KEY POINTS:
The Electoral Finance Act has been removed from the statutes with good grace on all sides. The Labour Party has expressed regret for its enactment, National has acknowledged the gesture. Only the Greens voted against the repeal in Parliament on Tuesday night. The climate is right for all parties to begin a proper revision of the laws governing financial contributions to politics and the review should start this year. It should not wait until the next election year is practically here.
Haste was one cause of the flaws in Labour's legislation, partisan purpose was another. But its fundamental error was the attitude that politics is, or should be, the preserve of organised and registered political parties. If other groups or individuals wanted to spend money to promote a cause they were to register as a "third party", comply with authorisation and accounting rules and keep their spending within tighter restrictions than those imposed on real parties.
Political participation must not be restricted to those willing and able to organise themselves and comply with red tape. The barrier presented by those sort of requirements was evident in the unusual quietness of the election last year. There has to be room in election debate for the amateur and the sudden contributions when an anxiety arises or somebody feels something important is being neglected.
Often those concerns will reflect more favourably on one party than another, which was the reason the previous Government was determined to restrict such spending. But Labour worries too much about how much is spent by, or in support of, its main rival. Force of argument is more persuasive than costly repetition.
And disclosure of financial contributions is more important than restrictions on them. Oddly, the late unlamented act was much more lenient on devices such as parties' anonymous trusts than on those who might spend their own money openly. The next review must do better than allow anonymity to be preserved by channelling contributions through the Electoral Commission.
The public has a right to know who has financed the parties that bid for power, even if the disclosure means party officials cannot keep the identity of the benefactors unknown to MPs. It is doubtful that the public finds that precaution credible anyway.
Secret trusts, as the New Zealand First party discovered last year, can be more troubling than open donations. It was deeply disturbing that NZ First MPs knew nothing of the trust operated by their leader's brother and it is quite likely the members of larger parties are kept as much in the dark about the conduits of funds collected for them.
Parties maintain that anonymity is the donors' preference, but that was plainly not so in the case that came to light last year. Winston Peters' benefactors said that he or people acting for him had asked them to make cheques payable to the Spencer Trust. Secrecy may suit many contributors, but it undoubtedly suits parties more. It avoids accusations that a policy has been improperly influenced.
Party leaders should not fear those accusations unduly. Good public policy does not favour one industry over another, nor regulate them without demonstrable cause. Corporate donors probably do not contribute to parties for any reason other than to see that the country is soundly governed. If they do entertain hopes of selective advantage they probably would not dare contribute under a regime of full disclosure, which is a good reason to have one.
Electoral law should never again be made by a Government on the hoof. National should invite all parties to sit down soon and begin to resolve a set of financial rules that would permit wide and honest participation in the country's decisions.
