Leaked Electoral Law Changes
Labour has started leaking their proposed electoral law changes, as they want to divert attention away from their attempt to raid the taxpayer for political party funding. They hope to get that unpopular money grab through, by linking it to the more popular restrictions they propose.
So the first thing to be aware of at all times, is that one can agree with everything Labour proposes in terms of private funding, yet in no way support taxpayer funding of political parties. They are not linked. One is a cover for the other.
The second thing is that Labour’s changes are clearly designed to change the rules to favour themselves. They never had a problem with anonymous donations when they received more of them than National. People should be very concerned that they plan to ram through changes to the Electoral Act which they have negotiated in secret, rather than seek bi-partisan support for. The Electoral Act is an important constitutional safeguard.
Anyway onto the leaked details:
Require any third party (a group or individual other than a candidate or registered party) to register its intention with the Chief Electoral Officer if it plans to spend more than $5000 nationally and $500 in an electorate.
No problems with that. Lack of disclosure is what the Brethren did wrong last time.
Restrict any third party from spending more than $60,000 nationally or $2000 in an electorate.
$60,000 is a very very low threshold. That barely gives a lobby group a couple of ads in the NZ Herald. It is a limit per voter of two cents expenditure per voter. I think having a limit is fine, seeing political parties have limits, but one has to ask the rationale for one so low it may suppress genuine free speech.
Restrict any third party to New Zealanders or New Zealand-based organisations.
Fine. Not aware of that are not.
Exempt from the new third-party rules groups such as unions or companies when they are communicating directly with their members.
Now here is the first outrageous attempt to favour their own. They appear to make it look neutral by including companies communicating with their members. But when has a company ever told its members how to vote? They don’t even have members. But the union loophole can and does get used to exempt all sorts of propaganda in union publications which can be circulated around workplaces, handed out in streets etc.
Lower the threshold for disclosure of donations from $10,000 to $5000 for parties and from $1000 to $500 for individual candidates.
That seems reasonable. A lower limit than that would risk exposing rank and file donations, and people have a right to keep their party membership secret, just as it is a hallowed right to keep your vote secret.
Do not allow anonymous or trust donations above the $5,000 limit
I think there is strong public support for this. People should be aware though that inevitably more money will flow to third party lobby groups, as happens in the US. I’m not worried either way, but people should not be surprised when lots of lobby groups pop up.
Ban foreign donations except those from expatriate New Zealanders.
Here’s Labour goes for an outrageous tilt. They received $500,000 last election from Owen Glenn who was not born here and has not lived in NZ since 1966. He would still be allowed to donate but Julian Robertson who is alleged to donate to National, would not, despite Robertson owning property in NZ and spends most of his time living here.
No problems if people want to ban foreign donations, but having a loophole to allow someone who has not lived here since 1966 to donate just because he gives money to Labour is outrageous.
Personally I don’t think you need restrictions if you have full disclosure, as the public can decide for themselves if they disapprove of the source of any donations. But if you are going to have restrictions then they should apply fairly. Say no-one who hasn’t lived here in the last ten years being banned.
Include in the definition of donations loans at non-commercial rates, and a party’s goods or properties sold well over their valuation.
Sounds sensible enough – presumably to stop what has happened in the UK for interest free loans not disclosed and being exchanged for peerages.
Require whatever the third party spends to be counted against its $60,000 limit and the limit of the party it is supporting.
Now this part is not clear from the leaked report. The current law already states that if say a union spends $20,000 saying Vote Labour it must be approved by Labour and count as part of its total.
But it seems they are suggesting that negative advertising against other parties must be approved by a party and count as part of its limit. That’s seems ridiculous if true.
If someone runs an anti-NZ First ad, which party has to approve it and have it counted as part of their return? How about an anti-ACT ad? Or an anti-Labour ad?
Overall there are some parts of the changes which are sensible, and should be (and I think will be) supported by almost all parties. But some are clear attempts to gerrymander the electoral laws to help Labour, and should be strongly opposed.
Also we should look at what is not included? The current $4,000 for a corrupt practice is ridiculously light. If Labour has integrity they should be including an increase in this to at least $100,000 for individuals and $1 million for political parties.
April 9th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
This is an attempt by the ruling party to unilaterally change the electoral laws to its own partisan advantage. That is the politics of Lenin, Hitler, Pinochet and Mugabe.
April 9th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
The simple solution is to ban ALL electoral spending, except for a copy of the manifesto on a party’s website.
April 9th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
“Exempt from the new third-party rules groups such as unions or companies when they are communicating directly with their members…”
DPF says: “Now here is the first outrageous attempt to favour their own. They appear to make it look neutral by including companies communicating with their members…”
Well, if the Business Round Table had moe than 53 members it wouldn’t be a problem. The thing is, Unions are mass movements and big business is not. TOUGH. DPF’s prime objection seems to be that our new right business oligarchy is about to be exposed for the narrowly based, decadent group it actually is.
April 9th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
About time but does it go far enough? Will it for example stop a party receiving its funding from an anonymous trust like National did last election? I find it interesting how Nats are crying foul over the no foreign donors unless they are NZ ex-pats rule. Can’t they see the problem in allowing any foreigner to have undue influence in our elections? Foreigners should not be able to buy votes in our elections!
April 9th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
David, Herald quotes Glenn’s donation as 300 000.
April 9th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Since taking out adverts and leafleting etc is not hurting anyone or interfering with their rights then there should be no laws saying how much of their own money people can spend on these activities. Its ludicrous.
April 9th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
The disclosure rules are a joke if it is possible to hide behind a trust to conceal the donations so something must be done about that. The state funding is a trade-off for having much tighter controls of donation amounts and stricter disclosure. In theory I little problem with that. The area that needs to be looked closely are the rules on Unions. I favour a system that each memeber has to consent to having their fees going to a political party not just a majority vote situation. And in the next parialment that change should be made. That should sort the Labour Party.
April 9th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Toms as usual rants about the BRT than actually discusses anythign sensible. I wonder if he checks under his bed for Roger Kerr before he tucks himself in every night.
Thomas – yes it will stop trust donations (if over $5,000 a year). As for the foreign donors I don’t think it is a big issue if you have full disclosure. But if you do want to ban them, then Labour should not write the rules so only some foreigners are counted. It’s all about how do you decide who is or is not a foreigner.
He gave $300,000 in one year but $500,000 over three years.
April 9th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
The changes proposed will probably go through just as other outrageous legislation has. It is simply a matter of how much Liebour has to offer the required number of poodle parties in order to purchase their principles….I agree with Swift Man Ban all advertising except the manifesto which should be in the form of a contract, or else have no controls whatso-ever. Certainly no Public Funding, if a group of people want to govern they should have to get out and raise their own money just as charities have to.
April 9th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Shades of Zimbabwe…….
April 9th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
You can accuse me of ranting all you like, but at the end of the day the only people National supporters can blame for tightening of the laws in this area is themselves.
In the 2005 general election they escaped the outrageous corruption charge laid against Labour only because they didn’t spend their parliamentary fund money in the three months immediately before the election. Instead, National was able to fund virtually a permanent election campaign – including that massively expensive billboard campaign – on anonymous slush funds loaded up with cash from Don Brash’s new right mates in the business pluotcracy. Then, when the nonsensically narrow Brady report came out they had the enormous chutzpah to accuse Labour of corruption. And National got away with all of it, with not a little help from the Herald’s ludicrous and hopelessly one-eyed editorial position.
Now, having shown how to shamelessly drive a truck and trailer through the spirit of our electoral law, the same shysters of the right are going to start up their chief on-line bleeter Mr. David Farrar to try and claim they are hard done by victims of a socialist conspiracy.
Poor little rich boys and their cheer leaders seldom make an edifying sight, I don’t see an exception to that rule here.
Labour won despite the best efforts of the real corrupt players – the anonymous funders of National who don’t have the guts to come out and show the voters who is attempting to buy a manufactured consent. Now its time to make sure that sort of breathtakingly cynical corruption never happens again, and I for one am going to sit back with a big cigar and enjoy the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the poor little rich boys of the right.
April 9th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
The only wailing and gnashing of teeth we hear in this country mate is that of the real workers who labour screws relentlessly – they make Shipton look like an impotent slug.
April 9th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Restrictions on donations and state funding of political parties based on votes are very much linked.
If restrictions on donations are introduced preventing or restricting further anonymous and trust donations, these sources of funding will largely dry up for all political parties (if these donors did not want their donations to be anonymous they would not make anonymous donations). It would then become very difficult for parties to fund campaigning, which would not be good for democracy.
April 9th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Nobody can spend money except unions.
Ah yes, you are only allowed to express your political opinion if you are in the pocket of the labour party.
Business is bad……..mmmkay. We wont mention the fact that they employ, generate growth, pay the taxes that the government is dependant on, we will just take away their rights to have a say in the process. “Shut up, pay your taxes”
I am so glad ive resigned from that party, and now see them for what they are…when it looks anti-democratic, smells anti-democratic and looks anti-democratic, it probably is.
Cheers
Scott
April 9th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Nobody can spend money except unions.
Ah yes, you are only allowed to express your political opinion if you are in the pocket of the labour party.
Business is bad……..mmmkay. We wont mention the fact that they employ, generate growth, pay the taxes that the government is dependant on, we will just take away their rights to have a say in the process. “Shut up, pay your taxes”
I am so glad ive resigned from that party, and now see them for what they are…when it looks anti-democratic, smells anti-democratic and looks anti-democratic, it probably is.
Cheers
Scott
April 9th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Nobody can spend money except unions.
Ah yes, you are only allowed to express your political opinion if you are in the pocket of the labour party.
Business is bad……..mmmkay. We wont mention the fact that they employ, generate growth, pay the taxes that the government is dependant on, we will just take away their rights to have a say in the process. “Shut up, pay your taxes”
I am so glad ive resigned from that party, and now see them for what they are…when it looks anti-democratic, smells anti-democratic and looks anti-democratic, it probably is.
Cheers
Scott
April 9th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
TomS – You seem to hate so much, that you assume you’re hated back. If it helps you to believe in a “capitalist conspiracy” then, well, go for it. It’s sad though. If you dropped the blinkers for a while, you might realise that the majority of National supporters simply believe in people, and that they’ll make the right choices for society and themselves without being forced into it. Capitalistic fatcats plotting to create monopolies and enslave the prols? Not so much.
April 9th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
No word yet on how Labour will get the gob-shite that flows from the election spin machine to be believed though.
April 9th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Union good – business bad.
Can I be a lefty now? I think that unions are good but I failed to notice that without business unions would be just a concept. No employment, no employees, no unions.
Oh dear… I’ve just shown more cognitive reasoning that allowed from a lefty… If I promise not to get a dose of reality again can I lead the Labour party ?
April 9th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
So retrospective validation of rampant uncontrolled spending is OK but we need to ensure that parties that have more resources can’t spend more during a campaign because it’s undemocratic.
The lefties eh, they really think the public are so stupid that they can’t see that Labour and their poodles validated 14 years of undemocratic elections so that they could stay in power.
We should have immediately had a care taker Govt and a fresh election – this is what would have happened if they really cared about democracy – this piece of drivel legislation also proves they can’t survive without tilting the playing field in their favour. Hopeless spineless unprincipled bunch of tossers.
As soon as this legislation is pushed through (most likely under urgency) NZ will be a sad sad undemocratic banana republic – just waiting for Labour to steal another election.
April 9th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
Don – those large donations are not the only source of funds for parties. National gains a very significant amount of money from its membership drives. If you bring in taxpayer funding, you destroy the motivation for parties to attract members.
April 9th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
Who needs party members, the unions have thousands. We won – you lost – eat that.
April 10th, 2007 at 7:26 am
The Labour Party has never made any effort to raise money from its memebers. That would be hard work and distract from endless discussions about politics and policies. Indeed their efforts to raise the money they stole from the taxpayer shows, that if they put their mind to it they too can raise money. It was just too easy for them to take it from the taxpayer – so they did that instead.
April 10th, 2007 at 8:15 am
Toms are you a complete winker?.Your Statement that Unions are mass movements you forgot to add that there is no vote with the membership if it is OK to make these large donations to the Labour Party.But hey what’s the problem with that as the party that donation is made to is not asking the voters if it is OK to spend taxpayers money for Elections they are going to legislate the Donations for us and say that it makes democracy above board .Try and get real
April 10th, 2007 at 10:19 am
On Unions giving money to the Labour Party I would insist that each memeber sign that they wish a proportion of their money go to the Labour Party and that the person should have the option to also give the donation to any other political party such as the National Party.
April 10th, 2007 at 10:25 am
Easy way to use Labours loop hole against them:
Create new Union;
Give every New Zealander on the electoral roll free membership to said Union.
Distribute advertising materials to membership of Union…
April 10th, 2007 at 11:34 am
Will Labour stop giving monetary incentives for people to join Unions?
April 10th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Will a trade union taking out a full-page ad in a daily newspaper be defined as “communicating with their members”?