KEY POINTS:
Most senior members of the Labour Party are convinced that they almost lost the last election because of the million-dollar secret campaign funded by the Exclusive Brethren. Only the exposure by Green Co-Leader Rod Donald and the inept denials of Don Brash saved them.
Labour has been determined to outlaw this sort of subterfuge before next year's election.
After the Auditor-General ruled that Labour had illegally helped itself to $800,000 of taxpayers' money to fund its campaign materials, a more complete rewrite was inevitable. An added bonus was that a complete rewrite could also close down National's use of secret trust funds.
Any Government that sets new rules for its own election that also affect its political opponents is going to create controversy. After all, we are talking about who gets to be prime minister and who gets to be an MP.
Incredulously, Labour's common sense and well-honed political instincts seem to have deserted the party over this matter. It has been a botch-up from day one.
Why it put someone like Mark Burton in charge of such a delicate strategy is beyond me. I'm sure that one of the reasons he is no longer in Cabinet is because of the political mess he created.
When this issue emerged, it was obvious that the only credible solution was to bring in a royal commission to consider all options. That way, I'm sure the Government would have got its way of limiting secret donations to its opponents as well as winning the case for taxpayer election funding.
Labour's argument, that there was not enough time for a commission to finish its work before the next election, is nonsense. A commission could easily have been instructed to give its findings within six months.
Instead we have a situation where Labour - no matter what it does now - looks like it is manipulating election laws to advantage itself over its opponents and limit independent criticism.
More problematic is that any proposal Labour puts to the house is likely to squeak through by one vote - hardly a vote of confidence and certainly one with little credibility.
Despite mounting opposition, Labour seems determined to push ahead. United Future and NZ First might support the bill but I'm surprised that the Greens are prepared to do back-room deals on it. But whether Labour can push it through or not, it is all a bit of a sideshow.
The real rort that none of the parties are acknowledging is that all incumbent parliamentary parties are already significantly funded by the taxpayer to campaign before elections.
When the election is called, all incumbent MPs continue to receive their salaries and expenses, allowing them to campaign fulltime. Any other candidate on the public payroll must take unpaid leave. Incumbent MPs also maintain their press officers and administrative support. When incumbents go to election meetings, the cost of their airfares, accommodation and taxis are met. Even their electorate offices, furnished with photocopiers and staff, can legitimately be used for campaign purposes.
Candidates who are not already MPs get none of this. How a non-MP is supposed to fund a campaign in a seat like Te Tai Tonga, which covers more than half the country, is beyond me. One letter posted to each voter exceeds the current spending limit.
Current laws are deliberately tipped in favour of incumbent parties and their MPs. Parliamentary parties have a vested interest in ensuring that any law change reinforces that. Once you make it into Parliament, it's a cosy club indeed.
Seldom will the media run a partisan political campaign. So it was an extraordinary decision for the New Zealand Herald to launch a campaign against the proposed campaign law. A headline banner across the front page, reading "Democracy under attack" would have had most of us thinking that it was referring to the mischief created by the Urewera 16 - not the Government.
Such a defiant show of power by our nation's biggest newspaper wouldn't have been taken lightly. I'm sure this will result IN some MPs backing off on at least some of the proposed changes - which is good. However, the damage is done. The perception that Labour and its allies were up to no good is now ingrained in the public psyche.
But the NZ Herald's action raises a point far more serious than Labour's clumsy actions. Labour's proposal is that everyone except political parties is neutralised and that parties' private campaign funds are severely limited. That means the only viable way voters can get their political news and analysis is through the privately owned media, especially television and newspapers. Does it worry anyone that most of these outlets are controlled by a few overseas owners?
The idea that all other information is restricted is disturbing. If you don't think that the senior producers and editors of these outlets have their own agenda, then you only have to look at the NZ Herald's current campaign. For someone to buy that sort of front-page campaign would cost thousands of dollars. If Labour succeeds in curtailing non-party voices and influence, that puts even more power into the owners of our media outlets. The question not being asked is: during the next election, who's going to be watching the watchers?
