Electoral Funding Symposium
Spent all day Friday up at Victoria University attending a symposium on electoral funding put on by Transparency International and the VUW Institute of Policy Studies.
I enjoyed asking Transparency International, when they asked people to consider supporting their work, if they accept anonymous donations 
Overall I found it a pretty balanced day. Most of the people there probably regard money in politics as evil and something to be heavily regulated, but there was a surprisingly healthy diversity of views. One participant pointed out how the US is arguably the most heavily regulated in the world, yet the one most influenced by money. By restricting donations to parties and candidates, the money just flowed instead to advocacy groups.
We also had two Speakers there – Margaret WIlson and Doug Kidd.
The Chief Executive of the Electoral Commission, Helena Catt, talked about (amongst many things) how the Electoral Act was still basically a FPP document, modified for MMP. This is very much the case with electorate candidates who break the Act able to lose their seats, but no penalties at all for parties which break the Act. I suggested that one option was to give the Electoral Commission the power to deduct votes from a party’s result, for the most serious and flagrant breaches of the Act. On balance I think this would be giving the Commission too much power, but at present they have none against parties – only against individuals.
Dr Joo Cheong Tham from the University of Melbourne spoke on Australian laws. He made a useful point that one should be debating political financing as a whole, not just party funding or campaign funding.
Andrew Geddis from Otago University (Trevor Loudon has an SAP on him) did a pretty comprehensive presentation on issues within the current law. He was with Steven Price of the Coalition for Open Government. Andrew did not propose his own answers, but did very well in covering all the questions.
Both agreed with me that the current restriction on parties being unable to buy their own broadcasting should be abolished, and broadcasting spending should just be included in a party’s overall expenditure limit (which would need to increase to reflect that).
Former National General Manager Steven Joyce spoke. He supported ending anonymous donations over the disclosure limit (mainly because then people couldn’t scare monger about the sources of funding). He also made the point that for those people who think people can “buy” policies, he’s never found anything able to compete with an MP’s own belief in the value of their own ideas and proposals. Heh very true. He said if you have state funding it should not be based just on the votes at the previous election as this may always advantage the incumbent Government, but it should be done like the Electoral Commission does broadcasting allocations – looking at current polling support also.
Steven though the current level of $10,000 for disclosure was fine. He also made a pretty vital point that future campaigns may be fought on You Tube by supporters as much by parties through ad buys, and all this regulation may get overtaken by technology.
Richard Northey, a former Labour MP (and party presidential candidate) had a somewhat strange presentation. He praised the performance of NZ Post in running the Electoral Enrolment Centre but was critical of The “Justice Department” for the operations of the Chief Electoral Office and Returning Officers. So his solution was to transfer the Chief Electoral Office to NZ Post. Yes he seriously advocated the a commercial trading enterprise should be in charge of running our electoral system. Would be amusing if we ever sell NZ Post one day – NZ would have its first privately owned electoral system!
But his real bombshell was as he explained his idea of an anonymous donation. He explained it is where a businessman hands you a large cheque and says “I wish to be anonymous”. This of course is a totally illegal practice, if correctly described, and the lawyers in the room were stunned. Mike Williams looked very unimpressed with Cr Northey. Northey also supported the Labour line on having spending limits apply for all of election year (something I regard as a hideous attack on freedom of speech). Oh yes he also misunderstood the role of the Auditor-General and the Electoral Act.
I won’t cover all the Party Presidents, as No Right Turn has done this so well. I agree with him the Maori Party President was rambling and useless (on this issue).
ACT’s Gary Mallett was pretty controversial for saying he regarded it as a bad thing to even be discussing limits. He did have useful points (also made by Bryce Edwards) that the amount of money a party spends has remarkably little (but some) effect on their vote.
National’s Judy Kirk made a point often overlooked by those who think all parties are funded from large corporate donations. She said National’s membership fully funded the party’s operating expenses (not campaign expenses), and even put a price on them of $4.2 million over three years. She also said membership was at a 17 year high. I have stated this many times – National gets most of its money from the tens of thousands of members and supporters who donate a relatively modest amount. The amount of large (declared) donations over the last three years was only $2.38 million which all goes to the campaign.
Labour’s Mike Williams spoke in favour of restricting third party advertising, such as that by the Exclusive Brethren. I asked him whether he would also support much higher penalties for Electoral Act breaches, such as the $1 million maximum fine proposed by the Campaign for Open Government. I was delighted that he replied yes, and hope that the Government’s bill will include proper penalties for Electoral Act breaches.
No Right Turn also covers the earlier speakers. What was amusing was the number of people who came up to me asking who was No Right Turn, as he was registered under his real name, and they wanted to meet him.
There are certain issues, ‘almost’ everyone seems to agree on. They are:
* Banning anonymous and trust donations (over the disclosable level)
* Higher penalties for breaches of the Electoral Act
* Having parties as well as individuals liable under the law
* Increasing the cap for electorate candidates
* Having the broadcasting limit incorporated into the overall spending limit
* Simplifying the number of agencies involved with elections and complaints
* Better transparency on third party campaigns
Issues on which there were significant disagreement:
* Greater public funding of parties
* The level at which donations need to be disclosed (views range from $500 to $10,000)
* The level of the spending cap for parties
* The period of time the cap should apply for
* Whether third parties should have spending caps, and how much
* Whether negative campaigns by third parties should be allowed
* How changes to electoral law should be consulted on (most were critical of Govt’s actions to date)
I’ve probably missed a few. Anyway a very worthwhile day and kudos to the organisers. The real shame was that the Government has not yet released their proposed bill – that was meant to be the focal point of the debate. I guess they have not stitched up the numbers for it yet.
June 21st, 2007 at 2:58 am
“ACT’s Gary Mallett was pretty controversial for saying he regarded it as a bad thing to even be discussing limits. He did have useful points (also made by Bryce Edwards) that the amount of money a party spends has remarkably little (but some) effect on their vote.”
Well it is a bad thing to define limits…..ehmm were does it end for example….were does illegal pledge card funding come in. Sorry to bring up this topic, but it is still valid….i think
June 21st, 2007 at 7:34 am
The Government’s bill is basically an attack on the National Party but to get that they have to line up 12 votes which they had before state funding got canned. They have no intention of consulting with the National Party who have as many votes as them. But that leaves the National Party an opportunity to enact punative legislation against the role of trade unions in politics.
June 21st, 2007 at 8:00 am
A good update DPF. No mention of NZ First?
What was Richard Northey doing there anyway? Shouldn’t he be in Auckland pushing up people’s water prices?
June 21st, 2007 at 8:10 am
hat leaves the National Party an opportunity to enact punative legislation against the role of trade unions in politics.
Not “punitive” legislation – democratic legislation
Trade unions of course have no place in politics – and no place anywhere in a free market. National should simply have banned the lot and confiscated their assets last time around: hopefully it will do that this time!
June 21st, 2007 at 8:14 am
Sinner, I don’t much like militant unions either, but why would National ban freedom of association? It’s what they stand for! Trade unions have every right to exist, if people want to join them.
What they shouldn’t have are state-funded incentives to join, such as is the practise under this sneaky Labour government.
June 21st, 2007 at 8:29 am
After all, government interference in wage negotiations and nationalising assets are what fre markets are all about . . .
June 21st, 2007 at 9:25 am
What they shouldn’t have are state-funded incentives to join, such as is the practise under this sneaky Labour government.
What exactly are these state-funded incentives to join? I’m intrigued.
June 21st, 2007 at 9:29 am
Great read Mr. Farrar, thanks for posting it. I just cannot escape the feeling that there is a dastardly outcome already in the pipeline, and that all of these ‘consultations” are just a means of softening up the “public” for the bad news. The bad news that of course Will be presented as good news.
On the issue, I’m with ACT. No limits. No government funding. Absolutely totally against it. Merely opens one more door in a long line of doors for politicians to loot the taxpayer, and for socialists to continue with their plans for the totalitarian state that is their long term objective. Its just one more point of control to them. One more brick in the wall.
June 21st, 2007 at 9:34 am
“under this sneaky Labour government”
What’s with the cute euphemisms? They are corrupt cronyist power worshipers.
June 21st, 2007 at 9:49 am
“Trade unions of course have no place in politics – and no place anywhere in a free market. National should simply have banned the lot and confiscated their assets last time around: hopefully it will do that this time!”
- wait, a voluntary organisation of people uniting for common goals has lace within the political system?
- wait, a voluntary association of individuals has no place within a market?
- wait, you want the State to come and ban a certain class of voluntary, law-abidding organisation and seize its assets?
Sounds like someone doesn’t like freedom.
June 21st, 2007 at 10:12 am
DPF -
There was quite a bit of interest around the symposium about these citizen assemblies that Canada is using as a mechanism to develop a legitimate, depoliticised policy, especially on an issue as important and sensitive as elecotral funding. What do you think of the idea?
June 21st, 2007 at 10:56 am
There should be NO debate about the funding of elections without discussing the role of trade unions in politics and their funding and the way member’s money gets allocated to the Labour Party without proper process. The Labour Party does not want this debate and also wants to exclude the National Party from any consultation on the legislation. But they need an extra 12 votes which they are having difficulty in finding without the incentive of state funding. But the Labour party will get a debate on how Unions launder money to the Labour Party out of state funding and the way they TAKE member’s money with permission and give it to the Labour Party.
June 21st, 2007 at 11:16 am
IMHO No taxpayer funding for political parties. If they have policies that the citizens want them they will be able to raise the funds themselves. No anonymous donations otherwise how do you know that one entity may be making mulitple donations just under the disclosure limit. No donation from a single entity or associated entity (and this would have to be tightly defined) of more than $50K ( just a figure plucked out of the air that is hopefully smaller enough to not buy a pollie)
KISS is the name of the game. Dont give the suckers an even break just like they dont give us one.
June 21st, 2007 at 11:17 am
I agree with Mr. Barclay’s concerns, but consider they are three separate questions. Two questions tho have the same answer.
1) Question- Should Trade Unions provide money to political parties. Answer- if they want to.
2) Question- Should Trade Unions use member’s fees to provide financial support to political parties. Answer- if they want to.
No need for regulations. Leave it up to the Trade Unions and their members. That said, I regret the left wing/ communist/socialist domination of the TU movement, a result of political apathy. Will the grassroots membership ever wake up to the way they are being used by these horrible left wing zealots?
3) Question 3- Should taxpayer’s money be used to persuade workers to join Trade Unions. Answer- No, this is corruption and cronyism and in a civilized country the perpetrators would be jailed.
June 21st, 2007 at 11:21 am
A trade union can give money to political parties but they must not favour the Labour Party over other political parties. And they must not use members’ money to support polical parties unless they have the explicit support of that member.
June 21st, 2007 at 11:36 am
Unions launder money to the Labour Party out of state funding
Evidence please. Just one shred would be fine.
and the way they TAKE member’s money with permission and give it to the Labour Party.
I imagine you meant without permission. Trade unions are voluntary democratic organisations that decide – democratically – whether to support or affiliate to a party.
Just recently members of the Service and Food Workers Union voted on whether the union should make political donations to the Labour Party, and the membership voted 3 to 1 to continue doing so.
I think people who complain that unions force members to donate to parties simply don’t understand how modern unions work.
I regret the left wing/ communist/socialist domination of the TU movement
I regret the National Party’s determination to strip away basic employment rights and smash collective bargaining. Perhaps if they were a little less fixated on breaking the unions they might find a bit more support.
June 21st, 2007 at 11:38 am
Tim Barclay -
“they TAKE member’s money with permission and give it to the Labour Party.”
- the operative phrase being “with permission”, unions are voluntary organisations, members know when they sign up if their union is affilated and pays dues to Labour. Affilation is regularly subject to votes by members.
- also, affilated unions give a surpisingly small amount of money to Labour, less than corporates. 2005 donations, check it out http://www.elections.org.nz/parties/donations_summary.html#gen1 – those anonymous ones are mostly corporates and most are larger than the unions. SkyCity gave more to Labour than any union while only one union gave more than Toll and Westpac (they all gave the same amounts to National).
June 21st, 2007 at 11:46 am
I should also add that analysis I have done on the political donations of the three main private sector unions, the SFWU, EPMU and NDU, shows party donations amount to less than 0.5% of the budgets of each.
That works out to around 0.03 cents per member per week. Given the difference a Labour government makes to the wages of working people, I’d say that’s a pretty good investment.
June 21st, 2007 at 11:50 am
“A trade union can give money to political parties but they must not favour the Labour Party over other political parties.”
- A union is a voluntary democratic organisation, as such it can give money to whom it wants, within the law. Or are we anti-freedom now, Tim?
- If you think it strange that unions give (nearly) exclusively to Labour, you need a history lesson. Fortunately, you have the biggest accumalation of knowledge ever assmebled by humanity at your finger-tips. Research questions: where did the Labour Party come from? Why is is called Labour?
June 21st, 2007 at 12:15 pm
“Why is is called Labour?”
Beats me.
Once, yes, the name was appropriate, but now?
I’m not sure what party Savage would be a member of now, just that it would be something other than Labour.
June 21st, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Perhaps Unions and Companys should be required to get at a majority vote from their members/shareholders – say 51% of those entitled to vote or 51% of issued shares to determine the amount and destination of the donation which is to be declared in the annual report – level playing field at least in this respect.
June 21st, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Farrar,
Is you support of transparent corporate crooks Fay Richwhite, you refusal to condemn their heinous crimes, anything to do with john key’s relationship with the duo?
June 21st, 2007 at 1:22 pm
The righties here are missing the point. Trade Unions are democratic institutions (the word democratic is of course subject to the usual limitations of traditional leftist thuggery and co-ercion). If the members (or any single member) does not want their subscription fees used to support political parties they need to vote that idea into reality. I repeat, it is not an issue for government regulation.
June 21st, 2007 at 1:26 pm
“Just recently members of the Service and Food Workers Union voted on whether the union should make political donations to the Labour Party, and the membership voted 3 to 1 to continue doing so.”
Where were all of the other members?
June 21st, 2007 at 1:36 pm
On a related matter that nutter Sue Bradford is proposing a bill to lower the voting age to 16 . IMHO the age should be at least 20 and be subject to an IQ test
June 21st, 2007 at 2:00 pm
David was there any mention of membership by parties for funding …I understand NZ first Untied and possibly Act do not have the numbers to be registered as a party ie 500 members which must also place questions as to if NZ First United and ACT are entitled to be in parliament as a party.
I was also concerned last elections of advertising funding to very very minor parties which I seriously doubt if they also have the required numbers to be official parties.
If not why funding surely it should only be available to registered parties
As I believe/understand its the electoral law that all parties to be registered as a party must present annually a list of 500 plus membership.
I would appreciate a clarification from you as you seem to be pretty up and learned on NZ laws and the electoral act
June 21st, 2007 at 2:09 pm
There was no discussion of changing the law relating to 500 members to be registered. It is the job of the Electoral Commission to satisfy itself that a party which is registered does have 500 members.
However if a party does lose registration, this does not affect current MPs in Parliament. It just means their party can’t be listed on the party vote ballot next election.
June 21st, 2007 at 2:33 pm
I love the way that the logically disjointed apologists for the right such as sinner and co on this threat go on about Trade Unions. They have to get active consent from their members and the donations are out in the open. Compare this to activities at the last election from National – These quotes are from everyone on the rights favorite book the Hollow Men.
‘One of the surprises of the National Party papers was discovering the extent to which senior party people, including MPs, were aware of the identities of big donors and talked openly about donor negotiations. Later, when the party’s declerations of election year donations was provided to the Electoral Commission, none of these names were listed. The party was not only secretive and deceptive about its election finances; some of its activities appear to have breached both the electoral laws and the parliamentary spending rules and it seems to have been party to others’ breaches in election legislation’ P233
‘National Party official disclosure of donations showed only 7 per cent of the declared donations in 2005 coming from known donors ($140,000 out of $1,881,796)’ P234
‘None of the top donors – Alan Gibbs, Barry Colman, Craig Heatley, David Richwhite, Doug Myers, Michale Friedlander, Peter Shirtliffe, Rod Deane, Colin Giltrap and Michael Horton – were declared as being donors….passing the money through a party-linked trust fund…’ P235
So Rich Kiwis can try to buy the election without us knowing they have contributed or what their motivations are but democratic unions are a scourge on democracy! Warped logic anyone?
You can see why the right do not want to change the laws! These trusts must be banned.
June 21st, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Sorry, to ask here, but where can I find kiwiblog archives for this month? They seem to drop off the end (the main page only goes till June 18th) and the ‘June’ archive only goes from June 1st – 7th. Where do the rest disappear to?
June 21st, 2007 at 3:14 pm
I have just checked the EC 2007 list of registered parties …I would seriously question if all these parties qualify to be registered …
Is Alliance… Republicans …Cannibas party ..and numerous ones I have never heard really a registered party!
Do they have the required membership ? Who checks up on the commission to see if they are upholding the law re registered parties ?
June 21st, 2007 at 3:36 pm
“So Rich Kiwis can try to buy the election”
Bullshit. But of course you hate the rich don’t you Ras?
The ACT representative was right. The amount of money spent on advertising does not necessarily effect the outcome of the election. Plenty of big spenders have come second. Steve Forbes (USA) for one example. In a civilized country, people should be able to spend whatever they want on whatever they want, be it elections or shoes. Under the socialists, soon we’ll need to ask permission to wipe our arses.
Its leftist control freaks like you Rasputin, burning with hate and the obsession to control that are the real blight on the democratic process. As you were last election, stealing from the public because you couldn’t raise the required money from supporters. Putting out posters financed again with stolen taxpayer money. (Then you have the gall to come across with the absurd charge that George Bush “stole” the election. Jezuz H Christ you commies are something.)
But then the left never really attract the support they say they do and that’s why they never run an election on policy or intent, because you know Rasputin that people would shun you like lepers if they knew your real objectives. Its why you need issues like the EB. To smokescreen your planned totalitarian outcomes.
June 21st, 2007 at 3:49 pm
paulinem -
that’s actually an interesting question becuase the woman at the symposiumfrom the electoral commission specifically said ‘the parties do not tell us their membership numbers’ when discussing broader issues of party membership.
And that 500 threshold should be meaningful, so you don’t get the electoral process clogged up with the kind of parties that win in the 1000s of votes.
The 10 parties with the smallest votes in 2005 had fewer votes combined than the Destiny Party alone (14,500 or 0.6% of the total vote). Of them, I reckon only, maybe, the Alliance has anywhere near 500 members.
June 21st, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Redbaiter – It has to be said some of your invenctive is quite amusing although you so seem rather deranged.
I can assure you I have no pathological hatred of the rich…indeed a know quite a few that I would happily have a nice glass/bottle of Bollinger with. It seems like it is you who have a viceral hatred of the left.
I have no problem with rich kiwis donating to any party. It is their money and they should be able to do with it as they want it is just the fact that they wanted to hide it that perturbs me. As does Labour’s deceitful use of parliamentary services money to fund the pledge card though. As for your comment about Bush I have no idea what you are talking about…kinda going off message here and then hey presto the old attack that we are all commies…another clinching argument from Redbaiter
Do not let facts get in the way of your seething rant. You say that we do not run on policy or intent and hide our real objectives. Well throughout the last election National said one thing to the voters to win their support but another to the business meetings and rich donors to keep the monye comming in. They knew that their real intent in government and policies would be unpalatable to voters and that is why they hid them.
You are right on one thing though I am an anarcho-syndacalist revolutionary and wish to turn New Zealand into a totalitarian Maoist state with a command and control economy where freedoms have to be curtailed for the national good. Of course some deviants and undesirables will have to be liquidated and redbaiter you will be the first up against the wall.
That was a joke in case anyone wants to try and get me into more trouble!
June 21st, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Mr Red Rasputin what will you do when the communists are slain in the election , will you go back to snake farming ?
June 21st, 2007 at 4:30 pm
“The righties here are missing the point. Trade Unions are democratic institutions (the word democratic is of course subject to the usual limitations of traditional leftist thuggery and co-ercion). If the members (or any single member) does not want their subscription fees used to support political parties they need to vote that idea into reality. I repeat, it is not an issue for government regulation.”
What part of that is so deranged Red Rasputin?
Or how was this not factual
‘As you were last election, stealing from the public because you couldn’t raise the required money from supporters.”
Redbaiter has actually been raising some very valid points in this thread.
June 21st, 2007 at 4:34 pm
D4J –
this has actually been a pretty substantive thread up to now, can you please try to add something substantive yourself?
Redbaiter -
If money does not matter why do parties put so much effort into raising it. If money doesn’t matter, how can you say Labour’s overspending in 2005 ’stole the election’.
The fact is although there is not an absolute correlation between spending and votes money does have an impact – its just impossible to show statistically when there are other major varibles such as polcies and campaign events, advertising spending is one of several major tools parties use to win votes at an election.
June 21st, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Oops – A few typos on the previous post. Should proof read the comments before they are posted I guess.
I hope no one is going to suggest that all left wingers are illiterate, uneducated lumpen proletariat!
June 21st, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Sam its my understanding the EC demands proof of membership … ie the have to actually show names addresses etc.
This is why United have problems and I wouldn’t be surprised NZ First I see they are advertising to join up now, maybe they are in trouble
Re Alliance I doubt it has 500 …as the main contributing parties to Alliance ie Jim’s New Labour … now progressive ..Greens and the Democrats have all left to go their own way ..I know the Greens and Democrats have the numbers maybe Jim’s also has the numbers but the others and those that stayed ????
June 21st, 2007 at 4:46 pm
SB – “D4J – this has actually been a pretty substantive thread up to now, can you please try to add something substantive yourself?”
Sam are you asking as me as holder of NZ Meatworkers Union ticket for 19 years how much money went on officials donating to the labour party or trips to Russia?
June 21st, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Farrar,
Is you support of transparent corporate crooks Fay Richwhite, you refusal to condemn their heinous crimes, anything to do with john key’s relationship with the duo?
You are yet to reply to lefty Fran O either?
June 21st, 2007 at 4:57 pm
Farrierlies what a poltroon !!
June 21st, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Peter S –
To say that I hate the rich because I oppose anonymous donations from rich donors!
To say that I am a leftist control freak burning with hate and obsession to control…using words like lepers and commies. I do not think you read the later post…the first one was more moderate. He is a redbaiter after all and I do like a good debate. Still think he is a bit deranged though.
dad4justice – Thanks for your usual inciteful comment.
Party funding in New Zealand is a mess and needs to be sorted before the election and it might be useful if people posted on how this could be improved rather than puerile rants.
Personally I think that all donations over $100 should be listed and no anonymising funnelling trusts should be allowed. State funding might work but caps are unrealistic and unnecessary. The Tories in the UK have had more money and not always won. As long as people know where the money is coming from and can try and discern what the agenda is that is linked to the donation the system becomes a lot more transparent.
Third party funding should be allowed. The Trade Unions declared who they were the Exclusive Bretheren did not so the rules need to be tightened.
June 21st, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Yawn , yawn, red ras – blame the EB’s and forget the ineffective communist unions – great logic , yawn , yawn can I expect another red pledge card to go beside the one on my dart board in the garage?
June 21st, 2007 at 5:15 pm
“If money doesn’t matter, how can you say Labour’s overspending in 2005 ’stole the election’.”
Maybe Sam, you could point out where I “say” that, or if you can’t, just admit that my oft made claim that leftists commonly have the comprehension skills of a toadstool is pretty much spot on.
June 21st, 2007 at 6:59 pm
The Labour Party wants to write a set of rules that favour themselves and the trade unions pals. In my view a trade union should be prohibited from giving memebers’ money to any political party unless they have the explicit consent from each individual member that the funds can be so used and which party the individual members’ funds can be given to. Indeed I would make it illegal for trade unions to use memebrs’ money for the electioneering of the Labour Party. The position on companies are different, a shareholder can simply sell their shares if they do not like company money going to the National Party or any other party. But a trade union has a stranglehold on a member’s employment and standard of living.
June 21st, 2007 at 7:55 pm
gd posits: On a related matter that nutter Sue Bradford is proposing a bill to lower the voting age to 16 . IMHO the age should be at least 20 and be subject to an IQ test.
I’m not in favour of any age limit, but three hearty cheers for the IQ test. Perhaps not IQ in the classical sense, but one ought to be able to answer a multi-choice test about political parties, policies and personnel before getting a vote.
In the days when I was actively promoting online voting I used to entertain myself with the idea of having a voter log on, but then have to successfully pass a test, before being taken to the voting page
But if they’re 12 and have taken the trouble to understand politics and the issues, then let ‘em vote. Likewise if they’re 52 and don’t have a clue, let them stick to reality television and sports.
On the substantive issue of political donations, I’ve never understood the fuss (well I do, but I’m pretending to be deliberately naive here). If you support a political party ought you not to be proud to do so? Thus even if you’ve donated a single dollar, why would you want anonymity? Ever heard of an anonymous All Black supporter? Publish (all donors) and be damned, I say.
As for pubic funding, I’ve been thinking through some concept like “seed funding” whereby a new party with a reasonable membership (perhaps the present 500 needed to be registered) gets some help to publicise it’s policies for one or maybe two elections. If no one likes what they’re offering, the free market of political ideas has spoken and it’s goodbye or stand on your own feet.
If you’re as relatively large and as long-standing as most of those in the Parliament at prsent, you either raise enough support to keep going or you – deservedly – wither and die, I would have thought.
The concept needs a bit of refinement but I think it has some merit, no?
June 21st, 2007 at 8:22 pm
“Thus even if you’ve donated a single dollar, why would you want anonymity? Ever heard of an anonymous All Black supporter? Publish (all donors) and be damned, I say.”
Well you’d be a naive and stupid person then, not only because the comparison with an All Black supporter is such a distant connection it makes me wonder about your grasp of reality, but also because history is littered with examples of people who have suffered at the hands of their political opponents once those opponents have gained power. Look at the threats made against the principles of the Maxim Institute for a local example. If donors wish to remain anonymous- fair enough. There is no basis for forcing donors by regulation to divulge their identity.
I restate my initial position. No regulations regarding election funding. Start with one piece of legislation and you start a snowball rolling down a hill, as the current farcical situation demonstrates.
Don’t think anything good will ever come of this symposium, and nothing good will ever come from further regulating elections. Its time to start winding back regulations in this country, not calling for more of them.
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:47 am
Tane,
As to your first questions several govt departments offer bonus payments to union members at payround time. I can’t recall which ones but there have been several in the media this year.
As to anonymous donations they serve the very important purpose of protecting donors from puntivie measures adopted by other parties. Given Cullen’s threats to APN and Dalziels threats to the EBs I believe that this purpose is very relevant in NZ today.
June 22nd, 2007 at 10:18 am
Oliver, I’m guessing you’re talking about the one-off payments negotiated with some government departments by the PSA?
These one-off payments are collectively bargained by members through their union – it is not simply “offered” to union members, but is negotiated as part of a package.
This happens in the private sector sometimes too. You might claim 5% but end up settling on 4.5% + a $500 cash payment.
Again, this kind of beat up just goes to show that many on the right fail to understand how unions work.