KEY POINTS:
Two path-breaking pieces of legislation with huge major impacts on the way New Zealand conducts business were rushed into Parliament yesterday as the Government took advantage of the Christmas rush to try and bury criticism till the new year.
It will not succeed of course.
Any independent business
person, lobbyist or journalist worth their salt will not be deterred by the draconian nature of the legislation contained in the Climate Change Emissions Trading Bill and the Electoral Finance Bill.
Both bills have the potential to seriously affect property rights.
In the Electoral Finance Bill's case (where in a sign of governmental desperation Justice Minister Annette King offered 11th hour consultations to National) business lobbies will have to register as "third parties" before they can promote any election-year messages geared at the type of policies needed so that this country can get more firmly onto an upward productivity curve.
They will not be able to spend more than $120,000 attacking any aspect of Government legislation. Any so-called "public advertising" campaign will be read under King's "common sense" definition as an attack on Labour, and, ipso facto promoting the alternative (ie, National).
Businesses will also have to route any anonymous political donations through the Electoral Commission rather than straight to party central.
This will no doubt benefit the status quo as businesses - whose donations have in the past been tracked by political party bagmen - will find themselves under pressure to make explicit donations to Labour (and National) to try and ensure they do not face subsequent penalties from the party in power.
The Government has cited timing issues as the rationale for pushing the Electoral Finance Bill through into law this week and the need to get the Emissions Trading legislation into the House.
It has breathtakingly expanded the traditional election campaign period to cover the entire election year, imposing strict funding limits from January next year instead of the traditional three months before election day.
The climate change legislation is being introduced now so that the forestry sector - which is first cab off the rank under the Government's "all sectors, all gases in" emissions trading framework - can get some trading certainty from the beginning of the year.
In each case, the Government is proceeding on what it believes are noble objectives: it wants to cut "big money" out of funding (it uses the word "buying") elections, and it wants to ensure NZ is ahead of the curve on tackling climate change.
But in both cases it is steam-rollering objections instead of acutely listening to feedback - particularly from business - and tailoring the legislation so that it is more effective.
This self-serving nonsense comes from a Government which has made a fetish out of rubbishing the "crash through or crash" efforts of its predecessors.
I would predict that it won't be long before we see a "plaintiff of convenience" emerge to test the electoral legislation.
In the meantime, watch out for viral marketing internet campaigns early next year. Look also for the erection of "attack" billboards alongside state highways and even the letting off of "trial balloons" into the air above Wellington and Auckland to protest at the Government's heavy-handedness.
Ambush marketing campaigns are no doubt already being dreamed up by some of New Zealand's most creative advertising minds.
I would also predict there will not be any shortage of "anonymous" funds to defend any "plaintiff of convenience" that might emerge.
Yesterday, Green co-leader Russel Norman had a whack at Business Roundtable associate member John Boscawen for funding the recent protests against the bill.
"It is no surprise that a member of the Business Roundtable would pay someone to organise marches against campaign finance reform. Around the world, far right business groups oppose campaign finance reform because they want to be able to spend to influence government policy," said Norman.
Around the world - or at least in mature democracies - the major party in power does not connive with a minor one to rewrite election rules to favour MPs in power.
Around the world, the major party in power also takes notice of the views expressed by the nation's prime businesses when drafting a response to climate change.
The Government might not have bothered with the pretence of a consultation and feedback period judging by the bill's contents.
Finance Minister Michael Cullen said the Climate Change Bill aims to make New Zealand the world's first sustainable nation.
Under the bill, new fossil fuel power plants will be banned for 10 years unless the Electricity Commission deems them necessary to ensure the security of the power supply, or they are sufficiently mixed with renewable energy or based on waste products.
The bill also sets down the process for the establishment of the Government's emissions trading scheme - with different sectors phased in over five years and Government support continuing until 2025. Business New Zealand says the measure is unnecessary.
Business New Zealand chief executive Phil O'Reilly said the establishment of an emissions trading scheme, which put a price on carbon, should discourage new fossil-fuel production, meaning a ban should be redundant.
"After a lot of debate, New Zealanders have swung their weight behind the ideas of an emissions trading scheme, being a market-based solution rather than a heavy-handed ban."
This view is replicated by many of the country's chief executives.
The Government asks the business sector to now place its faith in Parliament's finance and expenditure committee to listen to submitters' views and amend the legislation where needed.
The Major Electricity Users' Group makes the valid point that "doing nothing" hasn't been an option for some time.
But like David Skilling with his NZ Institute "Fast Followers" report and Alex Sundakov with his "Castalia" report, the major energy users are likely to find themselves at the end of a Government attack rather than joining in sound analytical argument.
The problem is that business is now in a double-bind. If companies want to protest against the effect of the climate change policies by running advertising campaigns, their leaders face the possibility of criminal charges if they exceed the $120,000 limits.
The Government couldn't have timed it better if it had planned it.
