FEBRUARY 29 2020 LISTENER 3
EDITORIAL
Read the manual
T
he Greens have an idea for cleaning up political
donations, starting with “an independent citizens’
assembly” because, they say, “it’s clear that Parlia-
ment is incapable of [making] meaningful reforms
to itself”.
Here’s a different idea for cleaning up political
donations, which is simpler and more cost-effec-
tive than the Greens’ proposal: obey the
law. Everyone else must, whatever their line of
work, and political parties should, too.
Just because parties and individuals
sometimes fall foul of electoral law does
not automatically mean the law needs
“reform”, just as restaurants falling
foul of hygiene regulations does not
necessarily mean there is something
wrong with the regulations. Improving
compliance with electoral law should be
political parties’ first response to prob-
lems with handling donations. From
the public perspective, seeing parties and
individuals charged and/or investigated
indicates that the law is working just fine.
The area of donations feels messier than
usual partly because of some good investi-
gative reporting by RNZ into donations to
the New Zealand First Foundation. It has also
been in the news because New Zealand First
leader Winston Peters revealed the party was associ-
ated with whoever photographed one of its former
presidents talking to two journalists,
including one from RNZ. That photo-
graph appeared on a website about the
same time that Peters was crying foul that
the party’s privacy had been breached.
The photo can be seen as a warning to
party members and former members to
keep mum because the party might be
watching. It also reveals a cavalier disre-
gard for impinging on journalists’ work – just another example
of the disdain with which Peters treats the media when it’s trying
to do its job of holding him to account.
The Cabinet Manual, which NZ First and Labour endorsed
and said they were committed to in their coalition agreement,
outlines the behaviour expected of ministers in their ministe-
rial, political and personal capacities. “In all these roles and at
all times, ministers are expected to act lawfully and to behave in
a way that upholds, and is seen to uphold, the highest ethical
standards,” the manual says. Peters himself is not accused of any
wrongdoing. But no one is more associated with NZ First thanGE
TTY (^) I
M
AG
ES
him. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s refusal to be drawn on the
matter ill behoves a self-styled conviction politician.
R
NZ reported that some wealthy New Zealanders, includ-
ing significant players in the racing industry, have been
donors to the NZ First Foundation, even though one of
those donors was quoted as saying he was not aware of the
foundation. The Electoral Commission said that based on the
information available, it had formed the view that the founda-
tion had received donations that should have been treated
as donations for the NZ First Party. In the commission’s
view, the donations were not properly transmitted to
the party and not disclosed as required by law.
The Serious Fraud Office is now investigat-
ing. It is warmed up on electoral law,
having just laid charges against four
individuals concerning donations to the
National Party.
A robust democracy needs political
parties to be sufficiently funded to actively
participate in elections. That is not cheap
and parties rely on donations to foot it in an
election campaign. If the $15,000 limit above
which a single donation must be declared –
and the $40,000 from one donor in a year – is
considered the wrong level, then parties can
make a case to set it higher or lower. Whatever
the limit, the incentive to give just under the
cut-off point will always apply to those who would
prefer, for whatever reason, not to have their names
disclosed.
The ability to solicit donations is a
reasonable way for parties to pay for their
activities, and the ability to donate is,
equally, a reasonable way for New Zea-
landers to support their preferred party.
The alternative is state funding. Nothing
suggests that would find favour with the
public.
Regardless of the outcome of the investigations involving
National and NZ First, perhaps all parties need to reconsider the
training they provide to MPs, staff, officers and volunteers about
the laws affecting donations.
As for the Greens’ idea of an independent citizens’ assembly,
made of randomly selected private citizens, rather like jury selec-
tion, no. We have an assembly of citizens: we call it Parliament
and its job is to make laws for all New Zealanders. Political parties
that are unable to transparently manage their donations should
not be surprised if the public asks whether they might also be
unable to transparently manage the country. l
The alternative [to
political donations] is
state funding. Nothing
suggests that would find
favour with the public.