More taxpayer funded lobbying
June 26th, 2012 at 10:00 am by David FarrarLast month I blogged on taxpayer funded lobbying. This should be of grave concern, because what it means is effectively you have Government Departments funding NGOs to lobby MPs on what the law should be.
I had a response from the Public Health Association, which was:
Hi David, We would like to respond briefly to your 14 May post about taxpayers funding lobbying. The Public Health Association (PHA) acknowledges you have a valid concern and would like to make it clear that none of the public money we receive is spent on lobbying or advocacy. It is part of our contract with the Ministry not to do so. Any lobbying we do is funded by membership fees, individual donations and fund-raising. Money we receive from the Ministry is spent only on activities such as supporting the public health workforce.
The reality though I believe is that if the vast majority of your expenses are staff, then there is no way you can say that no public money is spent on lobbying.
Now I do not advocate that a body which receives some taxpayer funding should not be allowed to express a view on issues. That would be wrong. But when a body is both primarily funded by the taxpayer, and the bulk of its work appears to be advocacy and lobbying – that is when I think it should not be allowed.
The PHA openly states “The PHA is a voluntary association that takes a leading role in promoting public health and influencing public policy.”, and over 50% of their income is from the Ministry of Health. Most of the remainder is their conference which is I believe 90% public sector funded. Actual voluntary membership fees are only 5% of their income.
I’ve also been sent examples in the alcohol area. An OIA from the Ministry of Health reveals taxpayer funding of Alcohol Healthwatch with $3.35m, the vast majority for “alcohol health promotion”.
Have a look at their website. It is all about lobbying MPs on the Alcohol Reform Bill.
The Health Sponsorship Council has a presentation on their website from ASH. Slide 16 is about how they must “Hold the Government to account”. ASH is 89% taxpayer funded, and was saying this at a taxpayer funded conference.
This outbreak of taxpayer funded lobbying is not unique to New Zealand. The Institute of Economic Affairs in the UK has published a report called “Sock Puppets: How the Government lobbies itself and why“. It is a compelling read. They note:
For political parties, the benefits of supporting ‘sock puppet’ organisations extend beyond the short-term utility of progressing their legislative agenda whilst in government. Once the party loses power, these groups become a ‘shadow state’ using public money to promote the same political ideology. The new government must therefore choose between withdrawing the funding (which will prompt outrage from the threatened groups) and keeping it in place (which will mean funding politically hostile organisations).
I think the Government should apply a simple litmus test. No organisation which spends say more than 25% of their time or resources or lobbying should be eligible for government funding. They should be forced to split into totally separate organisations if they provide genuinely useful services which should remain funded, but this should not be used to have the bureaucracy use sock puppets to lobby Parliament and MPs on what the laws should be.
Lobby groups should be funded by their members and supporters, not by taxpayers.
June 26th, 2012 at 10:30 am
Some call it, “A tango with a quango”. Others call it: “Dancing with the devil”.
Vote:June 26th, 2012 at 10:34 am
25% is a rather arbitrary number. I definitely don’t like the idea of government funding being spent on lobbying the government. Maybe the number should be 0%.
Vote:June 26th, 2012 at 10:44 am
A little corruption never got in the way of the greens (commies).
Vote:June 26th, 2012 at 10:51 am
Three words: “Money is fungible”.
That’s like saying you will only use tax credits for food and your wages for rent.
Vote:June 26th, 2012 at 10:54 am
“25% is a rather arbitrary number. I definitely don’t like the idea of government funding being spent on lobbying the government. Maybe the number should be 0%.”
If that was the case the NZ AIDS Foundation would not get any government funding.
Vote:June 26th, 2012 at 10:59 am
If that was the case the NZ AIDS Foundation would not get any government funding.
Yes, but would there be any negative consequences? That’s the question.
Vote:June 26th, 2012 at 11:12 am
“Now I do not advocate that a body which receives some taxpayer funding should not be allowed to express a view on issues. That would be wrong. But when a body is both primarily funded by the taxpayer, and the bulk of its work appears to be advocacy and lobbying – that is when I think it should not be allowed.”
So, we’re going to abolish Treasury? And how does, say, the Welfare Working Group fit into this model?
[DPF: I think it was quite obvious that I mean bodies outside Government. But on that note I have never seen Treasury or the WWG call on people to lobby their MPs on an issue, with letters to the editors guide and the like]
Vote:June 26th, 2012 at 11:21 am
“Yes, but would there be any negative consequences? That’s the question.”
If the Ministry of Health did there job properly there could be benefits.
The NZ AIDS Foundation puts out dangerous misinformation about the effectiveness of condoms.
Vote:June 26th, 2012 at 11:55 am
Plunket receives Government funding aund is quite vocal on some issues like the anti smacking one, right or wrong they still had a big say
Vote:June 26th, 2012 at 2:27 pm
I agree with AG that you can’t distinguish between research bodies (including state sector) and lobbyists. The Productivity Commission run a fairly strong comms strategy, designed to maximise coverage of their (excellently researched) findings.
Also, I’d hope that you, David, would be a fan of private sector competition of policy development. Having some policies evaluated by NZIER/Motu/etc increases independence and means that the state sector has to stay efficient, in order to get research contracts. But would publishing and communicating research be seen as lobbying under your model? Probably.
Vote: