KEY POINTS:
This week the Government brought down its conclusion to a debate that dominated political discussion last year, about the roles of public and private money in election campaigns. Almost all parties, but particularly Labour, had fallen foul of the Auditor-General's rulings on the use of parliamentary funds. Labour
in return damned National's funding from anonymous private donors and its support from a campaign mounted by a few wealthy members of the Exclusive Brethren church.
The issues generated so much heat that they seemed bound to result in drastic change to campaign financing rules but in one respect they have not. The Electoral Finance Bill will permit parties to continue to receive anonymous donations up to $10,000 and appears to require no greater disclosure of donations made through trusts. National is by far the main beneficiary of these, receiving $1.7 million thus at the last election, against $300,000 for Labour. The survival of this subterfuge can only mean both main parties fear for their ability to raise funds if they cannot offer companies and big donors anonymity.
Why do donors want it? There is no evidence they have much to gain. The selective commercial favours that used to be dispensed by a party in power disappeared in the economic reforms of the 1980s. There are no import licences of old, no limit on the number of participants permitted in any market. Companies contribute to political parties these days to help maintain sound public policy, social stability and a fertile economy. It is common practice to report strictly equal contributions to both main parties though obviously National is the main beneficiary of back channels that ought to be closed. The public has a right to know who is financing those it is asked to elect.
Parties maintain their parliamentary teams are not told the names of anonymous contributors, and do not want to know. The bill formalises this arrangement by requiring all registered parties to appoint a "financial agent" to receive and account for its income and expenses. Any candidate who knows the name and address of a donor must disclose it.
It is doubtful that these measures will remove all suspicion of corruption. The simplest and most credible solution would be to require all parties to maintain open books, where all donations are available for public inspection.
The bill aims to control election finance through limits on permissible spending rather than contributions. Parties will be able to spend no more than $1 million on their election campaign and the limits will apply from the beginning of the election year. That seems a needlessly long period which will further muddy the boundaries between public information and campaigning. That will favour the Government as much as the tolerance of secret donations will favour National.
The losers in the bill are so-called "third parties", which are not political parties at all. They are interested groups that simply want to contribute vigorously to the election without putting up candidates and they are to be severely regulated. Henceforth they must declare their intention to the Chief Electoral Officer, file a financial return detailing donations and outlays and face limits on amounts they can spend. Is this necessary, healthy, or an over-reaction to the Exclusive Brethren? Elections should be restricted as little as possible, and encourage as wide a participation as possible of donors and people who want to openly promote their values and views. Elections are not a benefit for registered parties and those standing for office. If the rules were made independently secret donations would go and all honest campaigns would be made welcome.