PSA Calls For Transparent Funding Of Parties

September 27, 2007

PSA Calls For Transparent Funding Of Political Parties

The country’s largest union, the PSA, says the funding of political parties needs to be more transparent.

“Funding poured into a secret election campaign by the Exclusive Brethren which aimed to discredit the Green Party and influence public opinion to vote for the National Party, in the 2005 general election, highlights the flaws in our current system,” says Brenda Pilott, National Secretary of the PSA which has 55,000 members working in the state sector and local government.

Brenda Pilott told the Justice and Electoral Select Committee today that the PSA supports the aim of the Electoral Finance Bill of strengthening the law governing electoral finance and broadcasting. “But the union’s members want to see a number of amendments they believe will strengthen our parliamentary democracy by providing greater transparency of the electoral process.”

“We recommend the bill be amended to ensure large donations cannot be made to political parties and candidates in secret, or through trusts.”

“That’s because we don’t support an electoral system that allows individuals and groups to exercise a greater influence because of their wealth. This is not the Kiwi way.”

Brenda Pilott says the PSA is not affiliated to any political party and does not provide funds to political parties.

“But the union does communicate with its members and the public on issues that have an impact on their lives such as changes to employment law, or to the public service or local government,” says Brenda Pilott. “We do this when the need arises, including during election campaigns.”

“The PSA believes the Bill, as it’s written, restricts the union’s ability to provide information to our members and the public about the impact of party policies.”

“These restrictions would apply to a wide group of organisations and we believe they will limit debate about party policies which restricts the public’s ability to participate in the elections.”

The PSA says the Bill’s definition of election advertisements is too broad. “We concur with the CTU’s view that the definition of election advertisements should only cover material aimed at procuring a vote for or against a candidate or party,” says Brenda Pilott.

The PSA also believes the $60,000 cap the Bill places on election spending by third parties, is too low. “We agree with the CTU that $100,00 is a more realistic threshold,” says Brenda Pilott.

The PSA’s submission also recommends that the select committee consider extending state funding of election activities.

“Taxpayers already fund certain political party activities through parliamentary funding,” says Brenda Pilott. “This is transparent, subject to scrutiny and accepted as part of the support for New Zealand’s parliamentary democratic structure.”

“Extending this practise to funding for election campaigns would ensure parties could still legitimately present their views to the electorate while at the same time, ensuring no one party has undue advantage.”

“Overall the PSA supports the intentions of the Bill but recommends changes in a number of areas so that New Zealand has an election process that is robust, fair and transparent,” says Brenda Pilott.

ENDS

© Scoop Media