by Denise Roche
Yesterday the Government announced proposed changes to the Local Electoral Act around campaign financing to come into force in time for next year’s local body elections.
This move is a clear admission from the Government that John Banks should have been sacked from Cabinet because of his actions around campaign donations from Kim Dotcom and SkyCity earlier in the year. This issue has become even more interesting, given the publication of the police file on the investigation into John Banks, which makes it even clearer that John Banks has breached the ethical standards required for Government Ministers.
The Government is now having to legislate to cover the huge gaps in the local government donation rules made clear by the John Banks affair, which the Greens have been fighting against for years. Back in 2009, we drafted a Members Bill, which is still in the ballot under in my name, to regulate the influence of wealth in local body election campaigns and to promote transparency and accountability.
The changes announced today are a step in the right direction, but the Government haven’t gone far enough to promote true transparency.
In particular, the Government hasn’t dealt with the regulation of third party spending, which our bill does address. The influence of third parties in local government elections is becoming increasingly relevant and it’s important that third parties involved in local body elections are under the same regulation as during central government elections.
People want honesty in politics and have a right to know who is funding their politicians. Real democracy should be a battle of ideas, not money.
Published in Justice & Democracy by Denise Roche on Thu, September 13th, 2012
Tags: campaign financing, donations, elections, John banks, Kim Dotcom, local government, SkyCity
More posts by Denise Roche | more about Denise Roche
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Loading...
They stopped that one and good job too. That was hardly ethical.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
You’re talking about Green MPs of course. Why wasn’t it ethical? I remember it being covered in the media at the time it was set up. It had been vetted and seen as appropriate and was celebrated because it cost the taxpayer less money. I expect MPs are now paying full commercial rental rates rather than sharing a less expensive mortgage.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
Ah Valis, your memory is failing you.
Jeanette Fitzsimmons was claiming the maximum amount possible for renting a place owned by the Green super fund. When Catherine Delahunty got into Parliament she moved into the SAME flat and ALSO started claiming the same amount. If this wasn’t double-dipping I don’t know what would be. When called on it her excuse seemed to be along the lines of “silly me, I didn’t think about who was paying the rent”.
Like or Dislike:
5 
3 (+2)
I haven’t forgotten that at all. It is not the issue Roman raised. They screwed up, but you’re asking us to believe that Jeanette and Catherine purposely rorted the system for those months. There is nothing I can point to in the character or behaviour of either one before or after that makes me doubt their word.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)