Comments on: More taxpayer funded lobbying

By: Wilbur

Wilbur — Tue, 26 Jun 2012 02:27:52 +0000

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.

By: SouthernRight

SouthernRight — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 23:55:32 +0000

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

By: Chuck Bird

Chuck Bird — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 23:21:55 +0000

“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.

By: AG

AG — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 23:12:43 +0000

“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]

By: scrubone

scrubone — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 22:59:33 +0000

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.

By: Chuck Bird

Chuck Bird — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 22:54:36 +0000

“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.

By: Cato

Cato — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 22:51:08 +0000

Three words: “Money is fungible”.

That’s like saying you will only use tax credits for food and your wages for rent.

By: wreck1080

wreck1080 — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 22:44:50 +0000

A little corruption never got in the way of the greens (commies).

By: tas

tas — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 22:34:21 +0000

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%.

By: Monique Watson

Monique Watson — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 22:30:00 +0000

Some call it, “A tango with a quango”. Others call it: “Dancing with the devil”.