensure that governing parties cannot get away with legislating for their own electoral convenience. The Government seems to be taking more care over publicity it plans for laws taking effect this month. Those who have restricted the political participation of others while granting themselves more promotional latitude with public money can expect our vigilance to continue to election day.
