Editorial: Labour's lust for control

When UnitedFuture MP Peter Dunne is prepared to jump ship, it's a fair bet the vessel in question is the Titanic, The Dominion Post writes.

 Mr Dunne is nothing if not an astute judge of public opinion and that's why his decision to pull his party's support from the Electoral Finance Bill at the last hurdle confirms what Labour, the Progressives, NZ First and the Greens should have already known: the measure is deeply unpopular.

There is a good reason for that. The legislation is undemocratic, and the process by which Labour and its supporters have foisted it on the public has been an exercise in the arrogance of power.

The stated aim behind the bill was laudable. Those who wish to become involved in the democratic process should be accountable, and the system should be transparent. Voters should know who is funding advertising, campaigns and parties so they can take it into account. However, that is not what the bill has achieved.

Just what it has done is unclear, and that is one of the many flaws in the legislation. Certainly, Invercargill Mayor Tim Shadbolt believes he might be in trouble with his campaign to change the Government's mind on funding cuts to the Southern Institute of Technology.

He should not be. As the elected representative of Invercargill's citizens he is entitled to spend money running a campaign against the Government's policy.

If his voters do not like it, he should suffer the consequences at the ballot box, not in the courts. Justice Minister Annette King says it is absolute nonsense to suggest that Mr Shadbolt could be prosecuted. He should not rely on her advice - during debate on the bill she acknowledged her explanation of a key clause could be wrong. The reality now is that freedom of political expression will be defined by the courts interpreting muddled legislation.

Mrs King has said the idea was to prevent huge campaigns like that waged by the Exclusive Brethren before the last election. Labour should have given voters more credit than to believe all it needs is big spending and lots of advertisements to deliver victory. In its early days ACT was lavishly supported by big business.

That did not make it the government. Nor did a well-funded campaign against MMP ensure the survival of first-past-the-post.

The indefensibility of Labour's position is only highlighted by the fact that at the same time it acted to restrict the role of those outside Parliament in political debate, it ensured that MPs are protected against challengers by extending a temporary regime that allows them to spend public money on their campaigns in a way the auditor-general had previously ruled was illegal. And if history is any guide, voters should also expect a welter of government advertising campaigns next year coincidently promoting policies introduced by Labour.

Mrs King told Parliament the legislation does not restrict free speech, but is about restricting the right to purchase speech through advertising, and that it was necessary to safeguard democracy. She is wrong.

The view of Maori Party MP Hone Harawira that it is about the lust for control and a refusal to accept the reality of impending defeat is much closer to the truth.

- © Fairfax NZ News