Pariah and damned

There is no more distrusted and disliked religious group in New Zealand than a secretive ultra-fundamentalist sect called “The Exclusive Brethren”. In the hard world of politics, they’ve been branded a cult and accused of intimidation and trying to secretly buy elections in which they don’t even vote.

The truth, as it always is, is somewhat more prosaic. To me, and a great many New Zealanders, their religious and political beliefs are extremist. But in a democracy, that normally only becomes an issue if someone uses or advocates violence to impose those beliefs on others.

In the case of this group, however, their spending at least $1.2 million dollars in a secret campaign to smear the Green and Labour Parties caused many to despise them and has led to calls to ban anonymous political campaigns. They launched their smear campaign because NZ laws require than money spent on behalf of a party must be included as part of the party’s total spending, and must be authorised by the party. The alternative is to campaign against the other parties, in which case the funds don’t have to be counted.

However, it became clear that senior National Party members, especially then-leader Don Brash, met with sect members several times, creating the appearance of collusion, even if there was no direct coordination or consultation (which is still a matter of dispute). This is one of the factors that led to National’s defeat in the last election and the fall of Brash.

Now the National Party has accused Prime Minister Helen Clark of “hypocrisy” claiming she’d met sect members in and asked for a policy statement. The Prime Minister denies ever meeting with sect members, but says she was accosted by aggressive sect members and increased her security as a result (sect members often sit in the public galleries in Parliament, glaring down, some Members say, at the proceedings below). The Prime Minister also says she was surrounded by a group of sect members at a public meeting and she then asked for a policy statement (presumably so she could get away from them). Her office said that she never had a scheduled meeting with the group.

So, did the Prime Minister meet with the group? Apparently not. Did National make it up? Possibly their source was somehow tied to the sect, but in any case, both the sect and National would have a vested interest in trying to make people believe that the Prime Minister had met sect members, too.

Here’s the thing: This is a democracy. While I personally find the sect’s beliefs repugnant and even creepy, they have a right to those beliefs. Under the Human Rights Act, no politician can refuse to meet with them just because he or she doesn’t like the sect’s brand of religion. If I was an MP and was asked for a meeting, they’d have the same opportunities as any other constituent; but I certainly would tell them in no uncertain terms where I disagreed with them and would not be supporting their positions.

The issue of the sect is a sideshow the main event: Outlawing anonymous and secret funding of election campaigns. The National Party benefits from millions of dollars in anonymous—but legal—donations every election. That is an affront to democracy. If people don’t want it to be known to have contributed more than $10,000 to a party, or that they’re not even New Zealanders, then why would the people even want them donating?

Clearly National would want the secret funding to continue, and the attack Labour for the support the party received from labour unions. But National is dishonest in attacking Labour for this. Such funding is in the open, above board and doesn’t hide huge contributions, as National’s reliance on anonymous donations to trusts does.

It’s time for reform of election funding and to end the influence of secretive, shadowy people peddling who knows what agenda. National should stop its little games and back reform—or won’t its secret supporters let it?