Even the divided are united

It was a peculiar and rare occurrence when listening to Radio Live's political panel of Willie Jackson, Matt McCarten, Matthew Hooton and Deborah Coddington on Thursday; about as diverse a group of political commentators as one will find together in New Zealand.

And all were murmuring in agreement with the one missing element of that group from the political spectrum, Winston Peters.

On Thursday, Peters' NZ First caucus followed the lead of Labour's Trevor Mallard by boycotting the NZ Parliament for "the time being".

The reason was relatively simple: the Speaker of the House, David Carter, refused to release the legal basis for his decision to grant Peter Dunne six weeks to set about signing up enough new United Future party members to meet the 500 member threshold required for the Electoral Commission to recognise them as a party.

As the number of members had dropped below this threshold, as became clear recently, the general view would be that Mr Dunne would no longer be entitled to claim the extra funding he receives as a result of that party's existence.

The general view also tends to be that this change should be immediate; that six weeks of grace is arbitrary and is a manipulation of the rules. In the past, when party's have lost members in a way that would affect their funding, the subsequent cuts have been immediate.

To do away with both general precedent and logic in this way, certainly creates a perception that the Speaker is looking to protect the legitimacy and long-term viability of what would likely be National's only certain coalition party following the next election.

As put by Mr Mallard, "he cannot be the member of a party that does not exist, and he accepts that it doesn't." On the same basis, how can that party that does not exist, and its 'leader' accepts does not exist, continue to receive the funding that it would if it does exist?

Of course, these are largely intuitive and instinctive arguments; based upon what we imagine and feel is 'right' and 'fair'. There may, indeed, be a strong legal basis upon which Mr Carter's decision is justified. However, that is precisely why I too find myself agreeing with Winston in this single instance (note the use of the word single).

The suppression of any justification on the part of the Speaker denies New Zealand citizens the ability to access crucial information about their parliamentary system. There would be little issue if there is a sound justification and if we, and the opposition parties in parliament, had access to that.

However, in this absence of such information, questions are left open about whether rules regarding how our funds are spent on parliament are interpreted. We are forced to question whether they are being manipulated for political means. And it is, indeed, the responsibility of opposition parties to highlight that. Mr Peters, ever the strategist, found the most politically beneficial way to do so.

We live in an age now where the public, the politicians that serve them, and the media demand information and transparency. Our generation does not accept that the government is always correct, or that they do always know best.

Heck, I have even had a friend successfully gain information on the number of pizzas purchased at the TVNZ staff party, such is the power and scope of the Official Information Act.

And when this information is denied, as it was to Parliament and to the public in the case at hand, modern day media makes sure we hear about it.

It is true that the six weeks Mr Dunne is being afforded to find new party members may well not be a miscarriage of justice. But it is even more true that New Zealand values its position on the Transparency International Corruptions Index as the third least corrupt country in the world for a reason: transparency in all areas of government is what makes it a legitimate government and one truly of and accountable to the people.

This was written prior to Peter Dunne's resignation as a minister over the GCSB report.