Editorial: On a path to true corruption

Opinion

The word "corruption" has been cast liberally across Parliament's debating chamber lately. The National Party has applied the term to Labour's public spending at the last election, and Labour applies it to private spending in support of National at the same election. Neither charge can be sustained.

Labour's use of public funds to produce its pledge card was an outrageous act of self-righteousness, whatever the precedents for it, but it was not wilfully corrupt. Likewise, private financiers, notably the group from the Exclusive Brethren church, were acting within the law as they understood it last year.

But while National's accusation can do no more than damage the Government in opinion polls, Labour, as the governing party, must act if its charge of "corruption" is to be taken seriously. It must try to legislate against it, and that is what the Prime Minister now says she means to do. She wants to curb the kind of campaign run by the Exclusive Brethren. But she and her party need to be careful. A civil liberty could be sacrificed for the sake of a political tit-for-tat.

The right to participate in elections should not be limited to political parties. The right of citizens to join the debate with all the resources they can muster is not a right that should be lightly abridged.

It is fair to insist that people or groups who want to campaign for or against a party should put their names to their material. The Exclusive Brethren did not, and that was a deficiency quickly exposed. The law ought to require much more disclosure of private donations to political parties, but Labour's objection to the Brethren campaign goes much further than its initial secrecy.

They published pamphlets attacking some parties in terms those parties thought inaccurate and unfair. They are suspected of using some underhand American techniques, such as fake telephone polls that aim only to put unfavourable impressions and expectations of the Government into voters' minds.

But the worst of it, from Labour's point of view, appears to be that the Brethren are wealthy and spent $1.2 million, much more than any private group has previously spent on an election campaign, according to the Government. Maybe so, but it is by no means out of scale with some of the campaigns trade unions run against National policies at election time. The secondary teachers' union, for example, spends heavily on advertisements against bulk funding of schools, and should continue to have every right to do so.

Labour is excessively fearful of private finance, ever ready to believe money can "manipulate" public opinion. People are not fools. No amount of money can persuade most people to accept something that is untenable. The Exclusive Brethren wanted voters to believe the Labour-led Government was undermining traditional morals and family values with legislation such as the legalisation of prostitution and civil unions. That is an arguable viewpoint, and it is one that those strongly of that view should be allowed to press on the electorate.

It proved unable to "manipulate" a sufficient number of voters to put National into power. Quite likely the Brethren's clumsy efforts cost National as many votes in some electorates as it gained in others, but that is beside the point. The right to participate is important.

If the spending of outside groups was to be severely limited, Labour would be putting political liberty on a slippery slope. If elections become the preserve of parties, how long before they are restricted to registered parties, and then officially approved parties? That is the way to truly corrupt a healthy, open democracy.