OPINION: Labour has some problems.

Early in the year it hit the mark with its tertiary education policy, a modest $256m new spend for the next term that had multi-generational appeal and helped dispel claims it had cleared the policy decks and left them bare.

But it has also become mired in issues it has judged are populist but which come with a big downside.

The most obvious was leader Andrew Little's "captain's call" to oppose the Trans Pacific Partnership in line with activists' views but to the great discomfort of many in his caucus.

READ MORE:

* Labour hosts drug execs

* Keytruda maker has to correct data on melanoma drug, after overstating benefits

* That was then, this is now; a tale of two drug debates

* Early access to Government-funded drugs would happen under Labour

* Life-saving drug treatment 'low priority' with too little data - Pharmac



​More recently there has been its nuanced stance on funding melanoma drug Keytruda, which substitutes politicians' judgement for experts in an arms-length agency.

Opening that door merely invites in the lobbyists.

Not surprisingly, that sat uneasily with some longstanding Labour insiders who expressed that privately to the media.

Labour's reaction to Fairfax reports of a private dinner leader Andrew Little hosted with Medicines NZ (the lobby group set up and peopled with senior figures from the pharmaceutical industry) and of disquiet in the party, was visceral.

The dinner was, apparently, normal and not something the media should make a big deal about. Just more dirty tricks spread by journalists at the behest of the Right and the Government, which was making up the dissent - despite the evidence in reporters' in-boxes.

There were no independent witnesses present so we are only left with Medicines NZ's general manager Graeme Jarvis' memory - which jells with Little's description - that no specific drug was discussed at the meeting. As Jarvis put it, the reps were there representing the industry - not their individual companies or their products - to talk about innovative medicines, access for the people to new drugs and getting the Pharmac Budget "right".

But in light of the current furore over the funding of drugs for late stage melanoma suffers - Keytruda being the brand name that is most often mentioned - it is a perfectly legitimate question to expose these private dinners and ask the pertinent questions. Did they influence Labour policy, especially when that industry internationally has pushed hard for changes to the Pharmac model?

Labour would argue that its stance - that drugs like Keytruda should be funded short term where there are no existing options, but before long term studies are concluded - does not undermine the Pharmac model. But it is hard to agree.

If Labour and other parties don't want their private dinners with powerful lobby groups to be news they could always pre-emptively release details when they are held, rather than complain defensively that they are perfectly normal when they are revealed to the public.

They could also spare us the high and mighty appeals to democracy and the importance of MPs being open to hear the views of all voters including big business - as National did over its cash-for-access Cabinet Club dinners.

The National affairs may have been pay-for-ticket affairs, and therefore more upfront - and blatant.

And the Opposition was not backward in bagging National over them. But if you want to know why Labour is meeting any big business group then you should also follow the money. Cash donations are something Labour desperately needs, as its annual accounts show all too starkly.

The way political fund raising usually runs is that the powerful and moneyed are invited to meet the leader or a senior MP to chew the fat. Sometime later a party representative - usually the president - will call the business group, discuss how the meeting went and put the hard word on for a contribution to party coffers. That way the leader is inoculated from any suggestion of a conflict of interest - of being influenced by party donations to change policy. In reality it is a canard. Although the leader or MP may not know how much money, if any, the business has forked out they will be in no doubt (unless they are incredibly naive - and none are) that the business is a target for fund raising and could well have coughed.

There is nothing illegal in that, but it is something the public have the right to know. (Of course as soon as the meeting is made public, any donation becomes that much more problematic for the party.)

But back to the funding of Keytruda, and again it's about the cash.

There are clear signs from the Government it wants to fund a drug for late-stage melanoma sufferers while preserving as much as possible the independence of Pharmac.

That can best be achieved by lifting Pharmac's budget, currently $800 million a year. (Labour landed a thoroughly-justified hit on the Government's decision in the 2015 Budget to divert savings of $9.8m achieved by Pharmac into other health areas.)

But that will not be the end of the matter.

Once there is more money in Pharmac's medicine cabinet it will face increased pressure from the drug companies to pay more for the drugs it funds. Its budget cap is a potent weapon when it is fighting for discounts from the drug companies.

Then, presuming there is no specific directive from the Government, Pharmac may not in the end choose Keytruda - or for that matter any other drug to treat late stage melanoma - if it has higher priorities.

However, you can be fairly certain that the Government will be moving heaven and earth to ensure it does.

It would be great to be a fly on the wall as the Government discusses with Pharmac how much more money would ensure funding was enough to include such a drug - $30m? $50m? $100m? - without compromising its arm's length relationship with Pharmac.

But new funding aside, it would be nice just for once to hear those politicians arguing for more taxpayer cash for more drugs to put as much effort into imploring drug companies to drop their prices and make them more affordable. But maybe that do that at private dinners.