Protecting freedom of speech and fairer elections
Here’s a few quotes from Russel and Metiria at their press conference on the Electoral Finance Bill on Monday:
“…Democracy is a fundamental principle of our society. But democracy does not happen in a vacuum. It happens in a society which is increasingly characterised by inequality of wealth and that inequality of wealth can have a very significant impact on our democracy.”
“…We want our law makers to owe their allegiance in the first instance to the voters, not to those who funded their election campaigns. And in order to keep our parliamentarians from being beholden to wealthy interest groups that fund their campaigns, we not only restrict how much parties can spend campaigning, we set up rules to make the parties tell us who is providing their funding.”
“…And at the same time as we ensure we have a fair democracy, we need to protect the freedom of speech of voters and interest groups to put their point of view across. Elections are for the voters and it is essential that the voters get to have a voice. But, we also need to ensure that the spending by one well-resourced group does not drown out the voices of all the other groups and the political parties.”
…”At the last election we saw some disturbing developments that have seriously undermined attempts by generations of New Zealanders to protect the equality of the ballot from the inequality of wallet. We saw the Exclusive Brethren run a million dollar advertising campaign that was effectively a ‘Vote National’ campaign. The campaign told voters to change the government, it was in national party blue, and the Exclusive Brethren met with National to discuss these leaflets. Yet this million dollar ‘vote National’ campaign was not included under the cap of the National Party spending.”
“…Secondly we have seen a big increase in the flow of secret money into National and Labour Party coffers. Over the three years from 2004 to 2006, just looking at donations over $10,000, Labour received $400,000 in anonymous donations and National received $2.2 million from the secret trusts. In spite of the intent of the law making parties reveal the source of their money, it is currently legal for the National Party to know the identity of these donors, but to keep it secret from the public.”
November 21st, 2007 at 3:05 pm
“So the Greens are supporting the Electoral Finance Bill in an attempt to deal with some of these problems but only after we negotiated a number of key amendments to protect freedom of speech and fairer elections.
“Amendments to protect freedom of speech
“1. Alter the definition of election advertising to protect issues advertising
This means that individuals and groups will be free to campaign on the issues that are important to them, regardless of whether one or more parties is also campaigning on the same issue. The Greens come from a campaigning background and we were determined to protect the right of groups to continue to campaign. For example, Greenpeace can continue to campaign against whaling, even though it is a campaign the Green Party has a profile on.
“2. Remove the requirement for a statutory declaration for spending less than the threshold.
This means that people or groups don’t have to sign a statutory declaration every time they spend money under the threshold for listing as a third party. It was an unnecessary burden that performed no useful function.
“3. Lift the cap on election spending by non-party groups from $60,000 to $120,000.
Many groups and individuals engage in election advertising during campaign year. This advertising encourages voters to support parties that adopt certain policy positions. The Bill as introduced limited this spending to $60,000. The Greens have supported amendments that increase this limit to $120,000, 5% of the $2.4m party limit and twice that originally proposed.
“4. Lift the spending limit at which a group must list as a third party from $5000 to $12,000.
This was important because many groups and people engage in election advertising through pamphlets, newsletters or community newspaper adverts. These ordinary election activities should not require a person or group to have to list as a third party where the spending is under $12,000.
“5. Enable under 18 year olds and permanent residents to be able to list as a third party.
We fought for the inclusion of this because it is a breach of the rights of a citizen to be prevented from engaging in election advertising activities simply because they are not old enough to vote. This change also means that groups will not be excluded from listing as a third party simply because one member is under 18 years old.
“6. Protect donations to groups that are not for election purposes.
This means that groups that register as third party participants in the election will not have to declare any donations that are not specifically for election purposes. Groups are entitled to raise and collect money for their regular activities without interference. Only donations given specifically for electioneering will need to be disclosed.
“Amendments to ensure fairer elections
“7. Severely restrict anonymous donations to political and third parties.
The Greens insisted on an anonymous donations regime that will restrict Labour and National’s ability to raise money through anonymous donations. Our policy is that all donations over $1000 should be identified as to the true source – they shouldn’t be listed as anonymous nor should they be hidden behind secret trusts.
“In negotiations over this bill we have made progress towards achieving our policy by introducing a system that will limit political parties to a total anonymous donations income, for donations over $1000, of 10% of their spending cap over the three year electoral cycle – this would cut Labour’s anonymous donations income by at least half and National’s secret trust income by about 90%.
“Labour and National don’t like it but we make no apologies for this. In addition the money must be passed via the Electoral Commission to distance the parties from the process and donors must identify themselves to the Electoral Commission and give an assurance that they are not telling the parties about the donation on the sly. There is a limit of $36,000 on how much any one donor can give to a political party via this mechanism.
“Green further amendments – Citizens’ Assembly
“Finally, let me say that the Greens are unhappy with the process for this bill. We believe that a much better process would be to establish a citizens’ assembly to consider electoral finance rules.
“Such citizens’ assemblies have been used recently in Canada. They involve randomly selecting a male and female voter from each electorate who are brought together over a series of weekends to consider the rules around electoral finance. They are properly resourced and run by an independent body such as the Electoral Commission. Their recommendations would become a bill that was introduced into parliament.
“The Greens will be moving amendments to the bill to establish a citizens’ assembly to review the rules around electoral finance. We hope that other parties such as National will support such an amendment. Our democracy belongs to the people and they should be the ones to set the rules. The Greens are proud of our role in protecting freedom of speech and introducing rules to ensure that our elections are fairer.”
November 21st, 2007 at 3:43 pm
The justifications that the Greens give for the EFB are pretty weak - certainly nothing very rigorous, which makes their stance sound like just empty rhetoric. Instead of all this ‘faux radicalism’, can’t they give us some substance to explain their support for these drastic changes to electoral law?
Bryce
November 21st, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Metiria and Russel say that democracy in NZ ‘is increasingly characterised by inequality of wealth and that inequality of wealth can have a very significant impact on our democracy.’
For a different perspective on this, have a look at my blog post (at the url below) which argues that we do indeed have significant *financial* inequality of wealth, but that its relationship to *political* inequality is somewhat more complex than the Greens make out:
Political finance and inequality in New Zealand
http://liberation.typepad.com/liberation/2007/10/political-finan.html
Bryce
November 21st, 2007 at 5:29 pm
“1. Alter the definition of election advertising to protect issues advertising”
Yeah, a great example of the greens acting in self interest. A lot of the issues advertising at the next election will be by greenpeace and other enviroment groups. I am informed the intend to run a campaign called: Vote Enviroment where they give greater light to the enviroment policies of each party, whcih will no doubt favour the Greens.
“2. Remove the requirement for a statutory declaration for spending less than the threshold”
This had to go so if the greens were a big part of making it happen then well done.
“3. Lift the cap on election spending by non-party groups from $60,000 to $120,000.”
In your justification for this you describe what you did but not why you did it. Why the magic number of $120,000? Im guessing because you saw $60,000 as too small, but didnt want third parties to be able to discredit you too much. As you say it is only 5% of what parties can spend. Why are you limiting the participation of third parties to just 5% of currently elected parties (and if you respond i would like more then anti EB rhetoric)
“4. Lift the spending limit at which a group must list as a third party from $5000 to $12,000″
Again why the magic number? And why should anyone have to ‘register’ themselfs to campaign anyway? Put the name of the organisation on the phamphlets sure but why all the registration?
“5. Enable under 18 year olds and permanent residents to be able to list as a third party.”
Small alteration but fair enough.
“6. Protect donations to groups that are not for election purposes.”
In many situations anominity is a right, and this is one of them.
“7. Severely restrict anonymous donations to political and third parties.”
Meethinks I can smell a rat. Most people support more transperency, but the limit of anonymous donations of $240,000 was hand picked to favour the Labour party and you know it. The Greens really sold out to the man on this one (that man being Mike Williams). Labour has a method of getting around these rules. They get each of their big Anon doners to give $1000 each year before elections, which can still be anonymous. This reduces the amount Labour recieves anonymously without the law to $250000 per year, just 10k above the limit, so Labour only loses 10K in potential anonymous donations. DPF explains it well in this post:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/11/writing_the_law_to_suit_oneself.html #comments
November 21st, 2007 at 6:14 pm
It seems the greens buried their integrity along with Rod Donald
November 21st, 2007 at 7:04 pm
I think anonymous votes need to go. Why do we have them anyway?
November 21st, 2007 at 7:19 pm
We saw the Exclusive Brethren run a million dollar advertising campaign that was effectively a ‘Vote National’ campaign. The campaign told voters to change the government, it was in national party blue, and the Exclusive Brethren met with National to discuss these leaflets. Yet this million dollar ‘vote National’ campaign was not included under the cap of the National Party spending.”
Can you point to a factual source for your claim? How much do you claim, for example, the EB spent on the Anti-Green brochures (that had no National livery)?
The Unions also ran campaigns where they urged their members to vote Labour. They also printed documents and had their members distribute them to “as many non-members as possible”. The PSU had 50,000 members they circulated “vote Labour” brochures, with instructions to leave them in public places and hand them out.
I’m not worried about the EB or the PSU. I’m not scared of IDEAS and asking people to think about them. You think one Anti-Green brochure will destroy your voter base? Have you lied to them that much that you realise how flimsy their loyalty is?
But if you want a level playing field (and it is patently obvious you do not) then look into the huge amount of money spent by Government Departments promoting ‘policy’ in an election year. It dwarves the modest efforts of the EB and the Unions.
I also agree with Nick C’s point - who decided the $120,000 mark? Why is that fair, and $60,000 unfair? Why not $300,000? How much TV time does $120K buy - 30 minutes? Why is it not inflation adjusted?
Most importantly - WHY ARE THE PUBLIC NOT GETTING AN OPPORTUNITY TO INPUT INTO THE REVISED VERSION? We don’t have an upper house, we have no special safeguards for the MPS to change the rules that enable them to advantage themselves over any concerted effort to raise awareness of corrupt and unethical law making. Rushing this process in this way IS unethical, given it changes the rules around who can talk. You onloy want to let people talk individually, so that the ideas can be squashed and segregated. Empty generosity.
The Greens and Labour have totally failed the people of New Zealand. Again.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:15 pm
c’mon zen..the real story in this one is how national just had some $1.5 million in anonymous donations ripped out of their (clawed) hands..
and i have to say..
(heh-heh..!..)
the greens gave the nattys a king-hit..
and the delight to be had from this one..
is that..as is the nature of a ‘king-hit’..national didn’t see it coming..
(ouch..!..that figure again..!..$1.5 million..!..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 21st, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Storm in a teacup Phil. I can’t see either Labour or National running out of money. The bigger story is how democracy means less and less with this mob in power. And no, I don’t hold out much hope for NZ if National get a turn next election.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:29 pm
so you’re part of the chrissie hynde school of thought..?
that everything is fecked..?
and we’d may as well just kiss our ars*s goodbye..?
but hang on..!..are you still a climate-change denialist..?
are you just glum because you realise you particular/personal dream of a rightwing ‘paradise’..will never come about..?
phil(woar.co.nz)
November 21st, 2007 at 10:31 pm
it seems nick c buried his brain with his rhetoric..
‘hollow-men’ = ‘integrity’..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 21st, 2007 at 10:46 pm
but hang on..!..are you still a climate-change denialist..?
What? The world hasn’t ended yet? But the nice young Green I spoke to a year back seemed so sure…what, with regional warming and all…
I decided a long time ago to ignore the ‘end is nigh’ hysteria, and focus on what the policies being forwarded would actually mean in terms of conservation, effectiveness and cost/benefit.
Kyoto remains a joke and when I think of the Greens working with Labour…well, it’s not my arse they’ve been kissing…
..I’ve always believed in striving for sustainability, just don’t agree with the way the Greens are going about it.
My paradise exists in the friends I have made and the interaction I have had with my community. Over the past year I have got out there and meet more people and supported a wider range of charities and community initiatives than perhaps the last three or four years. It’s been fun. Don’t worry about me Phil. Focus on your Green comrades. Maybe you can keep them honest.
November 22nd, 2007 at 2:45 am
I’m surprised and delighted to see the cap on anonymous donations!
I don’t see any justification whatever for large anonymous donations, it certainly isn’t a matter of free speech to be allowed to buy political influence covertly. So that’s a major win for transparency to the Greens (albeit a compromise).
If the Nats, and Labour, are going to keep getting those donations which used to be anonymous, then that’s fine : but people will be perusing the lists of donors with interest, and drawing their own conclusions.
November 22nd, 2007 at 2:57 am
Amusingly, although the Herald web site still has their “Democracy under attack” campaign heading, they can’t find much to criticise in the revised bill… just bickering over details.
November 22nd, 2007 at 7:18 am
I hope I never see another Green party member or politician use the name of the late Rod Donald in support of the party or its legislation, Donald was a man of principal who would have been horrified at the thought of this bill.
November 22nd, 2007 at 9:07 am
It hasn’t been out that long Alistair. It is over 100 pages of convoluted waffle after all. Give it time. Just count yourself lucky critics pointed out that TVNZ was not allowed to broadcast BEFORE you lot ram the legislation through.
Although, apparently, according to the best and brightest Labour MPs, ‘the law of common sense’ allows us to ignore laws we think stupid.
November 22nd, 2007 at 1:16 pm
I hope I never see another opponent of the Greens use the name of the late Rod Donald in support of their criticism of the party or its legislation.
November 22nd, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Then how about the green party stops doing back room deals to rig election law in favour of one party, as the $240,000 limit on anonymous donations clearly does.
November 22nd, 2007 at 4:22 pm
As I write this Metiria is speaking in the house, until now I had a little bit of respect for her.
She is another of the Greens afflicted by an irrational hatred of the EB and a naked hatred of the Nat’s.
The line she is using reeks of back room deals, it is time that the Greens came out and told the truth to all Kiwi’s.
She even has the hard neck to claim that this disgusting piece of legislation protects the freedom of speech.
I have not always agreed with the Greens but at least their MP’s (with the exception of Bradford) could be trusted, sadly it seems that Metiria has spent far to long in the company of the Labour party, she seems to have problems with the truth.
November 22nd, 2007 at 4:46 pm
I have just heard Chris FInlayson call this disgusting bill “a piece of Utu legislation”
That is the best description I have heard.
November 22nd, 2007 at 6:09 pm
alistair Says:
November 22nd, 2007 at 2:45 am
I’m surprised and delighted to see the cap on anonymous donations!
I don’t see any justification whatever for large anonymous donations, it certainly isn’t a matter of free speech to be allowed to buy political influence covertly. So that’s a major win for transparency to the Greens (albeit a compromise).
Its a sad day for a dictatorship ….Opps …i mean a democracy ! cough …. When a party can no longer win by unfair advantage and the money of the rich brothers behind you has dried up .. choke …. its enough to make a man turn in his grave …. I mean it will bring about disaster ….. These greens they do go on about conservation and things ….. climate change blah blah… yes well the climates changing with this bill thats for sure …heating up ..yes you can just feel the heat on these pages over that bill ! hmm heh heh heh ….And what about extinction of critters ?? hmmm …have the greens thought about that ?? …without nats …. that fine animal the pink elephant might be a dieing species ! ….Anyone thought about that ?? .. .. I tell you we didnt get by in my day without taking good care of them ! …. just terrible what happening these days
November 22nd, 2007 at 9:29 pm
$240,000 of dirty money is not a small sum. Got to wonder who is paying the Greens and Labour and NZ First this much and why do they need to remain secret.
November 24th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
I haven’t been taking much interest in the EFB but I was impressed by Chris Trotters piece a couple of days ago in the Otago Daily:
Putting a price on free speech
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4285561a1861.html
Old story “when farmers are doing well everybody’s doing well”
when building industry is doing well everyone is doing well….????????????????
November 24th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Trotters article was a load of crap, as usual he is living in the Communist manifesto, not New Zealand. He essentailly asserts that the only true form of democracy is one where wealth is shared.
November 25th, 2007 at 9:25 am
If you want to read a good counter to Trotter’s column on the EFB, check out Jane Clifton’s piece in the latest Listener - it’s very good.
I’ve written a commentary on Clifton’s column at:
http://liberation.typepad.com/liberation/2007/11/jane-clifton-mo.html
Bryce
November 25th, 2007 at 11:47 am
It disgusts me the money in politics…i’m talkin about the gravy train our “public servants” recieve in what is known as the first law of nature..self preservation.
Backbenchers alone recieve $126,200 without even mentioning all the extra allowances, an accomodation supplement of $460 a week just one example.
Oh yeah, everyone wants “democracy” but the fear of losing is such that few, when push comes to shove, will not take all advantages in order to win for themselves. That is the real reality of our democracy constantly bulging at the unraveled seams of society, degenerated to the point where property is the biggest employer in the country and 40-50% percent own less then 5% of the wealth while 5% own more than 50%.
If Norman thinks democracy is a fundamental principle in society then i suggest he doesn’t know what a fundamental principle is, as that would make a democratic society to mean no more than an charad; and the monetary reform conference he attended in America should have shown him that there is a fundamentally better way, for it is not economic inequality that creates democracy but rather a strong and abundant common wealth. Only then will the veil of the first law of nature be revealed as being the first law of illusion and collective self-destruction.
November 25th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Bill English gives a great speech in responce to the revised bill:
http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=TexP6VACeCM
November 26th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Even your man of the left, Chris Trotter, is finally coming round. It’s fair to say he’s not so hot for the EFB.
Is anyone - outside The Greens & Labour?
tinyurl.com/2udnv2
November 26th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
So it’s OK to buy an election?
November 26th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
OMG bogle. NO ONE BOUGHT THE 2005 ELECTION! The only thing the Exclusive Brethrean bought was 1.5 million dollars worth of phamplets (with their own money), not votes pamphlets! I would say that they have every right to do that, provided they identify themselfs on the pamphlets (which they should have). I doubt that the pamphlets swung a single vote. If you take away peoples rights to advertise you take away their right to freedom of speech not to mention all the other things that this bill does.
This is a bill introduced purely in self interest. The $240,000 number for anon donations was hand picked to favour Labour and the green party sold out their beliefs and agreed to it. If i was a union member I would call Russel a scab.
The only criminal activity at the 2005 election was when Labour stole $850,000 of TAXPAYERS money to pay for advertising.
November 26th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
Nick. My recollection was that the Brethren admitted to having a war chest of 1.2 million dollars, but they spent much less than that amount.
The printed an anti-Green brochure, an anti-Labour brochure and a few pages of advertisements (vaguely Nationalesque) in the Auckland rags. The brochures did not make it to all letter boxes in NZ.
Given NZ Labour claim the election pledge cards cost about $400K to print and distribute NZ wide, and that the proponents of the EFB think $120K is heaps of money to spend on a series of full page advertisements in the paper, their actual expenditure was more likely around the 800K mark. One interview I saw they said they spent 550K, but I’m not sure if all expenditure had been completed by then.
The various pundits keep inflating and talking about their budget as if it were their actuals. If anyone has definitive evidence of expenditure, I’d appreciate seeing it.
They had a name and address on the Green pamphlet (”Authorised by Stephen Win, Favona Road, Mangere”), but people are annoyed because they consider it necessary to list your name, address and religion on a pamphlet. In the case of the EB no doubt they also expect bar code tattoos on their arms. Maybe the name and address was not a full disclosure in the right form, and maybe it was missing from other publications - I haven’t actually seen any specific evidence other than what people say as ’statement of fact’.
I agree with the point about new limits set in the revised bill - for spending - why these limits? What logic exactly? How does this cost relate to typical costs and expenditures to pay for an advertisement a week up to an election? Why is it not inflation adjusted?
For donations - it works out at some percentage of the party budget. But why this percentage? Why continue to allow anon donations? Why allow Owen Glenn and other non residents to put huge sums of money into the Labour party when they don’t live here?
This whole process is not allowing a wide ranging discussion of detailed aspects of the revised bill, and its to be forced through under urgency.
If the Greens continue to support this totally undemocratic process (and cannot see the need to manage changes to the Election Process with more rigor than changing the bail laws, say) then …. well, I’ll chip in for the mirror if you pay for the polish on the jack boots.
November 26th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
I see landlords are saying rents will have rise. That’s not surprising as every unearned dollar in the property market creates a hole that has to be filled. Or to put it another way, the property gurus call themselves “wealth creators”. This isn’t correct they are wealth redistributers> from the many to the few.
Lets not make a virtue out of greed (That’s ACT’s policy)
November 27th, 2007 at 10:03 am
Who the F#$%s gonna vote for what the exclusive brethen are promoting?
If they had any sense they should have produced phamplets condemming NAtional(not cause they are an irresponsible bunch of profiteers bent on making New Zealand society completely repressed n subservient to international finance) but to get them more votes.
Please God, let the exclusive brethen put phamplets in every mailbox of NZ condemning “Democrats for Social Credit” in the next election. Then we’ll win by a landslide and if i’m in parliament, my salary will be nothing more than the median salary earnt in the country.
November 27th, 2007 at 11:16 am
even that should read: “Please Helen, let the exclusive brethen put phamplets in every mailbox of NZ condemning “Democrats for Social Credit” in the next election.”
Helen Clark is the one stopping the EB campaigning at the next election, not God.
“Then we’ll win by a landslide and if i’m in parliament, my salary will be nothing more than the median salary earnt in the country.”
But why win democratically even? Why not just take control of the country through armed resistance? The ‘peace’ activists in Wellington are trying to do it.
“profiteers bent on making New Zealand society completely repressed n subservient to international finance”
Please show me a link to a place which shows that is national policy. But its pretty clear what green/Labour party policy is even. They want to take control of New ZEaland families through the S59 repel and they want to turn NZ into a dictatorship where no one can speak out aginst the govt through the EFB.
November 27th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
JH
“Lets not make a virtue out of greed (That’s ACT’s policy)”
Are the poor people not greedy by wanting to be rich?
Or is greed a reserved for the wealthy only?
November 27th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
One of the notions our society runs on is that the pursuit of wealth is good in and of itself as eventually everyone will benefit. The idea comes from Adams Smiths observation that it isn’t altruism that causes the baker to light his ovens in the morning (etc). Beyond that, however there comes a point where one person is just a giant tree shading others, (for example someone who owns 18 dairy farms, or 100 houses). Those sort of achievements aren’t necessarily due to being a better farmer, just (perhaps) to being well connected and/or having better entrepreneurial skills. Poor people can be greedy too of course.
One of the green ideas (I would have thought ) is the notion that there are limits to growth and therefore how much you (think you should have, or deserve) is an issue for everybody.
The way I see it everyone needs a share in a supporting ecosystem: essentially fertile land with a water source and trees etc. In a modern economy we specialize, engage in trade,and get creative by using money as a medium of exchange, but I worry, I would like to think that if it all turns to custard, I can head back to the (non existent) family farm with its fruit trees and duck pond and cruise along for a millennium.