Editorial: Go back to first principles

Seldom has a piece of legislation so spectacularly failed to achieve its objectives as the Electoral Finance Bill, The Dominion Post writes.

According to the bill's preamble, its purpose is to "provide more transparency and accountability in the democratic process, prevent the undue influence of wealth, and promote participation in parliamentary democracy". But the bill's effect is to do almost the opposite.

Prime Minister Helen Clark's promise last year to "clamp down" on anonymous donations has proved, in Shakespeare's words, to be nothing more than "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".

The maximum amount parties can accept from known donors without dislosing their identities has been left unchanged at $10,000 and parties can still accept larger donations from anonymous sources, so long as they attest they genuinely do not know the identity of donors. So much for Miss Clark's acknowledgement last year that the public wants "to know who's pulling the strings".

Even worse, the bill abysmally fails to live up to its promise to "promote participation in parliamentary democracy".

As Bell Gully partner Roger Partridge and solicitor Jesse Wilson pointed out in an opinion piece in last week's Dominion Post, the bill does almost the opposite, effectively creating a "licensing regime for politicial speech during an election year". Individuals, or groups, who wish to spend their own money trying to persuade people to vote for or against a candidate or party, or simply to take a position on a policy being advocated by a party or candidate, will have to register as "third parties" and will be rationed in how much they can spend.

According to the pair, even a person who wishes to make a placard to hold up at a public rally will need to make a statutory declaration before a solicitor, Justice of the Peace or notary public.

Even the Government's meanest foes would not suggest that was its intention when it drafted the bill, but it is the consequence of a cynical and undemocratic attempt to hamstring deeper-pocketed rivals, as well as lobby groups opposed to its policies, while doing nothing to stop itself using taxpayer money to pay for party political advertisments thinly disguised as "public information" campaigns.

Had a past National government had the temerity to introduce such measures, Miss Clark and her Labour colleagues would have been the first to denounce its attack on free speech and participation in the democratic process.

That they have chosen not to see what everyone else sees shows just how desperate they are to cling to office.

In the wake of the outcry over the bill, Miss Clark has said changes will be made during the select committee process. But this is not a problem that can be solved with a better form of words.

The Government should go back to first principles. All that is needed is an open, transparent regime that requires all those who put significant sums into the political process to disclose their identities.

If that dries up the flow of money into party coffers, then so be it.

All parties will be affected and none will be more disadvantaged than others.

Government ministers might even find running the odd cake stall beneficial.

It would put them back in touch with those they are supposed to be serving.

- © Fairfax NZ News