The myth that the Electoral Finance Act would stop what NZ First does
July 30th, 2008 at 4:47 pm by David FarrarMany on the left (and some journalists who should know better) have been pushing a theme (started by Helen) that all this nasty non-transparent stuff done by NZ First is due to the old Electoral Act, and could not happen under the Electoral Finance Act.
Now it is true the EFA does tighten up things in some areas, but it makes little difference to the three funding controversies that NZ First has had exposed. Let’s take them one by one.
The Owen Glenn $100,000 donation
As we now know, Owen Glenn donated $100,000 towards Winston’s legal bills – which made it effectively a donation to Winston personally as he would have had to pay $100,000 more if Glenn had not donated.
Now the Electoral Finance Act only deals with donations to parties, not to MPs personally.
So foreign billionaires could continue to make large donations to MPs, while seeking favours from them, and it would all be legal under the EFA, and there would be no requirement for it to be made public.
So the EFA in no way affects repeats of the Owen Glenn donation.
And here is the sad reality. The EFA probably makes such donations more likely and more common. If donations to parties have to be disclosed but donations to trusts which pay off bills for MPs do not have to be disclosed, then more and more donors may choose to donate to MPs personally instead of their parties.
And no the Register of Pecuniary Interests will not have much effect here either, if they do it through a trust.
The Vela $150,000 donations
Now what it appears the Vela did was make a series of $10,000 donations from different people and companies. Now surely this could not happen under the EFA?
Well yes it could. Every company and every adult is treated as a seperate donor under 21(2)
donor means a person who makes a donation
And even if the companies are all owned by the same individual, each is a separate donor as they are separate persons in a legal sense..
Now the EFA does have some provisions which tighten things up. For example if I have $30,000 I can’t give $10,000 to my secretary and $10,000 to my cleaner for them to donate to a party. If I supply the money to them for a donation, they need to disclose whom they are donating on behalf of under s 26(1).
But in the case of the Velas, each company and each adult has their own money so they can easily arrange to donate $50,000 or $100,000 in a year with none of it ever getting disclosed.
The Bob Jones $25,000 donation
As we know Bob paid $25,000 to the Spencer Trust, thinking it was going to NZ First. Now as the Spencer Trust was never disclosed as a donor itself, it is highly unlikely under the EFA Sir Bob would end up being listed as a donor.
The Spencer Trust may have made a series of anonymous $10,000 donations to NZ First under the old Electoral Act, and this would have been legal. They could still do this under the EFA but would have to make a series of $1,000 anonymous donations instead.
Under the EFA the Spencer Trust could donate $36,000 anonymously through the Electoral Commission to NZ First and not have this disclosed.
If the Spencer Tust pays expenses of behalf of Winston personally, then that is like the Owen Glenn donation and not something disclosed under the EA or EFA.
And even if the Spencer Trust pays for expenses of behalf of NZ First, then it is just as likely that would be illegal or legal under both the EA or EFA. Their definitions are pretty similiar. First the old EA, s214F:
party donation, in relation to a party registered under Part 4,-
(a) means a donation (whether of money or of the equivalent of money or of goods or services or of a combination of those things)-
(i) which is received by or on behalf of the party by any person or body of persons involved in the administration of the affairs of the party; and
(ii) which, either on its own or when aggregated with all other such donations made in the same year by the same person exceeds $10,000 in sum or value (inclusive of goods and services tax); and
(b) includes, where goods or services are provided to the party under a contract at 90% or less of their reasonable market value, the amount of the difference between the contractual price of the goods or services and the reasonable market value of those goods or services; but
(c) does not include the labour of any person which is provided to the party free of charge by that person;
So the old EA made clear donations include goods or services, and any discounting beyond 10%. And the EFA, s 21(2):
party donation means a donation (whether of money or of the equivalent of money or of goods or services or of a combination of those things) that is made to a party, or to any person or body of persons on behalf of the party who are involved in the administration of the affairs of the party, and-
(a) includes,-
(i) where goods or services are provided to a party, or to any person on the party’s behalf, under a contract or arrangement at a value less than their reasonable market value, the latter being a value which exceeds $1,000, the amount of the difference between the former value and the reasonable market value of those goods or services; and
(ii) where goods or services are provided by a party under a contract or arrangement at a value that is more than their reasonable market value, the amount of the difference between that value and the reasonable market value of those goods or services; and
(iii) where credit is provided to a party on terms and conditions substantially more favourable than the commercial terms and conditions prevailing at the time for the same or similar credit, the value to the party of those more favourable terms and conditions;
Some change and tightening up, but overall its is likely that the legality of how the Spencer Trust “assists” NZ First without disclosing it is a donor, is unchanged under the new law.
So don’t believe what Helen says about these are all problems of the old Electoral Act, and can’t happen under the Electoral Finance Act. Absolutely everything NZ First has been doing, could continue under the Electoral Finance Act. And in fact there is now a greater incentive for people to donate personally to MPs, rather than to their parties. And that would be a very bad thing indeed.
Related posts:
- The secret $80,000 in 2007
- Anonymous Donations starting to flow through Electoral Commission
- Better local electoral laws
- Electoral Commission on NZ First
July 30th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
The EFA was designed to hamper National, it wasn’t supposed to interfere with the usual practices of Labour and NZ First.
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
The law can never subsitute for good ethics amd good morals And as politicans are breft of good ethics and good morals we can expect to see a continuation of their pond life behaviour.
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
It may be worth me quoting email I sent to a group of people in response to a Boscawen email I received last November:
Financial privilege will always mean disproportionate political
influence. There are already legal restrictions on this in New
Zealand, and we have seen that they do not work. Limits on donations
from undisclosed sources simply result in fundraising tactics designed
around those obstructions, such as the $5000/table National
fundraising events mentioned in The Hollow Men. Further restrictions
will only change how money influences elections, but will not change
the fact that it does.
Furthermore, the idea that transparency of donations will drastically
undermine wealth’s influence is based on the wildly optimistic premise
that the majority of voters would pay attention anyway. Joe Voter who
sees John Key’s face and can’t quite work out why the word
“leadership” is suddenly bouncing around in his head is unlikely to
change his vote when he learns that the tobacco lobby’s money put it
there. He’s unlikely to hear of it at all, if the pitiful NZ media
reaction to Hager’s book is any indication.
The assumption is implicit in the legislation. New Zealanders aren’t
responsible enough voters to consider all existing parties in terms of
their policies alone, and must therefore be protected from the harmful
influences of well-funded campaigns. The sad thing is that they’re
quite right about the former, but rather than consider that to be the
problem that needs addressing, it’s taken as an unalterable law of
nature and the whole thing becomes a free speech vs corporatocracy
debate.
Anyone seriously worried about the state of democracy in New Zealand
should be primarily concerned with the fact that such disparities of
wealth exist in the first place, and that most New Zealanders who have
heard of Select Committees are fairly certain that the Select
Committees will do well at next year’s Tui awards. Reduce the gap
between rich and poor, make civics a mandatory class in public
schools, ensure every child graduates from high school with a deep
understanding of politics, make tertiary education not just
technically possible but a desirable viable option for every person in
the country.
You can’t take an uncritical unequal society and legislate it
Vote:overnight into an informed votership. Large financial donations to
political campaigns aren’t the problem – they’re tools that exploit
the problem, which is that the brand marketing of political parties is
any kind of factor at all in the political process of a country
claiming to be a democracy. This kind of legislation may be well
intentioned, as well intentioned as any attempt to carpet the world.
What voters need are shoes, and many either can’t afford them or
haven’t been taught to tie their laces.
July 30th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Its a turd bit of legislation and it needs flushing, NOT polishing.
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
So is National going to get rid of the EFA or are they going to keep it like all of Labour’s other crap policies?
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
So Appendix B of the Standing Orders covers the rules around the Pecuniary Interests Register. It says if a member has a beneficial interest in a trust they must declare that fact. “Beneficial interest” isn’t defined. It also says if a member owes more than 50k to a creditor they must declare that unless the debt is part of an ongoing supply of goods or services which is invoiced periodically. I had assumed that exception covered Peters’ legal fees as far as declaring the debt goes, but am curious as to whether “beneficial interest” means you must be a beneficiary or merely the recipient of the trust’s largese. If it’s the latter then one assumes if the trust is established or operates for the specific purpose of reimbursing a member’s personal expenses (i.e. the member is not just one of many recipients), then he needs to declare it.
Anyone know the definition of ‘beneficial interest?’
BTW, I think I’m a bit slow on this, but I’m starting to resent being forced to pay Peters’ salary at least as much as I resented paying for someone like Alamein Kopu or Dianne whats-her-name, she who was recently appointed to those boards.
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
As with the section 59 cluster Madeline.
If John is tired of being called labourlite maybe he should stop BEING labourlite. Thats goes for you too Bill! Don’t give me that have to be elected first BS. Campaign on what you stand for, not what you think will net you the most votes.
Its called principles and my votes going begging at the moment waiting for someone who has some.
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
If John is tired of being called labourlite maybe he should stop BEING labourlite. Thats goes for you too Bill! Don’t give me that have to be elected first BS. Campaign on what you stand for, not what you think will net you the most votes.
That goes for all parties.
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
My view is that this has never been about whether Winston broke the law or not. I would be surprised if he has (save for gifting provisions perhaps) but the fact that he is a bloody great hypocrite who tells lies.
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
“Beneficial interest” does not need to be defined as common law renders the term fairly clear. At Equity it essentially means anyone who stands to benefit and usually would mean the object of a trust.
I totally agree Murray and my vote is sitting there waiting to be caught as well. We are all sick of labour so stop giving us an option that looks and quacks like labour! If Act had Stephen and Muriel or others of their calibre looking likely to land in parliament I would be looking hard at them but I just cannot stand the thought of having to tick National twice at the moment as I would be doing it simply because of the lack of others worthy of my vote and that is just not satisfactory to me at all – I want to vote for a party I can honestly say I believe in to some degree.
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
>foreign billionaires could continue to make large donations to MPs, while seeking favours from them
That’s a roundabout way of saying “bribe”.
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Thanks Madeleine. So if the Spencer Trust was specifically setup to provide donations to Winston’s various legal battles, probably since the WineBox, that would mean the interest in it should have been declared since the application of the Pecuniary Interest Register. And it wasn’t.
Which means that even though the Statute of Limitations has expired (how extraordinarily generous of the politicians to grant themselves such a short term), he hasn’t done anything illegal, but only for that reason.
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Good God. I got negative karma for hassling the Electoral Finance Act.
Read past the name, you idiots.
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
So, does this mean that the EFA “doesn’t stop what National does”? I.e., the same as NZ First, only on a vastly larger scale.
Does this mean that National will replace the EFA with a more effective measure designed to stop all the stuff that you have been railing about for the past couple of weeks? What, no? Why not?
[DPF: You know very well that what NZF has been doing is vastly different to National. And as I posted today the more you try to regulate these things, the dirtier the system becomes. Look at the US - the most regulated in the world and the dirtiest.]
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Diff between Waitemata and Spencer jafa is W was setup for party donations therefore operating in the same way that Liarbore and its union mates operates, vs S which funneled money to the person specifically, possibly on the understanding that what’s good for Peters is good for the party.
So I am forced to infer from your comment that you’d be perfectly happy with a Liarbore Trust setup specifically to defend Field, which Field didn’t declare in the Pecuniary Interest Register.
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
The total dishonesty of commenters like Jafapete is astounding. Tell me Jafa, do you really believe that an undeclared trust sending money to Winston personally that after many years has just been unveiled is the legal or moral equivalent of either the National Waitemata trust or the Labour trusts that also exist ? Trusts that are public knowledge and declare all of their aggregate donations to the parties concerned versus secret trusts that donate god knows where ?
If so, then your moral compass is very warped, and the mental strain of defending a truthless old fraud like winston Peters for the sake of a couple of months extra power is obviously taking its toll. I wonder why no one was going on so much about secret trusts and anonymous donations in 2002 when Labour gathered twice as much money as National in that way. The stench of rank hypocrisy hangs over your postings these days, and you once had apparent pretensions of some sort of left leaning impartiality, shame that.
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
“Good God. I got negative karma for hassling the Electoral Finance Act.”
Nope, it was because you :
1. stated “reduce the gap between rich and poor” without any regard for in which direction the change occurs. Leading us to think you mean make the rich poorer.
2. connected John Keys name to tobacco interests which is complete bollocks and you only said it in the hope that some of that shit sticks.
3. gave Nicky Hagers book more credence than it deserves, meaning any at all.
4. advocate teaching politics in school which many here would justifiably suspect means letting lefty teachers indoctrinate kids with Labour party BS, more than they already are that is.
5. treat disparities of wealth as a wholly unacceptable thing, which is simply more unthinking lefty crap.
Basically you tried to hijack this forum to push your stupid ideology and smear shit on John Key and the National party. Your post was as long as it was worthless and you deserve every negative karma point you got for it.
People DO read past the name, but whenever they do so expecting anything different to that crap from you they invariably end up disappointed.
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Don’t worry, I never believe what Hels says.
She is UNTRUSTWORTHY.
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
For anybody interested in how the winston problems are impacting on his supporters. A long time admirer of Winston was asked for her reaction to the events. – “Winston is on his way to heaven”
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Jafa, its not really that hard to see the difference between the Spencer Trust and the Waitemata Trust set up so you’re not really doing your intellectual pretensions much credit by coming up with that line of reasoning.
C+ “Must Do Better”
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
David you have finally made the most important point of all. Nothing in the Electoral Finance Act prevents NZF ( or any other political party or candidate ) using these practices.
The EFA has got nothing to do with increasing the transparency of donations that can not be circumvented.
There is no reason why Vela family related intersts can not give multiple $10,000 donations from separate legal entities and have it go undisclosed in 2008. Nothing at all. It is all perfectly legal.
The hyprocisy is that Winston Peters, Helen Clark and others all defended the EFA on the grounds that it would bring greater transparency to politcal donations. That was their justification for imposing a kind of censorship over New Zealanders for the full election year. Not the three months immediately prior to an eelction that the Human Rights Commisison said may be acceptable, but the full year. Labour, Green and NZP MPs were all prepared to ignore our Human Rights Commisison.
For a century New Zealanders have gone to war to defend our freedoms and our right to free speech and to protect our right to participate in open and free eelctions and it was all thrown out the door in the name of closing down debate and restricting the rights of your opponents to criticse and campaign against you.
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Kimble,
1. stated “reduce the gap between rich and poor” without any regard for in which direction the change occurs. Leading us to think you mean make the rich poorer.
If the rich become so through institutionalised theft, then yes, make the rich poorer.
2. connected John Keys name to tobacco interests which is complete bollocks and you only said it in the hope that some of that shit sticks.
I said it eight months ago, as I said, and we’re all still waiting for those libel suits against Hager if it’s not true.
3. gave Nicky Hagers book more credence than it deserves, meaning any at all.
Boohoo.
4. advocate teaching politics in school which many here would justifiably suspect means letting lefty teachers indoctrinate kids with Labour party BS, more than they already are that is.
That’s a perfectly valid concern I’d be happy to chat about with you.
5. treat disparities of wealth as a wholly unacceptable thing, which is simply more unthinking lefty crap.
Some disparity of wealth is acceptable. Some is not. Feel free to call it unthinking without ever asking what my thoughts are. Though some might call that unthinking.
Basically you tried to hijack this forum to push your stupid ideology and smear shit on John Key and the National party. Your post was as long as it was worthless and you deserve every negative karma point you got for it.
John Key and the National Party should have thought of that before accepting donations from the tobacco industry. If you feel like stating the facts is smearing someone, you should start reconsidering your stance on that person or organisation. Do you really believe it’s untrue, Kimble? How much would you stake on it not being true that tobacco companies bought out some tables at a National Party fundraiser?
People DO read past the name, but whenever they do so expecting anything different to that crap from you they invariably end up disappointed.
Address the fucking points of the post. The Electoral Finance Act doesn’t help. It introduces new rules to a game that is based by its very nature on the premise that voters are too stupid to see through well-funded campaigns, and that voters are too ineffectual to investigate party policies without having a sugar-coated selection shoved down their throat.
You whine about me mentioning the gap between rich and poor without even asking what else I have to say about it. You whine about me mentioning the National Party’s tobacco-company donations without, it seems to me, really considering that they occurred. And you use the word “lefty” like it means something really specific. In a whiny way.
Here’s a pop quiz for you, Kimble, since you’re so certain you read past my name and take issue with my ideology:
What is my ideology?
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Good Post and Very Important John,
Two things need to be said futher,
1) The MSM need to get tough with Winston and they need to start running their own press conferences interviewing their own members on how Winston was rude and abused them today. He is the most arrogant of all politicians in recent memory and they need to publicise and comment on how arrogant his attitude and behaviour to them is.
The public has a right to know when politicians are mucking up and they (the media) are only doing their job.
And 2) The depth of deceit that is in the EFA with its stated aim of greater transparency, is an issue that the media are not picking up on. They should be demanding that the Politicians like Winnie and Helen are giving the acid about the fact that they viciously hoisted this bill onto the people of NZ (attacking and blaming the EB’s) and then happily “run a bulldozer thru” (to quote Helens oft used quote about the old EA) the act themselves with blatant disregard of it themselves.
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 6:02 am
Ryan i applaud your moral outrage atthe shady dealings of John Key and the National Party. I am sure that you would be a tireless crusader for what is right and correct. But, without suggesting that two wrongs might make a right, How do you feel about this?
“So imagine your surprise when you read in a national magazine that the Labour Party’s largest campaign donations at the last election came from a man whose company is the exclusive freight handling agent in Australasia for one of the world’s largest tobacco companies.
It’s an embarrassing revelation for Prime Minister Helen Clark, who pioneered New Zealand’s smokefree legislation and who – ironically – personally arranged for the businessman to become a financial friend of Labour. Even so, it’s not the only embarrassment surrounding ex-pat billionaire Owen Glenn’s crucial $500,000 donations to Labour’s touch and go re-election campaign last year. Investigate has also discovered the shipping magnate and his company were forced to pay around NZ$1.5 million to the US Government in a 1999 out-of-court settlement to avoid prosecution for fraud.
But wait, as the TV commercial hucksters might say, there’s more!
Investigate has also discovered a director of Glenn’s New Zealand company Vanguard Logistics is embroiled in a massive $20 million banking collapse and fraud investigation in the Caribbean – potentially staring down the barrel of a prosecution. Adding extra salt to the story, one of the director’s alleged associates teamed up with a murderer and an armed robber in a separate banking scandal to stage what the US Department of Justice is calling “the largest non-drug-related money-laundering operation ever brought to justice”.
So again, did Labour do any background research on its single largest campaign donor, or did the party just take the money and hope?”
Or this:
“When news of the latest donations broke in June last year, Owen Glenn told the Herald he was a big fan of Clark’s governing style, and felt she “stacked up well” on the international stage.
“I particularly like her stance on seeking free-trade agreements with China and the United States,” he said.
So who exactly is Owen Glenn, and why would an NZ free trade deal with China and the US prompt him to become Labour’s biggest benefactor?
Well, Glenn is now a shipping magnate, and free trade deals mean much more freight and more business for his global empire. Especially as he’s one of only a handful of western businesses to obtain a sought after “Class A” trading licence to do business in China.”
Or this:
“According to documents filed with the Companies Office, one of Glenn’s subsidiaries, UAC New Zealand Limited, has declared operating revenue of $39.1 million dollars from 1999 through 2004, but only declared a taxable profit for the same period of $175,000, less than the price of a two bedroom hovel. Expressed another way, on an average annual operating revenue of $7.8 million dollars, Glenn’s company could only manage an average annual profit before tax of $35,000.”
Or this:
“All of this may rise eyebrows among those on the receiving end of Glenn’s philanthropic largesse (recipients include not only the Labour Party, but the University of Auckland and the marine research centre at Leigh), but it is Vanguard Logistics’ boast that it is now the exclusive customs clearing and handling agent for British American Tobacco, responsible for importing and exporting hundreds of container-loads of cigarettes – especially to vulnerable communities like the Pacific Islands – that sits most uneasily for some. After all, the Prime Minister is no stranger to fraud herself, but the sight of New Zealand’s leading anti-smoking politician accepting money from those involved in shipping cigarettes is anathema to the group Action on Smoking and Health (ASH):
“It’s frustrating!” complains ASH director Becky Freeman. “First we find out the government pension funds are invested with British American Tobacco, and now we find out this! It’s blood money, and they should have nothing to do with companies that associate with the tobacco industry.
“I would hope now that it’s been pointed out that they will no longer accept donations from this particular source.” ”
read the article: http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2008/02/owen-glenns-sha.html
ps your ideology is like mine, you are too intellegent to be taken in but are conflicted.
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 6:08 am
I suppose the best response would be:
“Well at least John Key and the National Party were open and (there is that word again) ‘transparent’ about their links to the tobaccos industry.”
Unlike Helen Clark and the Labour Party?
ps ideologically, you are like many of us Ryan, centre left, with a growing awareness that the ‘Labour’ party you have supported is actually mutton dressed as lamb.
Vote:ps all – sorry to mispell the word ‘intelligent’ above.
By teh way the MSM going afer Winston is a new twist I like it. i hope that once they have taken the ‘L-plates’ off, they will be able to apply the same single-minded ferocity to others in the House – like Helen.
July 31st, 2008 at 8:11 am
Sigh.
Lee.
I don’t support the Labour Party, and I am not centre-left. Assuming that Wishart’s allegations are accurate, what is listing these things supposed to achieve? I am opposed to Labour.
Tobacco companies buying out tables at National fundraisers so their contribution falls precisely on the cut-off for having to declare who it’s from is the same kind of tactic the Velas used in the original post (multiple donations). DPF said that people can find ways to get around the EFA, and my point was that I have been saying that since last year.
And don’t worry about misspelling “intelligent” (or, for that matter, “misspell”) – there is a law of the universe that ensures anyone using the word “intelligent” or “educated” or “ignorant” on the internet will invariably spell it incorrectly.
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 8:19 am
Lee C
Vote:No need for a long response just remember the mantra
LABOUR GOOD, NATIONAL BAD
now repeat 10 times
July 31st, 2008 at 8:22 am
*bangs head against wall*
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 8:36 am
Ryan Sproull according to your logic, all allegations in Ian Wishart’s book is in fact spot on… because? We are still waiting for the law suits.
Sorry addressed above.
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 8:50 am
Ryan Sproull according to your logic, all allegations in Ian Wishart’s book is in fact spot on… because? We are still waiting for the law suits.
Neither Hager’s nor Wishart’s allegations are necessarily “spot on”. But yes, that’s right. I expect there would be no point in me going into the difference of credibility of the two writers in the eyes of the general public, and how that might impact the chances of any lawsuits. So, for the purposes of having Wishart quoted at me, I say let’s assume they’re accurate. The question remains:
What is the point of giving me a list of allegations about Labour? It seems to be very difficult for many regulars to comprehend the notion of being neither pro-National nor pro-Labour. The instinctual response to any mention of anything that puts National in a bad light seems to be to list off a bunch of complaints about Labour. But that is pointless with me, as I am not pro-Labour.
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 9:19 am
DPF said: Now it is true the EFA does tighten up things in some areas, but it makes little difference to the three funding controversies that NZ First has had exposed.
I agree, DPF. The Greens wanted to tighten up the EFA with respect to anonymous donations such as these, but unfortunately Labour wouldn’t have a bar of it. Or perhaps NZF wouldn’t let them – I know only the outcome, not the detail as I wasn’t privy to the negotiations.
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 9:49 am
All the tobacco stuff came up there http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=2623 today too. Some very valid points – Owen Glenn owning shares in a freighting company, so Labour shouldn’t have taken his money? pah!
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 9:52 am
A fresh (to me anyway, 8 months old or not) first post too Ryan, good stuff.
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 9:56 am
Toad
If Winston is sacked by Clark will the Greens prop up the government?
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 10:13 am
If Winston is sacked by Clark he won’t bring down the government. He will most likely abstain – to bring the government down would advantage National, and he blames them for most of this. If he abstains I think Clark still has the numbers.
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 10:14 am
The Greens agreed to abstain on confidence and supply at the start of the term.
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 11:01 am
PaulL, If NZF abstains as do the Greens, then the vote depends on the MP. National + ACT + MP have more votes than Labour plus UF plus Jim A, and that leaves aside PTF and Gordon Copeland. So Winston can’t abstain unless the MP has been brought onside by Labour, or the Greens vote for confidence.
It does depend on Winston’s state of mind, if he thinks he’ll get a bounce from this grandstanding from amongst his key supporters and so get over the 5% barrier I think he would cut the government off. I can see this leading to an immediate loss of his warrant as a minister, and this may be a step too far. The baubles are the point.
So my pick, FWIW, NZF votes for the government, the deal being that labour, as far as it can, blocks any definitive investigation other than at the surface level. That is, nothing that would expose the Spencer Trust’s activities and nothing on why Owen Gleen donated. Margaret Wilson will also get orders not to allow a privileges complaint to proceed. Thus democracy is practiced.
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 11:07 am
Ryan Sproull’s facts about “Tobacco companies buying out tables at National fundraisers” is just a myth. If he actually read the book then he would see that it was some individual that paid for the tables. Give him an inch and it looks as if he’ll take a mile. Typical inaccurate rant.
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 11:14 am
“Here’s a pop quiz for you, Kimble, since you’re so certain you read past my name and take issue with my ideology:
What is my ideology?”
“If the rich become so through institutionalised theft, then yes, make the rich poorer.”
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 11:35 am
If a vote of no-confidence succeeded, how soon would an election have to be? If it was say, a couple of months, that might not make too much difference to Labour anyway, though im sure they’d like to have another month and a half…
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 11:44 am
Ryan Sproull’s facts about “Tobacco companies buying out tables at National fundraisers” is just a myth. If he actually read the book then he would see that it was some individual that paid for the tables. Give him an inch and it looks as if he’ll take a mile. Typical inaccurate rant.
I’ve checked it a few times in the book, but I’ll triple-check it when I get home and let you know if you’re completely wrong about that.
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 11:45 am
“If the rich become so through institutionalised theft, then yes, make the rich poorer.”
Kimble,
That’s not an ideology. Try again.
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 12:05 pm
I was giving you another opportunity to explain what “institutionalised theft” means to you. To many here it perfectly describes taxation.
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 12:15 pm
I was giving you another opportunity to explain what “institutionalised theft” means to you. To many here it perfectly describes taxation.
Taxation is one example of institutionalised theft, yes. I consider capitalism, at least as it stands today, to be another example. Both taxation and capitalism are institutionalised theft, made possible only through the imposition of the government.
EDIT: And I appreciate you offering to let me explain.
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 12:16 pm
DPF – you may be correct in a technical legal sense. But the EFA undoubtedly throws light this sort of issue. In fact, you can guarantee that if it wasn’t for the EFA, the media wouldn’t be paying the degree of attention that it is to this issue. Do you disagree with this?
Also, as I understand it, Winston may well not have done anything illegal, because of his and/or his lawyer’s tricky use of trust and pecuniary interest laws. As you so often gleefully point out there’s always going to be loopholes that lawyers can exploit in order to get money from person A to person B in a secretive way. But isn’t the point that we make this as difficult as is possible, and in doing so, throw attention onto these issues?
i.e. business round table members were able to secretly donate $6 million (2008 dollars) to the Labour Party between 1984 and 1987. With the amount of attention being paid to donations as a result of the EFA, there’s just no way that they would be able to get away with this any more.
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Ryan Sproull:
Would making the rich poorer not be theft as well? I don’t want to sidetrack the thread, but as you have a blog – could you post on how you would balance these issues, please?
Philip John:
So you agree we should cut the Labour Government -> Union -> Electioneering slush fund? And make it as difficult as possible by actually enforcing the EFA as ruled by the courts to stop affiliated groups from registering as third parties when they are simply vehicles for extending the campaigning base of a political party? Or at least make it as difficult as possible for covert campaigns to be run. That sounds good.
I am surprised. I hadn’t pegged you as somebody so clearheaded and honest about the murky electioneering activities employed by the unions. You’d always seemed like such a poster boy for whatever rorts they wanted to employ.
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Would making the rich poorer not be theft as well? I don’t want to sidetrack the thread, but as you have a blog – could you post on how you would balance these issues, please?
Fair enough. I’ll do so. Might take a while to explain it in full. But obviously it means asserting a principle for determining what kind of acquisition is theft and what is not. But I’ve been meaning to write it all up on the blog for some time, and I have a bit of free time coming up. Thanks for the idea.
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Roger, “Winston may well not have not done anything illegal” hardly really matters Roger, whats the law got to do with it. I’m sure Dear Leader could rush a law change through parliament to make it all go away should the need arise. A great deal of the population see the FTA as a crock of shit and do not understand it the way it stands. Winnies problems aren’t legal they are moral, most in this country still know the difference between right and wrong and it’s a pity the suckholes you hang with have lost this ability.
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 12:50 pm
So the summary is that the EFA was really a trojan horse for the Socialists to ensure they could shut down debate in an election year put restrictions on other parties especially their opponents donations whilst still allowing the Unions to operate the great money go round that sees tax payers dollars converted into Socialist party donations and allow their foreign based donors to keep on giving.
And NZ is a corupt free zone???????????????
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 12:52 pm
gd – I think you sum up one view of it perfectly!
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 2:16 pm
If Peters has received a benefit from the Spencer trust then he must be a beneficiary or one of a class of beneficiaries so declaring this has been a requirement ever since Winston became and MP and in receipt of trust payments. Surely there is sufficient doubt to require an investigation by the SFO given Winstons position and the message that is perceived by his antics in the run up to an election.
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Ryan, if capitalism is institutionalised theft, and you think those that became rich through institutionalised theft should have it taken from them, then only things remaining to determine are:
– what level do you define as rich (those over $60K income, those over $200K net wealth?)
– what percentage of those people got that wealth through capitalism (I suggest most if not all of them, but some of them may have stolen it)
Once we have those answers, we will have a pretty fair idea of how many NZers you would like to make poorer.
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 3:46 pm
“In fact, you can guarantee that if it wasn’t for the EFA, the media wouldn’t be paying the degree of attention that it is to this issue. Do you disagree with this?”
So writing a self serving bad bad bad law that serves to dissuade people from engaging in the democratic process was Labours way of shedding light on the corruption of Winston Peters? What are we supposed to call that? Ingenious incompetence?
Vote: