I’m with Fran
September 30th, 2006 at 9:38 am by David FarrarI’m with Fran O’Sullivan, supporting her call for a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the 2005 election. A panel of Judges would be an excellent way to establish what exactly did happen, and how much truth there is to all the various allegations. It’s remit could include:
* Labour’s alleged over-spending
* National’s GST on broadcasting
* Exclusive Brethren and other third party activity
* Labour’s claims of cash for policies
* Tariana’s claims of $250,000 to support Labour
* Use of taxpayer funds by parties and MPs
* Hiring of private detectives, theft of Brash e-mails
In reality there is almost no chance of this happening though. Steve Maharey on Agenda seemed as enthusiastic about the idea of a Royal Commission as a vegetarian feels about a nice fillet steak. The thought of actually having to prove all their silly allegations of cash for policies probably frightened him as much as the the thought of the decision making over the pledge card being made public.
But as we have seen in recent months, public pressure can work. If one could get the minor parties to support a Royal Commission, and then National, that would make it hard for Labour to refuse – especially as they claim they want the truth about the Exclusive Brethren to come out – well they can get it – so long as all aspects of the election are investigated.
If the Government can waste $500,000 on a powerless inquiry into just one MP, and millions on a sidelined inquiry into police conduct, surely a few million into the integrity of the last general election is a cheap price to pay.
No tag for this post.
September 30th, 2006 at 10:18 am
It does open the floodgates to doing this kind of crap every election. I think a better use of political energy all round would be to focus on winning the next election, rather than trying to overturn the last one.
I mean is anyone actually suggesting that the people didn’t cast their ballots the way they came out? Or are we just quibbling about campaign finances? If so, what were the total expenditures on electioneering, both negative and positive, in the last election?
If both major parties (and the minor parties too) indulged in sharp financing practice, then perhaps the voters could decide if that’s OK or not.
Vote:September 30th, 2006 at 10:37 am
And how many elections will have come and gone before a royal commission can present it’s findings, it would be a bit like watching paint dry.
Vote:If the truth is known there is probably no party in parliament that is pure as driven snow and they would have no wish to expose themselves.
September 30th, 2006 at 12:52 pm
All there really needs to be is an enquiry into why the Police failed to prosecute the Labour Party, and if the enquiry finds him/her at fault, whoever made the decision within the Police needs to be fired.
Vote:September 30th, 2006 at 12:56 pm
Heck, she doesn’t mince words, does she? I’m with her, though.
Ben, there is more at stake here than just issues of party finances. This goes to very core of our democracy. If we don’t crack down now, we risk losing something far more important.
Vote:September 30th, 2006 at 12:57 pm
I have suggested such a commission (with commission of Inquiry powers) before. The basic problem is that the Parliamentary actors lose control of the policy agenda here. That might not be a bad thing.
Labour also has a perception problem in that if not handled properly it might contribute to the perception that they did something wrong or are guilty of some illegality. I actually think they could handle this but it would require a scale back of the rhetoric between National and Labour over electoral matters and a non partisan parliamentary consensus to form that this might be the best approach to handling these issues. That would allow the parties to return to their basic routines of attacking each other’s policy prescriptions without questioning the legitimacy of the last election particularily if there is parliamentary sign up to a commission that connot adversely find against anyone or thing done previously.
If Labour keeps insisting on the notion that only two issues from the last election (Exclusive Brethren activities and there anonymous donation regime) result in the need for legislative reform of the Electoral Act then they have no chance to appeal to the fair-mindedness of New Zealanders. This is because they have their own elephant sized pledge card problem – we can see the elephant, Labour confesses publicly not to be able too.
Legislative proposals in this environment will probably lead to a sizable percentage of the population drawing the conclusion that Labour is trying to change electoral rules to suit it and to address what it considers are the advantages (legal and financial) enjoyed other other parties active in politics.
In this environment one might conclude that Labour’s desire for state funding is driven by the insolvency of the Labour Party even before any repayment of the pledge card is considered. It would also be reasonable to presume that Labour will receive even less in donations next time than it did this time, as some donors will be convinced that Labour cannot win next time and will regard donating as a waste of money.
The political issue correctly identified here if a Royal Commission is established (with or without Commission of Inquiry Powers to adversely find on matters from the previous election) then Labour at that point losses control of the political agenda. What they must consider is whether the risk of this is greater than the risk that any legislative changes to the Electoral Act will be perceived as one sided.
I suspect that any one sided changes to the Electoral Act will generate high levels of political activism from the centre-right. If they propose and force through changes that widely perceived as unbalanced I will happily assist in driving a bulldozer through those changes and therefore over the top of the Labour Party.
For if one thinks about it calmly all law in this area will be behind whatever leading edge political and legal innovation is. Such legal regimes are always a “catch up” to some extent. Labour should consider carefully whether they actually incentivise such innovation by their own action. They may also prompt National to commit to a larger reform package in this area that considerably frees up political activity than would otherwise be the case if National were not prodded into action by what they see as Labour’s self interest. National might also commit to reducing the freedom of MP’s to spend anything in close proximity to an election. While such proposals will never determine the attractiveness of otherwise of voting for a party, a National lead government formed because National has a platform broadly attractive to voters and voters are tired with Labour, would allow National to propose extensive reforms of electoral arrangements and claim a mandate for them. Much much worse for Labour is if National adopts a different stretegy in working under MMP.
I am so so looking forward to the Ministry of Justice report asked for by the Government and the OIA dump that will result from it.
Vote:September 30th, 2006 at 1:54 pm
To the points suggested by David I would add that the eligibility of voters be considered. There was some considerable suggestion of multiple voting and voting by immigrants who were either illegal or recently arrived or underage at the last election. Indeed there was a good case for inkstaining the fingers in the crucial Sout Auckland electorates.
Vote:September 30th, 2006 at 2:43 pm
In my view the biggest problem with the current situation in NZ politics is the lack debate on policy, this should worry National in particular, but in the long term it is a bad omen for anyone who thinks that broad participation in the process of policymaking is a good thing, as people will lose interest in politics if the current situation continues.
In my view, any Commission who’s task is to point fingers and place blame, rather than avoiding a repeat of the ridiculous current situation is rather pointless. To me, the institutional solution that would have prevented this mess in the first place is quite obvious:
1) Remove the parliamentary service’s role in campaigning. The system (I don’t know the details of how it works) where they supply/approve material in exchange for putting their “shield” on the material is obviously a legal quagmire (especially as the system is different during campaigns). You can blame Labour ad nauseam, but seriously, it still is. Infomercials from the government should be done by bueraucrats without interference from politicians (as it’s done in other countries, I was astonished to learn how it works here), and campaigning by politicians without interference from public officials.
2) Remove all limits on who can and cannot give money to campaigning – for their own credibility’s sake parties will probably want to be upfront about who they recieve what from. Some legal system for scrutinizing such promises should be available, but not compulsory. As EB has shown there are ways around any form of regulation, if you want to.
3) Public funding of campaigns to decrease the marginal benefit of such giving is clearly necessary to make accusations about connections between votes and gifts less important. The current situation shows that the only way to avoid parties’ integrity being questioned (remember – this has happened both to National and Labour, even if Labour has been hardest it – this time) is to make them financially independent from private/civil society actors.
As any economist will tell you, recievers get more bang (in, this case information to voters) for money (the buck) than services (or goods, whatever). As the public sector is already involved in supporting, not just overseeing campaigning (this is basically correct, right?), I don’t see the big problem in giving parties money instead of e.g. broadcasting time. Campaign funding already exist in principle, it just needs to be increased slightly, as a “compensation” for point 2.
This is what the debate should be concerned with, not what legal action benefits whom. I think such an approach must be highly risky for any party, as the process is so hard to predict that any strategy can easily backfire.
Finally, a very genuine question: why doesn’t the smaller parties capitalize more on the scandals piling up? A whole lot of voters must be questioning the usefulness of voting for parties that are more concerned with muckslinging than policies that matters in the everyday life of kiwis (which IMHO doesn’t involve allegations of corruption for anyone that it is possible to convince to change their vote, anyway). Why is the only MP I’ve heard lamenting the behaviour of the major parties Winston Peters???
Vote:Why doesn’t the Greens and ACT pour out press releases highlighting how L&N are letting down their electorate by not focussing on the issues people elected them to do? It must be so easy, not to mention fun, to take the moral high ground… And for once it would be the right thing to do. At the moment both National and Labour NEEDS to be punished severely in the polls, if for nothing else then at least for their own good – that’s the only language they understand. Is the noise level really so high that they (the smaller parties) are not getting through, or are they simply not trying, and if so why not?
September 30th, 2006 at 3:04 pm
In my view the biggest problem with the current situation in NZ politics is the lack debate on policy, this should worry National in particular, but in the long term it is a bad omen for anyone who thinks that broad participation in the process of policymaking is a good thing, as people will lose interest in politics if the current situation continues.
In my view, any Commission who’s task is to point fingers and place blame, rather than avoiding a repeat of the ridiculous current situation is rather pointless. To me, the institutional solution that would have prevented this mess in the first place is quite obvious:
1) Remove the parliamentary service’s role in campaigning. The system (I don’t know the details of how it works) where they supply/approve material in exchange for putting their “shield” on the material is obviously a legal quagmire (especially as the system is different during campaigns). You can blame Labour ad nauseam, but seriously, it still is. Infomercials from the government should be done by bueraucrats without interference from politicians (as it’s done in other countries, I was astonished to learn how it works here), and campaigning by politicians without interference from public officials.
2) Remove all limits on who can and cannot give money to campaigning – for their own credibility’s sake parties will probably want to be upfront about who they recieve what from. Some legal system for scrutinizing such promises should be available, but not compulsory. As EB has shown there are ways around any form of regulation, if you want to.
3) Public funding of campaigns to decrease the marginal benefit of such giving is clearly necessary to make accusations about connections between votes and gifts less important. The current situation shows that the only way to avoid parties’ integrity being questioned (remember – this has happened both to National and Labour, even if Labour has been hardest it – this time) is to make them financially independent from private/civil society actors.
As any economist will tell you, recievers get more bang (in, this case information to voters) for money (the buck) than services (or goods, whatever). As the public sector is already involved in supporting, not just overseeing campaigning (this is basically correct, right?), I don’t see the big problem in giving parties money instead of e.g. broadcasting time. Campaign funding already exist in principle, it just needs to be increased slightly, as a “compensation” for point 2.
This is what the debate should be concerned with, not what legal action benefits whom. I think such an approach must be highly risky for any party, as the process is so hard to predict that any strategy can easily backfire.
Finally, a very genuine question: why doesn’t the smaller parties capitalize more on the scandals piling up? A whole lot of voters must be questioning the usefulness of voting for parties that are more concerned with muckslinging than policies that matters in the everyday life of kiwis (which IMHO doesn’t involve allegations of corruption for anyone that it is possible to convince to change their vote, anyway). Why is the only MP I’ve heard lamenting the behaviour of the major parties Winston Peters???
Vote:Why doesn’t the Greens and ACT pour out press releases highlighting how L&N are letting down their electorate by not focussing on the issues people elected them to do? It must be so easy, not to mention fun, to take the moral high ground… And for once it would be the right thing to do. At the moment both National and Labour NEEDS to be punished severely in the polls, if for nothing else then at least for their own good – that’s the only language they understand. Is the noise level really so high that they (the smaller parties) are not getting through, or are they simply not trying, and if so why not?
September 30th, 2006 at 3:06 pm
In my view the biggest problem with the current situation in NZ politics is the lack debate on policy, this should worry National in particular, but in the long term it is a bad omen for anyone who thinks that broad participation in the process of policymaking is a good thing, as people will lose interest in politics if the current situation continues.
In my view, any Commission who’s task is to point fingers and place blame, rather than avoiding a repeat of the ridiculous current situation is rather pointless. To me, the institutional solution that would have prevented this mess in the first place is quite obvious:
1) Remove the parliamentary service’s role in campaigning. The system (I don’t know the details of how it works) where they supply/approve material in exchange for putting their “shield” on the material is obviously a legal quagmire (especially as the system is different during campaigns). You can blame Labour ad nauseam, but seriously, it still is. Infomercials from the government should be done by bueraucrats without interference from politicians (as it’s done in other countries, I was astonished to learn how it works here), and campaigning by politicians without interference from public officials.
2) Remove all limits on who can and cannot give money to campaigning – for their own credibility’s sake parties will probably want to be upfront about who they recieve what from. Some legal system for scrutinizing such promises should be available, but not compulsory. As EB has shown there are ways around any form of regulation, if you want to.
3) Public funding of campaigns to decrease the marginal benefit of such giving is clearly necessary to make accusations about connections between votes and gifts less important. The current situation shows that the only way to avoid parties’ integrity being questioned (remember – this has happened both to National and Labour, even if Labour has been hardest it – this time) is to make them financially independent from private/civil society actors.
As any economist will tell you, recievers get more bang (in, this case information to voters) for money (the buck) than services (or goods, whatever). As the public sector is already involved in supporting, not just overseeing campaigning (this is basically correct, right?), I don’t see the big problem in giving parties money instead of e.g. broadcasting time. Campaign funding already exist in principle, it just needs to be increased slightly, as a “compensation” for point 2.
This is what the debate should be concerned with, not what legal action benefits whom. I think such an approach must be highly risky for any party, as the process is so hard to predict that any strategy can easily backfire.
Finally, a very genuine question: why doesn’t the smaller parties capitalize more on the scandals piling up? A whole lot of voters must be questioning the usefulness of voting for parties that are more concerned with muckslinging than policies that matters in the everyday life of kiwis (which IMHO doesn’t involve allegations of corruption for anyone that it is possible to convince to change their vote, anyway). Why is the only MP I’ve heard lamenting the behaviour of the major parties Winston Peters???
Vote:Why doesn’t the Greens and ACT pour out press releases highlighting how L&N are letting down their electorate by not focussing on the issues people elected them to do? It must be so easy, not to mention fun, to take the moral high ground… And for once it would be the right thing to do. At the moment both National and Labour NEEDS to be punished severely in the polls, if for nothing else then at least for their own good – that’s the only language they understand. Is the noise level really so high that they (the smaller parties) are not getting through, or are they simply not trying, and if so why not?
September 30th, 2006 at 3:09 pm
In my view the biggest problem with the current situation in NZ politics is the lack debate on policy, this should worry National in particular, but in the long term it is a bad omen for anyone who thinks that broad participation in the process of policymaking is a good thing, as people will lose interest in politics if the current situation continues.
In my view, any Commission who’s task is to point fingers and place blame, rather than avoiding a repeat of the ridiculous current situation is rather pointless. To me, the institutional solution that would have prevented this mess in the first place is quite obvious:
1) Remove the parliamentary service’s role in campaigning. The system (I don’t know the details of how it works) where they supply/approve material in exchange for putting their “shield” on the material is obviously a legal quagmire (especially as the system is different during campaigns). You can blame Labour ad nauseam, but seriously, it still is. Infomercials from the government should be done by bueraucrats without interference from politicians (as it’s done in other countries, I was astonished to learn how it works here), and campaigning by politicians without interference from public officials.
2) Remove all limits on who can and cannot give money to campaigning – for their own credibility’s sake parties will probably want to be upfront about who they recieve what from. Some legal system for scrutinizing such promises should be available, but not compulsory. As EB has shown there are ways around any form of regulation, if you want to.
3) Public funding of campaigns to decrease the marginal benefit of such giving is clearly necessary to make accusations about connections between votes and gifts less important. The current situation shows that the only way to avoid parties’ integrity being questioned (remember – this has happened both to National and Labour, even if Labour has been hardest it – this time) is to make them financially independent from private/civil society actors.
As any economist will tell you, recievers get more bang (in, this case information to voters) for money (the buck) than services (or goods, whatever). As the public sector is already involved in supporting, not just overseeing campaigning (this is basically correct, right?), I don’t see the big problem in giving parties money instead of e.g. broadcasting time. Campaign funding already exist in principle, it just needs to be increased slightly, as a “compensation” for point 2.
This is what the debate should be concerned with, not what legal action benefits whom. I think such an approach must be highly risky for any party, as the process is so hard to predict that any strategy can easily backfire.
Finally, a very genuine question: why doesn’t the smaller parties capitalize more on the scandals piling up? A whole lot of voters must be questioning the usefulness of voting for parties that are more concerned with muckslinging than policies that matters in the everyday life of kiwis (which IMHO doesn’t involve allegations of corruption for anyone that it is possible to convince to change their vote, anyway). Why is the only MP I’ve heard lamenting the behaviour of the major parties Winston Peters???
Vote:Why doesn’t the Greens and ACT pour out press releases highlighting how L&N are letting down their electorate by not focussing on the issues people elected them to do? It must be so easy, not to mention fun, to take the moral high ground… And for once it would be the right thing to do. At the moment both National and Labour NEEDS to be punished severely in the polls, if for nothing else then at least for their own good – that’s the only language they understand. Is the noise level really so high that they (the smaller parties) are not getting through, or are they simply not trying, and if so why not?
September 30th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
wooops…
Vote:Sorry bout that
September 30th, 2006 at 7:12 pm
Gee Tor, u certainly made your point more than once..hee hee.
Vote:I wonder what part the GG can play in this issue ?
It is very quiet in Govt house.
September 30th, 2006 at 10:56 pm
From Fran’s article:
Allegations that National made corrupt cash-for-policy deals with the anonymous donors that stumped up 92 per cent of the party’s election funds. Prime Minister Helen Clark has alleged insurance companies were promised policy deals around changes to ACC. Who were these companies – if any? – that tried to bribe National.
You’re a selective bloody spin-artist Farrar.
Vote:September 30th, 2006 at 11:17 pm
And you are a selective moron. I mean seriously does your brain have a disconnetc with your eyes.
I said in my post that any RC should include investigating Labour’s allegations of cash for policies.
Vote: