Common sense from the Herald – stop the press!

Written By: - Date published: 2:05 pm, July 30th, 2008 - 59 comments
Categories: articles, election funding - Tags: , , , ,

Brian Rudman’s piece in today’s Herald is so far the most sensible comment on the Spencer Trust affair.

He points out that funding of elections in New Zealand has for far too long been vulnerable to the cheque-books of the rich. While some may be philanthropists like Glenn, or occasional players like Jones, others such as Fay, Richwhite and Hawkins have used their influence to buy and strip our national assets.

In this election we have Merrill Lynch advising Australian sharebuyers that there may be windfall gains for Australian Insurance companies in the event of a National win and the privatisation of parts of ACC, as National are briefing behind the scenes.

Rudman makes the point that most other countries guard against this vulnerability by public funding of political parties.

Quite why the rest of our media have swallowed Sir Bob Jones’ story that a cheque made out to the Spencer Trust was meant only to be used by New Zealand First is a mystery. If Sir Bob meant it for New Zealand First why didn’t he make it out to New Zealand First? Then we’d all know he was telling the truth, and Winston would have a case to answer.

Instead it appears the curmudgeonly old raver had too much to drink and signed a blank cheque, which was then made out to the Spencer Trust by one of his staff apparently with his agreement! So whose fault is that?

59 comments on “Common sense from the Herald – stop the press! ”

  1. Of course National voted against this.

    They don’t want state-funding because it would take away their funding advantage that they previously enjoyed through trust-laundered donations.

    So, they sabotaged the EFA’s state-funding clause so that we are left with only its most ruthless (yet necessary) provisions which will likely result in hamstrung campaigns where the conversation is based more on personality than policy.

    Which is better than an even contest of ideas, for them. It was never about democracy, just like with a 2nd MMP referendum, it is about protecting Tory priviledge.

  2. vto 2

    state funding for political parties. ha ha ha. get real.

    Why does the left ALWAYS look to the taxpayer first to pay for whatever their latest hare-brained scheme is. Pay for it yourself.

    Any good idea should be able to stand on its own two feet. If people are not prepared to support those ideas then;

    1. they are clearly worthless ideas; and,

    2. it indicates the esteem that the political system is held in, and if that follows with a consequent weakening and morphing then so be it.

  3. lprent 3

    As an Aucklander, I’d have to say that Rudman is one of the very few reasons to read the Herald. The normal Herald fare really avoids local issues in favour of local headlines (there is a bit of difference in depth).

    Rudman’s regular column on the state of local (ie Auckland) politics is about the only source of any real comment about what is happening around the structural parts of the city. I hope he extends further into the political column area. You can see why when you read this column.

    For a start, he references back to the last study on political reform done in NZ – the 1986 Royal Commission on the Electoral System. It is interesting to note that the recommendations from that commission are slowly being dragged into the political system. Some came in in 1993, and some in the EFA of 2007. Every change is opposed all of the way by the Nat’s because each leads to more democracy and transparency. Neither are concepts liked by the Nat’s.

    Just as a matter of interest, I’ve never met the guy, but hopefully he’d be a hell of a speaker for drinking liberally regardless of his political persuasion (I’ve never actually figured it out).

  4. lprent 4

    vto: Go and read the royal commissions report. The type of issues you’ve been whining about with NZF (and avoiding discussion with the Waitemata Trust) were predicted 22 years ago in detail.

    Tell me, what do you prefer? Corruption in the political parties or state funding?

  5. Pascal's bookie 5

    vto

    I’m interested in what you mean by 2. if you’d care to expand?

    I have plenty of reservations about public funding, but I think that there are ways of keeping it fairly clean.

    Say for example:

    -Make reregistering for the vote compulsory at every election cycle

    -When reregistering voters have a seperate form with a list of all the parties on it, and they ‘vote’ their share of the public funding to whom they choose.

  6. vto 6

    Iprent, my problem with NZF is the sheer gigantuan hypocrisy of Winston Bjeikle-Peterson, not the structure of funding etc. He has been railing against ‘big money’ and ‘secret trusts’ for donkeys and it transpires he has been at it himself all this time. As for getting substantial cheques from the Vela family and being Minister of Racing, well nothing more needs to be said. Peters is a joke. My issue is with him, not the structure.

    Re the actual structure – personally, I will resist public funding completely. The pulling of money from the people needs to stop. You know, STOP.

    If you want to clean it up then simply make every donation and fund raising thingy completely transparent and open to the public. (of course labour avoided that for well-debated reasons, which expose its own double standards. ha.).

    If it was completely open then the people could see who was funding who and any potential conflicts and corruptions. The people could then make up their own minds.

    What is the problem with that?

  7. Stephen 7

    Any good idea should be able to stand on its own two feet. If people are not prepared to support those ideas then;

    1. they are clearly worthless ideas; and,

    That an Obama reference? It’s worked allright over there…hasn’t it..?

  8. vto. If a system allows corruption there will always be people who will be corrupt. You can’t make it so people have no propensity to be corrupt, you can make it so a system is not (as) open to corruption. you can’t change human nature, you can change human institutions to get the best out of our nature.

    (not that I’m saying Peters is corrupt, there’s simply no evidence to make a conclusion and while I would like to see him open up the Spencer Trust, I think National muct also do the same.)

  9. vto 9

    Pascal’s bookie, what I meant by “2. it indicates the esteem that the political system is held in, and if that follows with a consequent weakening and morphing then so be it.” was exactly that.

    If people are not willing to donate or become members of a particular party then they clearly consider that party is of little relevance to them. If it transpires that that party has ideas that would further their interests then it is of relevance and if the party needed support I am sure the people would support it.

    If it transpires that little such funding comes forth, right across all parties, then my point was that the people would obviously consider the current political structure to be of little relevance to them. That would be a good thing because it would, hopefully, weaken the ridiculous amount of power that resides in the govt. Give the power back to the people.

    Funding by the people is democratic. Funding by the state is considerably less democratic and is a further transfer of power from the people to the state. = bad.

  10. Good comment by Rudman and good on the Herald for printing this. To compound things Fran O’Sullivan wrote what I believe is the first column of hers that I have ever agreed with. She talked about National “flip flops”, how National will have to borrow to fund tax cuts and how Key ought to come clean and announce policy, particularly economic policy, soon. Rudman is normally sensible but Fran’s comments are a revelation.

    My sense of reality is upset. Are the opposition now conceding that a Labour/Green coalition is the best for our country and that civilised democratic policies such as state funding of political parties should be supported?

  11. vto 11

    SP, Peters simply needs to say that the $25,000 paid by Jones was used for NZF purposes.

    No trusts need to be opened up. No great complicated things need to happen. He simply needs to say what the money was used for. The fact that is impossible for him to answer is all the answer needed for me.

    (I agree completely re human nature’s operation within institutions)

  12. mickysavage. I think Fran is saying that winning isn’t worth any sacrifice. Unlike a lot of the righties here and around the ‘net who tell themeselves they are perfectly content not to know what Key stands for, what policies would be in place, other than those they’re taking from Labour, what the plan to lift wages is… because all that matters for them is winning, getting the Left out of power.

  13. Quoth the Raven 13

    I think just about everyone here agrees that making donations over certain low threshold transparent is a must, vto. But do you actually think that National would be okay with that?

    Gigantuan – Did you mean gigantean, gigantic or gargantuan?

  14. lprent 14

    vto:

    If people are not willing to donate or become members of a particular party then they clearly consider that party is of little relevance to them.

    In which case the funding should also be fully transparent. Any donations including indirectly through fund raisers over a certain size should be listed to a person, family or company. Otherwise there is a significant probability that undue influence can be had within a party using an anonymous donation to conceal the corruption.

    Obviously under your criteria, if they’re willing to donate, then they should be willing to stand by their donation in public.

    Do you agree with that?

  15. vto 15

    ha ha QtR, no I meant gigantuan. Just a made up word I thought sounded good. Seems common in these days of text and laptop lingo to make up words.

    Re whether National would be ok with that I have no idea. It is just my opinion. I suspect any large backers that figure that they may currently get some influence thru their donations, would simply shrug their shoulders and adjust to the new rules.

    Surely the easiest way thru this mess is simple complete transparency.

  16. vto 16

    I imagine the problem with complete transparency, which Iprent touched on, is whether donors would be happy to be known publicly. Anon has a role in the political process, due to the emotions and risks associated with politics. Some people simply do not discuss politics. What’s that saying about the two subjects to avoid at a party being religion and politics? And look at the heavy violence associated with politics in other parts of the world.

    So, there would be some problems arise with complete transparency – namely reluctance of people to be involved, in this case through donation.

    However I suspect that larger donors would donate anyway, and probably donate relatively equally across the spectrum. As it seems they do now. Perhaps it should be a case of ‘suck and see’. i.e. put in place complete transparency and see how NZ society reacts. The limits on the amount that can be spent should be relatively low anyway, so should be easily achieved.

  17. MikeE 17

    So instead of allowing people to voluntarily support political parties that they support, they should be FORCED to support those who they disagree with.

    Not only this, but any system of public funding favors the incumbents over challengers.

    Please explain why this is a good idea?

  18. ChocolateMustBeLiquid 18

    Personally, I don’t really buy the idea that big money can buy an election. I don’t know, maybe influence it, but this idea seems to assume that all voters are inherently gullible and will automatically be swayed by a flash campaign. I also don’t agree that the taxpayer should fund election campaigns, I am somewhat suspicious that this is a result of parties not been able to raise the sort of funds they would like to have at their disposal. The Electoral Finance Act seems to me a flawed an overly complicated piece of legislation, from my understanding it came about because of the Exclusive Bretheren campaign against Labour and the Greens at the last election. But then never did quite understand what was supposed to be so bad about the Exclusive Bretheren campaigning, irregardless of whether you agree with them or not, they still should have the right to have a voice.

    [you don’t have even a basic understanding of the issues at play. The Exclusive Brethern did have a right to have a voice, but it was wrong of them attempt to swing the election with $1 million in spending using secret names, not declaring who they were, and secretly coordinating with National – effectively allowing National to breach it’s spending cap. Money buys advertising, if advertising didn’t influence voters’ decisions, parties wouldn’t bother spending their money on it and going through all the effort of raising that money. I re-named you because, being close to people whose families were liquidated, I find your pseudonym sickening. SP]

    [lprent: That is the Liquidated guy – I heartily agree. I’ll rename everything that he has put on the blog. I find the name highly offensive. The comments look like they were written by someone who really doesn’t understand much about politics either – but they can probably be learn about that (eventually) if they hang aroubd here.. ]

  19. Rex Widerstrom 19

    On principle I don’t like the idea of people being forced to fund a political system in which they have little confidence. When does a party qualify as a credible political force? And more to the point in light of recent events, when do they stop having the credibility necessary to qualify?

    But on a practical level, we’re a small country so if it were left to the percentage of us interested enough in politics to donate, there probably wouldn’t be enough money to run an effective democracy.

    So how about this? Only donations below a ridiculously small amount (I think $200 has been suggested by some posters here, I think that’s a reasonable level) be anonymous.

    But that public funding be by way of “matching funds” based on the amount raised by each party. Whether that was 1 for 1 or 2 for 1 or some other formula is moot. The effect would be to tie the amount of public funds as directly as possible to support for a party over the immediately previous term of Parliament, as opposed to formulae that refer to previous vote, number of seats etc.

    A similar system applies in the US (though can be opted out of, alas).

  20. Quoth the Raven 20

    Surely the easiest way thru this mess is simple complete transparency.
    Perhaps it should be a case of ‘suck and see’. i.e. put in place complete transparency and see how NZ society reacts.

    I absolutely agree.

  21. lprent 21

    I’d be happy with that. I suspect that it will drop the funding levels WAY down.

    There would also have to be restrictions on anon in other fund raising efforts. For instance charity auctions, plate dinners, etc. I’ve brought various items at vastly inflated prices at various times to support my favourite party.

    I’d expect to have some very interesting discussions if (yeah right) this ever gets on to the political agenda.

    In te end it still doesn’t affect what happened back in 2005. Bearing in mind that the Nat’s are still sitting on that funding warchest they got from the Waitemata trust, I’d like to know who contributed to it.

  22. vto 22

    Iprent this will make the political agenda if the public gets even the slightest whiff that state funding could become even remotely possible. imo state funding would go down like the proverbial cup of cold sick.

  23. vto 23

    Another obstacle to all this – how on earth could we let the politicians make the rules about themselves? That is why the EFA went to crap imo.

  24. lprent 24

    Who are you going to let decide it?

    Talkback radio listeners – that lets out almost all of the taxpayers.
    Online polls – I have a little program…
    Polls – yep thats a really random sample – yeah right.
    Referendum – The last time they had a idiot level proposition and voted without understanding the costs (1993). I’ll agree if each voter passes this test first so they understand the 50 page proposition known as the electoral act.

    etc….

    Ultimately there are only two ways you can really do it.

    Something like a royal commission (last one said public funding) or representatives of some kind.

  25. lprent 25

    BTW: I’d also add that if the politicians had followed the recommendations of the 1986 commission rather than just cherry picking the bits out of it that they liked, then we’d have a much more rational electoral system.

  26. Phil 26

    “While some may be philanthropists like Glenn, … others … used their influence to buy and strip our national assets”

    That’s Gold! Wealthy donors to Labour are “philanthropists” while wealthy donors to National are assets strippers.

    We’re you another Crosby-Textor intern who ended up posting on The Standard?

  27. Draco TB 27

    Any good idea should be able to stand on its own two feet. If people are not prepared to support those ideas then;

    1. they are clearly worthless ideas; and,

    Or, much more likely, people have never heard of the party nvm the parties ideas because they just don’t have enough funds to advertise.

    2. it indicates the esteem that the political system is held in, and if that follows with a consequent weakening and morphing then so be it.

    Or it indicates that people just don’t have enough time to engage with the political system (which would be the death of democracy in the country).

    If it was completely open then the people could see who was funding who and any potential conflicts and corruptions. The people could then make up their own minds.

    What is the problem with that?

    Far too complicated and costly. How many people now look at the funding lists published by the parties? How many are adequately reported by the media?

    Funding by the people is democratic. Funding by the state is considerably less democratic and is a further transfer of power from the people to the state. = bad.

    Last time I looked we lived in a democracy and not a dictatorship. Don’t know why but people always make the government out to be something ‘other’ and disassociated from them.

    If we want a democracy that works for everyone then all parties need to be equally publicly funded so that they can all be heard equally. Voluntary donations will never achieve this. Public funding on a 1 for 1 (etc) basis will be significantly biased in favour of the party that can raise the most voluntary donations. Such funding is a basic requirement of democracy and if we don’t have it then we drift further toward a dictatorship/oligarchy.

    I’d also add that if the politicians had followed the recommendations of the 1986 commission rather than just cherry picking the bits out of it that they liked, then we’d have a much more rational electoral system.

    QFT

  28. lprent 28

    Phil:

    That’s Gold! Wealthy donors to Labour are “philanthropists’ while wealthy donors to National are assets strippers.

    This is GOLD – prove me wrong on this statement:-

    The very large anonymous loans to National (by value) are mostly from asset strippers intent on corrupting the next National government. THey do this by telling selected national party members what they want and how much they are willing to donate. Then they donate that amount. Hell doing it that way was probably legal under the legislation that they wrote for themselves in 1993.

    You can’t prove that that didn’t happen (and still isn’t) because you don’t know who they were and how much they gave.

    Most donations by value to the NZLP are public – like Owen Glenn.

  29. vto 29

    Sheesh Iprent, that’s a classic..

    “prove me wrong on this ” followed after this by

    “You can’t prove that that didn’t happen”

    Draco, I think I might have it! Make it so only the individual real person can donate. And anything over anything quite small or zero is public. Easy. One person one vote after all.

  30. Felix 30

    phil your mock-outrage would have a faintly more truthful ring to it if Owen Glen was not a philanthropist and Fay & Richwhite were not asset strippers…

  31. Pascal's bookie 31

    So I’m guessing that there is some really obvious draw back that I’m not seeing in just allocating every registered voter, say, twenty bucks of public funding that they can direct, anonymously or not, to a party of their choice.

    Advantages:

    1) Politicians don’t get to decide how the dosh is divvied up, the people do. Directly.

    2) Much less incumbency bias. Citizens can give their twenty bucks to any party, in or out of parliament. Registered party = eligible for citizen directed public funding. I’d expect a lot of people would be giving the money to parties they want to hear more from, rather than just partisan ‘giving it the team I usually vote for’. This I think would direct money away from incumbents and majors, keeping them on their toes.

    3) Smaller parties don’t get shafted (at this stage) by the effect of many of their potential voters voting for a party more likely to get over the 5% barrier. If a minnow fringe outfit gets 1000 folks blessings, that’s 20k to try and get more organised.

    4) It’s another actual decision for voters to make, which can only help them get more engaged. Who knows you might even see party membership increase.

    4) Parties would need citizens to get engaged in order to maximise their funding. If they feck about too much the funds dry up as well as the votes. Put the feckers over our barrel for a change.

    That’s off the top of my head. I’m sure there are logistical problems, but I don’t think it could be that hard.

    2c etc.

  32. burt 32

    John A

    So Winston appears to be have been caught doing exactly the same sort of thing that supporters of the corrupt Labour-led govt insisted Brash should resign over. And what do supporters corrupt Labour-led govt do?

    Defend him… Ha ha ha – It’s OK when Labour or one of their poodles do it – not acceptable when it’s the opposition.

    What a basket case this govt and it’s supporters have become.

  33. Pascal's bookie 33

    So Winston’s leadership of the NZFarce party was bought and paid for by the Business Round Table in a “No Winnie, No Pennies” deal?

    Crikey.

    Cite?

  34. randal 34

    hahaha burt yes indeedy..big bad winnie took it all on the chin and walked away wiping the grease off. why are you making ludicrous allegations the only substance of your arguments. why are you letting yuur turn to participate in this democracy descend into piffle. why why why…

  35. lprent 35

    vto:

    Sheesh Iprent, that’s a classic..

    Yeah it got interrupted in the middle by non-blogging… Made it mildly incoherent. You get my point though?

  36. Rex Widerstrom 36

    Pascal’s bookie: The “$20 to each voter to give to the party of their choice” is bloody brilliant. I hereby withdraw my “matching funds idea” and wholeheartedly support yours.

    Of course it’d have to be a nominal amount, not cash, or no one would ever part with the damn thing!

    (Now wait till some lefty objects to it on the basis it’s a ‘voucher system’ 😉 LOL)

  37. Felix 37

    Burt stop using up all the html on silly things or there won’t be any left when we want to use it for something relevant.

  38. burt 38

    Rex Wilderstorm

    Giving people a voucher to spend would give them the chance to vote with the voucher. Then vote with their vote. It would quite possibly have a double whammy effect when a swing in popularity has occurred. Can’t see this govt passing it under urgency like they did the EFA, which still allows for large anonymous donations and use of trusts. Go Winston, go the Labour-led govt – cleaning up political funding debacles by validating and/or denying them.

  39. burt 39

    Felix

    Winston Peters and Labour banged on about National and how it used trusts while telling us why we needed the EFA. The Labour-led govt want us to believe that they have put an end to all of this. But on the face of it it looks like the EFA makes little if any difference to the legality of what Winston appears to have been doing.

    If the best you can do to take a position against that is critique my use of HTML then that’s fine. However perhaps you could answer me this one question.

    Do you agree that when John A says;

    He points out that funding of elections in New Zealand has for far too long been vulnerable to the cheque-books of the rich. While some may be philanthropists like Glenn, or occasional players like Jones, others such as Fay, Richwhite and Hawkins have used their influence to buy and strip our national assets.

    That he glosses over the issues that it’s not about ‘others did it too – so Winston is blameless’ and it’s probably still entirely legal under the glorious EFA recently passed under urgency?

  40. Swampy 40

    Ahh, right… this blog is supporting Winston Peters now? Yeah right! When are we going to see critique of Winston’s party policies like we do of National? Is this blog anything else other than solely focused on attacking the National party?

    Sir Robert has several NZ First employees to support his side of the argument.

  41. Swampy 41

    “The Exclusive Brethern did have a right to have a voice, but it was wrong of them attempt to swing the election with $1 million in spending using secret names, not declaring who they were, and secretly coordinating with National – effectively allowing National to breach it’s spending cap. ”

    Based on so called “evidence” that would not stand up in a court of law. If anyone believes that to be true, let them take it to court and see if it has any greater standing than hearsay – which I doubt.

    What was established as fact was that in that election campaign, as the Auditor General reported, a number of parties misappropriated public moneys – including NZ First, which has not repaid nearly $160,000, and Labour, which did eventually repay over $800,000. However, there was no court case so I suppose you could argue that the evidence here was not of legal veracity, either, but all the parties except Winston’s repaid the sums identified.

  42. Swampy 42

    “Most donations by value to the NZLP are public – like Owen Glenn.”

    How much is donated by the unions, and do they ask Labour for policies?

  43. burt 43

    We must also not forget that when the $1,000,000+ combined overspend came to light the response from the Labour-led govt was that it made no difference to the outcome of the election – and validated it.

    So, somebody please explain how big money can buy an election when $1,000,000+ makes no difference?

    $158,000 made no difference to Winston? $800,000 made no difference to Labour?

  44. burt 44

    We must also not forget that when the $1m plus combined overspend came to light the response from the Labour-led govt was that it made no difference to the outcome of the election – and validated it.

    So, somebody please explain how big money can buy an election when $1m plus makes no difference?

    An unknown amount of money made no difference to Winston? $800,000 made no difference to Labour?

    How is Winston’s repayment of the $158,000 to parliamentary services coming along?

  45. Anita 45

    Swampy,

    How much is donated by the unions

    Everything you ever wanted to know is here 🙂

  46. Blar 46

    “New Zealand Labour Party Toll NZ Consolidated Ltd, Cnr Northcote Rd & Taharoto Drive, Takapuna, Auckland $25,000.00”

    Toll gives tens of thousands of dollars to the Labour Party. Labour does a sweetheart deal with Toll, providing its Australian shareholders with a $200 million windfall overnight and a sweetheart deal on top of that. That’s what I call crooked.

    Now how much did Toll put through the Labour party’s trusts?

  47. burt 47

    Blar

    That’s baseless allegations, don’t come in here on a fishing trip.

    The Voice of Winston ©

  48. Anita 48

    Blar,

    Toll gave National exactly the same amount.

  49. burt 49

    Anita

    I guess Toll were backing both horses in the two horse race we call NZ politics. Winston was clearly the overseeing Minister of racing ready to collect the baubles from either.

    The issue is not that National also received money from Toll, it is would National have paid hundreds of millions over the book value for an asset they claim is rundown?

  50. RedLogix 50

    So, somebody please explain how big money can buy an election when $1m plus makes no difference?

    OK so let me see if I have this right. Spending up large on election campaigns apparently makes no difference to the result.

    Therefore National, who spends up big on election campaigns, is wasting its money on worthless advertising.

    And you also want me to believe that if National gets to sit on the Treasury benches they will be so much better than any other party at NOT wasting taxpayers money on worthless things.

  51. lprent 51

    Blar:
    Beats me – but I can give you some maximums since say 1993, and it will be less than 20% of what they could have given National.

    Besides, from what I’ve seen of most of the corporates, their published donations are usually across the whole spectrum, and usually the same to national as they give to labour.

    Fundamentally anonymous donations are potentially corrosive to NZ democracy. That is what the ‘right’ have been saying here for the last week or so about Winston.

    I agree – now lets open ALL of the donations up, not just selected ones. Lets start with the biggest – National should publish the donors to the Waitemata Trust in 2005. What was it $2 million? The rabid right have been worrying about $25 thousand with the Spencer trust!

    Give me a break – look at the biggest problem first

  52. RedLogix 52

    The issue is not that National also received money from toll, it is would National have paid hundreds of millions over the book value for an asset they claim is rundown?

    Book value is not the same thing as market value. And as you know perfectly well, a market in which there is only ONE seller and ONE buyer for a ONE time purchase of ONE asset only, is not likely to be especially efficient.

    Or to put this more directly, the Govt willingly paid a price that Toll was willing to sell at. That is called a market price. Do you have a problem with that?

    On the other hand if you have ANY real evidence whatsoever that Toll executives were involved in ANY corrupt practise around this sale, it is absolutely incumbent on you to produce hard data now, or retract.

    PS Your idle speculations and assertions are not accepted as evidence.

  53. burt 53

    RedLogix

    That’s interesting, I also think National will not be free of waste, but I don’t see how that explains how big money effects electoral outcomes.

  54. Blar 54

    “Toll gave National exactly the same amount.”

    And?

  55. Felix 55

    burt. When did I “take a position against”… what??

    I’m just sick of seeing you waste html. There won’t be any left for our children and their children.

  56. burt 56

    RedLogix

    On the other hand if you have ANY real evidence whatsoever that Toll executives were involved in ANY corrupt practise around this sale, it is absolutely incumbent on you to produce hard data now, or retract.

    I think you are getting my comments mixed up with other commenter’s insinuations. Perhaps you could retract that request for a retraction or be more specific about what allegations I’m making?

  57. RedLogix 57

    Burt,

    Sorry you are right, I read into your lines, more than you intended.

    Blar

    Toll gives tens of thousands of dollars to the Labour Party. Labour does a sweetheart deal with Toll, providing its Australian shareholders with a $200 million windfall overnight and a sweetheart deal on top of that. That’s what I call crooked.

    Why?

    Any evidence? Other than your completely uninformed assertion?

    And if it was all such a crooked ‘sweetheart deal’ as you assert, then why did both parties spend the best part of 18 months or more locked in difficult, exhausting negotiations?

    And if perchance the Govt had turned around and asserted it’s legislative power to nationalise the rail asset back off Toll for less than it’s book value (thereby saving the taxpayer some monies), no doubt you would be here preaching the absolute sanctity of private property rights and making accusations of theft from Toll shareholder’s.

  58. vto 58

    I still think my idea of banning all but actual people from donating to parties has something serious going for it. Not companies, not unions, not associations, not brethrens, not sisterhoods, not this, nt that, just actual people.

    After all, companies dont have a vote, unions dont have a vote. Only individual people have a vote.

  59. Draco TB 59

    So I’m guessing that there is some really obvious draw back that I’m not seeing in just allocating every registered voter, say, twenty bucks of public funding that they can direct, anonymously or not, to a party of their choice.

    Still has the problem that the parties need to advertise their presence and policies before people can make an informed decision on who to direct the money to.
    What percentage of the public know that there are 20 registered parties? Hell, how many people reading this blog knew that?

    One of the biggest problems with our democracy ATM is that people aren’t making informed decisions because they’re not fully informed. As far as political parties go the only way to correct that is through full public funding of the parties.

    After all, companies dont have a vote, unions dont have a vote. Only individual people have a vote.

    Yeah, I though of that as well but it still doesn’t address the problem of people knowing that the parties exist or what they stand for and is still open to corruption.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • EV road user charges bill passes
    Transport Minister Simeon Brown has welcomed the passing of legislation to move light electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) into the road user charges system from 1 April.  “It was always intended that EVs and PHEVs would be exempt from road user charges until they reached two ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 hours ago
  • Bill targets illegal, unregulated fishing in international waters
    New Zealand is strengthening its ability to combat illegal fishing outside its domestic waters and beef up regulation for its own commercial fishers in international waters through a Bill which had its first reading in Parliament today. The Fisheries (International Fishing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill 2023 sets out stronger ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 hours ago
  • Reserve Bank appointments
    Economists Carl Hansen and Professor Prasanna Gai have been appointed to the Reserve Bank Monetary Policy Committee, Finance Minister Nicola Willis announced today. The Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) is the independent decision-making body that sets the Official Cash Rate which determines interest rates.  Carl Hansen, the executive director of Capital ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 hours ago
  • Stronger protections for apartment owners
    Apartment owners and buyers will soon have greater protections as further changes to the law on unit titles come into effect, Housing Minister Chris Bishop says. “The Unit Titles (Strengthening Body Corporate Governance and Other Matters) Amendment Act had already introduced some changes in December 2022 and May 2023, and ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    8 hours ago
  • Travel focused on traditional partners and Middle East
    Foreign Minister Winston Peters will travel to Egypt and Europe from this weekend.    “This travel will focus on a range of New Zealand’s traditional diplomatic and security partnerships while enabling broad engagement on the urgent situation in Gaza,” Mr Peters says.   Mr Peters will attend the NATO Foreign ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    8 hours ago
  • Keep safe on our roads this Easter
    Transport Minister Simeon Brown is encouraging all road users to stay safe, plan their journeys ahead of time, and be patient with other drivers while travelling around this Easter long weekend. “Road safety is a responsibility we all share, and with increased traffic on our roads expected this Easter we ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    11 hours ago
  • Cost of living support for over 1.4 million Kiwis
    About 1.4 million New Zealanders will receive cost of living relief through increased government assistance from April 1 909,000 pensioners get a boost to Superannuation, including 5000 veterans 371,000 working-age beneficiaries will get higher payments 45,000 students will see an increase in their allowance Over a quarter of New Zealanders ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    11 hours ago
  • Tenancy reviews for social housing restart
    Ensuring social housing is being provided to those with the greatest needs is front of mind as the Government restarts social housing tenancy reviews, Associate Housing Minister Tama Potaka says. “Our relentless focus on building a strong economy is to ensure we can deliver better public services such as social ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    11 hours ago
  • Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary plan halted
    The Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary will not go ahead, with Cabinet deciding to stop work on the proposed reserve and remove the Bill that would have established it from Parliament’s order paper. “The Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill would have created a 620,000 sq km economic no-go zone,” Oceans and Fisheries Minister ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    12 hours ago
  • Cutting all that dam red tape
    Dam safety regulations are being amended so that smaller dams won’t be subject to excessive compliance costs, Minister for Building and Construction Chris Penk says. “The coalition Government is focused on reducing costs and removing unnecessary red tape so we can get the economy back on track.  “Dam safety regulations ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    12 hours ago
  • Drought support extended to parts of North Island
    The coalition Government is expanding the medium-scale adverse event classification to parts of the North Island as dry weather conditions persist, Agriculture Minister Todd McClay announced today. “I have made the decision to expand the medium-scale adverse event classification already in place for parts of the South Island to also cover the ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    13 hours ago
  • Passage of major tax bill welcomed
    The passing of legislation giving effect to coalition Government tax commitments has been welcomed by Finance Minister Nicola Willis.  “The Taxation (Annual Rates for 2023–24, Multinational Tax, and Remedial Matters) Bill will help place New Zealand on a more secure economic footing, improve outcomes for New Zealanders, and make our tax system ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 day ago
  • Lifting economy through science, tertiary sectors
    Science, Innovation and Technology Minister Judith Collins and Tertiary Education and Skills Minister Penny Simmonds today announced plans to transform our science and university sectors to boost the economy. Two advisory groups, chaired by Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, will advise the Government on how these sectors can play a greater ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 day ago
  • Government announces Budget priorities
    The Budget will deliver urgently-needed tax relief to hard-working New Zealanders while putting the government’s finances back on a sustainable track, Finance Minister Nicola Willis says.  The Finance Minister made the comments at the release of the Budget Policy Statement setting out the Government’s Budget objectives. “The coalition Government intends ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 day ago
  • Government to consider accommodation solution
    The coalition Government will look at options to address a zoning issue that limits how much financial support Queenstown residents can get for accommodation. Cabinet has agreed on a response to the Petitions Committee, which had recommended the geographic information MSD uses to determine how much accommodation supplement can be ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Government approves extension to Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care
    Cabinet has agreed to a short extension to the final reporting timeframe for the Royal Commission into Abuse in Care from 28 March 2024 to 26 June 2024, Internal Affairs Minister Brooke van Velden says.                                         “The Royal Commission wrote to me on 16 February 2024, requesting that I consider an ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • $18m boost for Kiwis travelling to health treatment
    The coalition Government is delivering an $18 million boost to New Zealanders needing to travel for specialist health treatment, Health Minister Dr Shane Reti says.   “These changes are long overdue – the National Travel Assistance (NTA) scheme saw its last increase to mileage and accommodation rates way back in 2009.  ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • PM’s Prizes for Space to showcase sector’s talent
    The Government is recognising the innovative and rising talent in New Zealand’s growing space sector, with the Prime Minister and Space Minister Judith Collins announcing the new Prime Minister’s Prizes for Space today. “New Zealand has a growing reputation as a high-value partner for space missions and research. I am ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Concerns conveyed to China over cyber activity
    Foreign Minister Winston Peters has confirmed New Zealand’s concerns about cyber activity have been conveyed directly to the Chinese Government.     “The Prime Minister and Minister Collins have expressed concerns today about malicious cyber activity, attributed to groups sponsored by the Chinese Government, targeting democratic institutions in both New ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Independent Reviewers appointed for School Property Inquiry
    Independent Reviewers appointed for School Property Inquiry Education Minister Erica Stanford today announced the appointment of three independent reviewers to lead the Ministerial Inquiry into the Ministry of Education’s School Property Function.  The Inquiry will be led by former Minister of Foreign Affairs Murray McCully. “There is a clear need ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Brynderwyns open for Easter
    State Highway 1 across the Brynderwyns will be open for Easter weekend, with work currently underway to ensure the resilience of this critical route being paused for Easter Weekend to allow holiday makers to travel north, Transport Minister Simeon Brown says. “Today I visited the Brynderwyn Hills construction site, where ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Speech to the Infrastructure Funding & Financing Conference
    Introduction Good morning to you all, and thanks for having me bright and early today. I am absolutely delighted to be the Minister for Infrastructure alongside the Minister of Housing and Resource Management Reform. I know the Prime Minister sees the three roles as closely connected and he wants me ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Parliamentary network breached by the PRC
    New Zealand stands with the United Kingdom in its condemnation of People’s Republic of China (PRC) state-backed malicious cyber activity impacting its Electoral Commission and targeting Members of the UK Parliament. “The use of cyber-enabled espionage operations to interfere with democratic institutions and processes anywhere is unacceptable,” Minister Responsible for ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • NZ to provide support for Solomon Islands election
    Foreign Minister Winston Peters and Defence Minister Judith Collins today announced New Zealand will provide logistics support for the upcoming Solomon Islands election. “We’re sending a team of New Zealand Defence Force personnel and two NH90 helicopters to provide logistics support for the election on 17 April, at the request ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • NZ-EU FTA gains Royal Assent for 1 May entry to force
    The European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill received Royal Assent today, completing the process for New Zealand’s ratification of its free trade agreement with the European Union.    “I am pleased to announce that today, in a small ceremony at the Beehive, New Zealand notified the European Union ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • COVID-19 inquiry attracts 11,000 submissions
    Public consultation on the terms of reference for the Royal Commission into COVID-19 Lessons has concluded, Internal Affairs Minister Hon Brooke van Velden says.  “I have been advised that there were over 11,000 submissions made through the Royal Commission’s online consultation portal.” Expanding the scope of the Royal Commission of ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Families to receive up to $75 a week help with ECE fees
    Hardworking families are set to benefit from a new credit to help them meet their early childcare education (ECE) costs, Finance Minister Nicola Willis says. From 1 July, parents and caregivers of young children will be supported to manage the rising cost of living with a partial reimbursement of their ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Unlocking a sustainable, low-emissions future
    A specialised Independent Technical Advisory Group (ITAG) tasked with preparing and publishing independent non-binding advice on the design of a "green" (sustainable finance) taxonomy rulebook is being established, Climate Change Minister Simon Watts says.  “Comprising experts and market participants, the ITAG's primary goal is to deliver comprehensive recommendations to the ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Chief of Army thanked for his service
    Defence Minister Judith Collins has thanked the Chief of Army, Major General John Boswell, DSD, for his service as he leaves the Army after 40 years. “I would like to thank Major General Boswell for his contribution to the Army and the wider New Zealand Defence Force, undertaking many different ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Minister to meet Australian counterparts and Manufacturing Industry Leaders
    25 March 2024 Minister to meet Australian counterparts and Manufacturing Industry Leaders Small Business, Manufacturing, Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Andrew Bayly will travel to Australia for a series of bi-lateral meetings and manufacturing visits. During the visit, Minister Bayly will meet with his Australian counterparts, Senator Tim Ayres, Ed ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Government commits nearly $3 million for period products in schools
    Government commits almost $3 million for period products in schools The Coalition Government has committed $2.9 million to ensure intermediate and secondary schools continue providing period products to those who need them, Minister of Education Erica Stanford announced today. “This is an issue of dignity and ensuring young women don’t ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Speech – Making it easier to build.
    Good morning, it’s great to be here.   First, I would like to acknowledge the New Zealand Institute of Building Surveyors and thank you for the opportunity to be here this morning.  I would like to use this opportunity to outline the Government’s ambitious plan and what we hope to ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • Pacific youth to shine from boost to Polyfest
    Minister for Pacific Peoples Dr Shane Reti has announced the Government’s commitment to the Auckland Secondary Schools Māori and Pacific Islands Cultural Festival, more commonly known as Polyfest. “The Ministry for Pacific Peoples is a longtime supporter of Polyfest and, as it celebrates 49 years in 2024, I’m proud to ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • 2024 Ngarimu VC and 28th (Māori) Battalion Memorial Scholarships announced
    ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Speech to Breast Cancer Foundation – Insights Conference
    Before moving onto the substance of today’s address, I want to recognise the very significant and ongoing contribution the Breast Cancer Foundation makes to support the lives of New Zealand women and their families living with breast cancer. I very much enjoy working with you. I also want to recognise ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Kiwi research soars to International Space Station
    New Zealand has notched up a first with the launch of University of Canterbury research to the International Space Station, Science, Innovation and Technology and Space Minister Judith Collins says. The hardware, developed by Dr Sarah Kessans, is designed to operate autonomously in orbit, allowing scientists on Earth to study ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Speech to the New Zealand Planning Institute
    Introduction Thank you for inviting me to speak with you today and I’m sorry I can’t be there in person. Yesterday I started in Wellington for Breakfast TV, spoke to a property conference in Auckland, and finished the day speaking to local government in Christchurch, so it would have been ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Support for Northland emergency response centre
    The Coalition Government is contributing more than $1 million to support the establishment of an emergency multi-agency coordination centre in Northland. Emergency Management and Recovery Minister Mark Mitchell announced the contribution today during a visit of the Whangārei site where the facility will be constructed.  “Northland has faced a number ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Celebrating 20 years of Whakaata Māori
    New Zealanders have enjoyed a broader range of voices telling the story of Aotearoa thanks to the creation of Whakaata Māori 20 years ago, says Māori Development Minister Tama Potaka. The minister spoke at a celebration marking the national indigenous media organisation’s 20th anniversary at their studio in Auckland on ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Some commercial fishery catch limits increased
    Commercial catch limits for some fisheries have been increased following a review showing stocks are healthy and abundant, Ocean and Fisheries Minister Shane Jones says. The changes, along with some other catch limit changes and management settings, begin coming into effect from 1 April 2024. "Regular biannual reviews of fish ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago

Page generated in The Standard by Wordpress at 2024-03-28T08:17:47+00:00