Political party funding and election spending

Gerald McGhie: Vital that review of parties' spending be independent

Gerald McGhie is chairman of Transparency International New Zealand, a chapter of Transparency International, a non-profit, non-governme
ntal organisation that aims to counter corruption in business and government.

It used to be that the public held the police in generally high regard but maintained a certain scepticism about their political masters. Regrettably, events over the past few months may have evened things out a bit.

But trust in much of our government has been seriously dented since the Auditor General uncovered political parties' illegal use of public money during the last election.

Nicky Hager uncovered some very opaque goings-on in the National Party, and some journalists and Dame Margaret Bazley took the lid off sexual impropriety and possible cover-ups in the police force.

While trust in government may seem a much more vexed issue now than it was in the past, it is now becoming clear that the problems are rather more deep-seated than we like to think.

There is some irony in this as New Zealand is regularly rated as one of the least corrupt countries in the world on Transparency International's annual corruption perceptions index, a social and economic advantage which we discard at great peril.

There can now be no doubt that MPs have spent parliamentary funds illegally. And politicians' use of public money for their electoral campaigns goes back much further than the last election.

This was made clear in a recent report on parliamentary administration by Auckland International Airport's former managing director, John Goulter, and business and policy consultant Adrienne von Tunzelmann, who found that MPs had been warned about their use of public money in elections as far back as 1998.

As for the willingness of politicians to hide their financial backers, Transparency International New Zealand expressed concern in 2003 about the dangers of deliberately opaque political party funding practices where donors to parties have been intentionally hidden. While this practice was and still is lawful, it is not in the best interests of democracy, where openness is a vital prerequisite.

The Bazley report makes it clear that most police officers are not sexual abusers or intent on covering up their colleagues' abuses. It also appears that most of the disturbing abuses and cover-ups are historical.

But it remains a possibility that a few serving officers may have exploited their positions for sexual gratification, and others may have rejected the complaints of victims or obstructed further investigation.

Against this background a report on police abuses which was conducted and released by the police would have held no credibility and would not be seen to address the grievances of the abused or the concerns of the wider public. In recognition of this the Government rightly established an independent body to assess the extent of the problem.

But when it comes to matters as central to politics as the rules surrounding political party funding and electoral spending, there is no reassurance in the currently mooted changes to the law because the Government is driving the changes that impinge directly on political party financial interests.

This is not a matter of trust in the current Government - all the political parties now in Parliament, with the sole exception of Jim Anderton's Progressive Party, misspent public funds during the last election.

Late last year Transparency wrote to all the parliamentary and administrative leaders of political parties calling for an independent body to address this issue and draw up the first draft of a proposed reform.

The current dispute among our elected politicians over the yet-to-be-seen funding rules offers no encouragement that the financial processes by which we choose our MPs will be above reproach by the 2008 election.

As elections lie at the heart of a democracy, dispute over electoral rules is a matter of critical concern. We urgently need the establishment of an independent body to address this issue and present a framework which will have broad political support and reassure citizens that the rules of the electoral process are fair and can be trusted.

To promote this, Transparency and the School of Government at Victoria University are jointly convening a symposium on electoral and political party financing rules on June 15. More transparent rules for election spending are also being promoted by the Coalition for Open Government.

In our view there is strong and broad support among New Zealanders for reform of the rules affecting electoral spending and political party funding. However, in response to the letters we wrote to party leaders raising these concerns, only Act and the Greens backed the need for the rules to be set by an independent body.

The rules governing the heart of New Zealand's democracy should emerge from an independent body. Such a body can then be dissolved as ultimately Parliament sets the rules. But the blueprint for those rules should not be laid out by politicians.

ENDS

© Scoop Media