Editorial: Election spending deception

Opinion

Nothing arouses public cynicism of politicians quite so much as the issue of election spending. And nothing could be calculated to cultivate it more than the aftermath of the 2005 poll. A court challenge in the Tauranga seat that focused on the question of allowable spending had barely concluded when the National Party admitted it had spent $112,000 more than it should have on broadcasting. Now, the police are investigating the $446,000 of parliamentary funding that the Labour Party spent on its pledge cards.

Accompanying all this has been a barrage of weak excuses and fudging: it was an accident, the law is unclear, the law is outdated, or that is only what we have done in the past. What a long-suffering public draws from this is that when it comes to election spending, no holds are barred. Parties will stoop to virtually anything to exploit what they see as a loophole, real or potential, in the electoral law.

It is equally clear that shortcomings exist because politicians of all persuasions want them to. They, after all, are the law-makers. It is they who have tinkered endlessly with electoral legislation and they who revel in a system possessing the clarity of mud.

For that very reason, they are now happy to repeat the exercise. After the High Court decision confirming National's Bob Clarkson as the victor in Tauranga, Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen said he expected the justice and electoral select committee to look at the spending rules. Again, a token gesture or two can be expected but, still, the boundaries will remain hazy, because it is in the interests of all parties that they are so.

A stop must be put to this deceitful cycle. That can be done only if reform of election spending is, in the first instance, taken from the hands of politicians. This would be accomplished if the Law Commission, acting in concert with the Electoral Commission, was asked to draw up a set of unequivocal rules. Canada's Law Commission has made recommendations on electoral reform. There is no reason why its counterpart here should not delve into the same area as part of its brief to provide independent reviews of areas of the law that need updating, reforming or developing.

It would take courage for any Government to initiate this. Relinquishing control is never easy. But the step must be taken, given last year's critical report by the Auditor-General, the heightened stakes associated with a police investigation and the degree of public disenchantment. Equally, it is unsatisfactory for the judiciary to have to wade through such murky territory, as was the case with the Tauranga seat.

The High Court reached the correct decision in that instance, but clarification of the spending law would render it redundant or, at the very least, make its task far easier.

In the final analysis, of course, it would still be up to Parliament to accept the advice of an independent review and to frame it in legislation. Thus, there would always be the opportunity for prevarication or backsliding. Just how great the temptation would be is indicated by the extent of multiparty agreement on the issue, and the disinclination to extract serious political capital from the present instances of discomfort.

All that can temper that urge is an acknowledgment by politicians of the public disdain for the present situation. And a recognition of the pressure for the implementation of serious reform. That must be forthcoming. Even then, vigilance will be required to ensure there is no abuse of the new law. Old habits die hard, the more so when much is thought to be at stake.