Dom Post on electoral funding

Today’s Dom Post Editorial:

However inquiries into Winston Peters’ party funding turn out, one point is certain. The system for funding political parties needs grassroots overhaul and a multiparty accord, The Dominion Post writes.

The overhaul should at least bring an end to secret donations and repudiate an idea much beloved of the prime minister – state funding of political parties. MPs filch enough now from taxpayers’ pockets. Were the work of party hacks to be totally taxpayer funded, it would create an elite that never allowed newcomers on to Parliament’s floor. The Maori Party could never have gatecrashed had its supporters had to match cash given to the old guard from the public purse.

Bringing an end to secret donations is easier said than done. Doing so may lead to the donations flowing to the MPs personally, rather than their parties.

I of course am against state funding of political parties. The Dom Post is right that such funding would make it much harder for newcomers to make it into Parliament – it helps entrench incumbent parties.

So here is an idea to make it fairer for newcomers. As the current parliamentary parties have a huge advantage through parliamentary resources and free media, why not restrict the broadcasting allocation to parties not in Parliament? Why should parties who are in the media every day or every week get assistance with their election campaign? I’d rather that money goes to the parties trying to break into Parliament.

The act must go. It has had only humour value since January 1, when it came into force, because the typically cautious public servants who must administer it have hamstrung Labour and those parties that voted for it probably more tightly than it has hogtied its opponents. To see Progressive leader Jim Anderton pinged for an advertisement advising of a BZP ban was exquisite.

The act’s critics foresaw the current muddle. The law is undemocratic and the way it was imposed an exercise in arrogance.

As bad as the substance of the law is, it is indeed the way the Government negotiated the original Bill in secret with no public input that did the most damage. It differed from the antics of certain third world countries only by degree – it was a blatant attempt to use electoral law to screw over its enemies.

New Zealand likes to believe this small but modern democracy is largely corruption-free. It is thus dispiriting to learn that some at the centre risk operating in a way that would make an African despot proud.

I think we are well overdue in having an Independent Commission against Corruption – a body with wide powers that can investigate Ministers, MPs and senior Government officials.