Big Money buys power – in Australia
The Sydney Morning Herald reveals the influence of big money in Australian politics – the $10.1 million spent by the trade union federation against John Howard.
Other left wing groups spent sums of up to half a million dollars. The only spending by an employer group was the WA Master Builders Association who spent $32,000.
Obviously the results of the last election are invalid, as according to the rhetoric of the left in NZ, Kevin Rudd purchased the election. They will no doubt call for John Howard to be returned to office as Interim PM until new money free elections be called.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
No tag for this post.
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:14 am
The NZ EFB got passed by a political party acting at the maturity level of a 3-year-old throwing toys out of the cot.
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:14 am
also from last month –
(hat tip – milo) http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/unions-spent-10m-backing-rudd-campaign/2008/02/01/1201801034920.html
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:47 am
Was the Liberal party actually outspent, or did rich Australian iondividuals fund them?
And it’s interesting how National campaigns on the issue of the higher wages available in Australia, yet is opposed to the influence of the unions which delivered those outcomes for their workers.
I suppose the idea of his wishing Australian workers had wages as low as in New Zeraland speaks to how he would really want the world to be – if the ECA had been accepted there. The union activism in 2008 reflects what Howard wanted to do to them (and obviously Key hoped Howard would have won).
Are the New Zealanders going to Australia doing so because of our tax regime or because of their wage regime …? Yet it’s not their wage regime Key really hopes to emulate. Nor is it one he hopes Australia continues with.
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:01 am
Just hold your nose and think about it for a moment, SPC.
The Electoral Finance Act means that trade unions won’t be able to campaign to get rid of a government that they disagree with. If the EFA remains in place, do you really want to see unions muzzled like that? Or would you rather that they were free to use their own money to campaign against policies they disagree with?
Because that’s what the EFA does. It gives a massive advantage to the status quo and incumbent government, while hampering everybody else.
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:02 am
SPC a very good point SPC but does it follow therefore taht if a powerful group in society feels it has a monopoly on the ‘greater good’ then it should be allowed to inordinately influence an election with millions of dollars in support of a particular candidate?
If so why were so many in favour of the EFA?
Or have I already answered my own question?
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:11 am
wow insolent we should do ‘good-cop/ bad cop’!
………….’Kiwiblog – The Balanced Alternative’!!
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:12 am
There was no discernable difference in the quantity or time slots of either parties TV electoral ads during the AU election.
Seems NZ Govts view of maleable voters easily swayed by advertising is similar to the Judiciaries common view of juror’s fragile intellects.
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:12 am
IP
Prior to 2005 parties in parliament already had an advantage over those outside parliament. This now continues despite what Brady did.
Governments have always had an advantage in using publicity for policy – but because of the disadvantage of incumbency over a few terms in office (the people switch off) it balances out.
I don’t see the EFA changing that.
Because our unions don’t have the money, National now has a funding advantage outside of Wellington and would seek to use it across the election cycle. That’s their objection the limitation of their out of Wellington advantage in the EFA.
But the EFA just returns us to the status quo that the truckloads of money promised National under Brash and right wing policy sought to end.
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:26 am
So does this mean that now the unions will start to belly ache about the EFA being the cause of their woes – despite the fact the majority and certainly the main players rode ‘shotgun’ for the Labour Government to assist in its passage?
How could they have been so short-sighted Oh let me guess:-
Labour Party is a finishing school for ambitious Trade Unionists
A Labour Government equals better chances for ambitious Trade Unionists to further their post-Union careeers
Supporting a partisan and corrupt law would facilitate more pro-union snouts in the public purse.
When will cake and eat it time officially start?
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:31 am
The left in New Zealand do a fairly bad job of explaining why money is a problem in politics. I think they take it as given that money is a problem, and focus more on finding a solution to that problem.
As you all know, money doesn’t buy many votes at the margin. It’s very hard to buy an election, it’s a lot easier to buy a politician.
I would prefer public funding of politics; if that’s not an option I’d at least like to know who my politicians are beholden to. So I’m not too worried when unions give money to Labour (or Labor).
It’s the anonymous trusts that really bother me. Especially since “anonymous” means unknown to us, not unkown to the party.
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:35 am
Alces, you are confounded by your own words. If there was no difference between the ALP’s spending and that of the Liberals, then the unions (who are not a political party) added ten million dollars to the anti Liberal campaign.
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:45 am
DPF:
You don’t understand the mindset of highly partisan people (well I think you do actually). Trotter encapsulated it quite nicely with his “courageous corruption” angle.
Like Labour here, it’s just fine for “your party” to do what ever the like, and if they get caught out we just move on. But if the opposition do it… Oh no the sky is falling.
Great post!
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Confounded how Adolf?
You’ll find the TV ad budgets were similar but you assume the revenue raising potential outside the union money was similar. The Libs had deep establishment pockets after 11 years.
Unions or employers or anyone else are allowed to add what they want to political parties campaign within the rules.
Howard went for the same reason Helen will go, electoral spending will have little to do with it.
Affirmative action election funding is not required in Aust
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:10 pm
DPF
On a more serious note, I think that the Aussie election should be called invalid. I have blogger here before that we should have had a re-election ofter the dirty big and stolen money scandals from 2005 started to come out in the wash.
How many times did I post the rant
“If Labour say extra spending influences elections then their stolen $800K influenced the election – If they say their stolen $800K made no difference to the outcome then how come we need to restrict campaign funding in the interests of democracy…
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:52 pm
$10 mill? That will be a drop in the ocean compared to the tax payer money the government here in NZ will spend this year on election advertising hidden under the lcoak of government departments informing the public about policy etc. Don’t hold your breath David for any condemnation from the left. Remember they already think that all money is theirs already.
February 23rd, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Did Owen G. Glen declare how much he contributed to the Liabor campaign over there.
February 23rd, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Simply not true, SPC, that unions don’t have the money, but political parties do.
Trade unions in New Zealand have an asset base of over $100 million. The EPMU has assets in the tens of millions, with 50,000 members. They are extremely wealthy, and have the cash to spend on campaigning. It’s a rather embarrassing oversight, which Labour didn’t intend at the time, that will see the EPMU unable to register as a third party, because they’re so closely associated with the Labour Party.
There is no political party in New Zealand with anything like the staffing, assets, or cash of any of the five largest trade unions.
You’re quite right that the incumbent government has a natural advantage. Government will be spending $100 million this year promoting government policies.
Sure puts the $500,000 that the Exclusive Brethren spent on a couple of not very well designed brochures in 2005 in perspective, doesn’t it?
The EFA hampers everybody except the sitting government from expressing their views. In the knowledge that National will rule the Government benches after November, do you really want the EFA to continue to muzzle opponents of the Government?
February 23rd, 2008 at 2:47 pm
How do you know National will be government after November?
There are more tricks yet that someone as dangerous as Helen Clark can pull yet……….
Note that the cops NEVER prosecute anything that might unearth a guilty party on HER side of the political fence……….just like in a few other countries we could name……..
February 23rd, 2008 at 2:57 pm
2005 Party donation returns
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $25,000.00
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $50,000.00
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $40,000.00
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $40,000.00
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $20,000.00
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $50,000.00
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $20,000.00
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $70,000.00
so who are these people? and why do they support corrupt losers?
February 23rd, 2008 at 4:16 pm
To be absolutely, scrupulously fair about it, one needs to point out that the Liberal government spent millions of dollars of public money running highly partisan “informational” advertisements about the wonderful initiatives the (then) incumbent government was introducing right up till the official launch of the campaign (about two thirds of the way through the actual campaign).
The clear intent of these ads – which appeared in almost every ad break on every channel – was to ensure that the Coalition remained in power. In fact is was partly by highlighting this misuse of public money that the unions were able to encourage their supporters to donate to the much smaller campaign they were able to run in response.
Understandably, the parties of the left squealed about how this bottomless purse was giving the Coalition a hugely unfair advantage, and how the minds of simpleton voters would be brainwashed into giving Howard another term.
And since we all know money buys elections, of course they were proved correct and to this day John Howard still retains his iron grip on power.
Oh, wait a minute…
February 23rd, 2008 at 4:53 pm
IP
The question is, what will change about the advantage of incumbency after National wins. The answer is nothing.
As to the limitation that the EFA causes those challenging incumbency advantage, the question is what will a National government actually change about it? Here’s my prediction – National will hold some inquiry into the matter but no change will occur before the 2011 election.
As to any unintended consequences from the EFA impacting on Labour trying to gather resources to confront National’s incumbency advantage – all governments should consider the longer term consequences of their policies.
In the case of unions – one imagines, members will be called on to contribute directly to the party – but this leaves Labour limited by their cap in the calendar year of an election.
That said, a union does have the right, as do employers to represent their interests – if they do this in a way not directly partisan, then they are not covered by the third party spending limitation.
February 23rd, 2008 at 6:08 pm
SPC @10:47. Correcting your lie – please provide a quote where John Key said that he wished Australian wages would drop. I seem to recall John Key wishing wages were the same between Australia and NZ. Any politician who didn’t should be ashamed of themselves.
February 23rd, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Maybe Key understands NZ can unfortunately only attract sufficient foreign capital on a short term “hot” basis with the Western world’s highest rates for interest rate or carry plays. Short term money means NZ is open to unsmoothed markets.
Maybe a medium to long term govt bond paying a rate that reflects time risk would settle down the daily interest rate / currency debacle.
February 23rd, 2008 at 6:56 pm
PaulL
The source of the “lie” is John Key as reported in the Herald.
Taken at face value, Key’s comment about wanting wages to drop is hugely damaging, running counter to everything he has said. It would be astonishing if he said it, regardless of whether a reporter was present or not. But Labour claims it is evidence of National’s secret agenda to cut workers’ wages. When it was raised in Parliament yesterday, National barely flinched. National says Key was referring to migrant-attracting Australian wages, rather than New Zealand ones.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=277&objectid=10493628
National leader John Key is defending attacks about a newspaper report which quotes him as saying “we would love to see wages drop” by saying he was referring to wages in Australia.
The Bay Report quoted Mr Key as saying “we would love to see wages drop” last December after he was asked a question about wage differences between New Zealand and Australia.
Yesterday, Mr Key said he did not recall the comment, but the question leading up to the quote made it clear it was a reference to Australian wages.
The comment was in response to a question about the wage gap by Kerikeri Business Association president Carolyne Brooks-Quan. Mr Key is reported as carrying on to say “the way we want to see wages increase is because productivity is greater so people can afford more”.
Yesterday, Mr Key said the first quote would have been a “light-hearted” reference to wages in Australia dropping as one way to close the gap between the two countries and make New Zealand wages look comparatively more attractive.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=277&objectid=10493629