The 2011 election spend-up
Electoral reform isn't normally water-cooler conversation but the topic looks set to receive another thrashing in the wake of the Government's decisions yesterday.
Certainly it's got Granny O'Herald's pulse racing again. The old girl loves nothing better than to throw up her skirts on electoral issues, and still goes around telling anyone who will listen that she was personally responsible for the repeal of Labour's Electoral Finance Act.
It's also generated some heat over at David Farrar's Kiwiblog, where my name's being taken in vain over a piece I wrote this morning outlining the Government's plans to allow unlimited third-party (or parallel) election advertising.
Justice Minister Simon Power's been very careful to come up with some pretty sound reforms in his replacement for the EFA, and most of them make perfect sense. The tightened donations regime brought in by the EFA will stay, because that was really the only part of the EFA that was any good.
The amount of money parties and candidates can spend during election campaigns has increased - but only slightly, by the rate of inflation since the last election. Actually that's pretty miniscule since the rates haven't been shifted since 1995.
So no-one can complain political parties will be given a blank cheque to spend up large in 2011.
The rules around broadcasting - basically that political parties can only use the state-funded pool of cash during campaigns on TV and radio, and only for that purpose - will stay the same, because there wasn't political consensus for change. I don't have a problem with that either.
Anyone who spends more than $12,000 on advertising will have to register with the Electoral Commission. I'm very much in favour of that. The more transparency the better. As I've said previously, personally I like the American approach - spend as much as you like, but every dollar must be declared, along with your name and address and political affiliation.
The format for the MMP referendum looks fine, too, and it's interesting to see Simon Power leaning towards MMP (in my opinion) by offering to tinker with the system, should it prove successful against the other contenders next year.
That's smart, because it undermines the argument of anti-MMP campaigners that we have to throw out MMP in order to change it, when in reality all that might be needed is a bit of tinkering around the 5 per cent threshold, or the rule around bringing in additional MPs if you win an electorate seat.
The bit that intrigues me the most - and I'm not sure whether the Government has yet really thought this through - is the removal of all limits on parallel campaigning. As I understand it - and having double-checked this with Simon Power's office - the idea is that either positive (vote for X) or negative (Don't vote for X) campaigns by lobby groups won't be subject to regulation.
Now I'm all for free speech, but I can see some problems here. What's the point in having a limit on political party spending if there isn't one on third party spending? If the union movement can spend $3 million on a "Vote Labour'' campaign, what's the point in limiting Labour to spending $2.4m?
It could also encourage collusion between parties and their donors and backers. Either the Business Roundtable could take on Labour with the consent of National, or Labour could direct well-meaning donors to give their money to the PSA instead, so the PSA could advertise on its behalf.
I understand why Power has done this. The problem with the old law - which basically said you could run a negative ad but not a positive one - was that it encouraged the Exclusive Brethren approach of denigrating one's opponents.
That's why Labour introduced the EFA, which placed strict limits on third-party campaigning. This led to Labour being accused of being anti-democratic.
But I'm wondering whether it opens another can of worms instead, which leads to the downside of American election campaigns - big-budget attack ads by vested interests on all sides, while the politicians sit in the middle.
Power has gone for a hybrid model, which retains the controls on politicians while allowing the public ultimate freedom of speech. In theory, it's a good idea. But I can see another almighty row when this thing hits Parliament.
Sponsored links
Newest First
Oldest First
I totally agree with you Colin. It is a fine piece of legislation with that one exception and it seems odd. Logic would suggest that MMP will be retained with changes. One such change would be to retain the threashold even if you have won an electorate seat. Although you obviously keep that seat you would have a situation that exists now whereby ACT have five mps but didn't get 5% of the vote. They should have one MP. There is also a case for lowering the threshold - any threshold reduces proportionality and therefore is undemocratic but can be defended because it keeps out extremists. However we have so few of these so why not reduce the threshold to say 3%? So thumbs up to Simon Power he has done a good job -although I would have simply reformed mmp and saved some money. And off course limited the amount lobby groups can spend - it suggests that labour lite feel they can do well out of interest groups but is inconsistant with the rest of the policy.
Hmmmm, Andrew Little, Labour President....meet Andrew Little, Union Leader! as this election (as with all past elections), is there any real difference?
To all you people in the Unions, usually low paid, have you signed a waiver agreeing to most of your contributions going into Labour's campaign coffers?, no matter, you'll have no say in the matter.
Nice to see you writing a Blog on that old dog of a law the EFA when Clark is in town...marvelous.
Of course there will be a row in Parliament. Self-interest will see to that. But I think your concern is unwarranted.
Having big money (unions/big business/religious - choose any one) publicly backing a party will turn as many off as on. The Exclusive Brethren did Brash no favour.
Agree with your analysis and concerns Colin. The argument that the amount of money spent in favour of one party or another represents their level of support in the community and so is not anti-democratic doesn't stack up. It only takes an Graeme Hart or the Todd family to seriously throw their weight in one direction and your campaign is based on one person's/group's personal preference.
You also can't trot out the argument that the advertising has little effect anyway - otherwise they wouldn't be doing it.
Whilst you may not be able to buy an election, you sure can skew the odds in your favour based on the wealth of your supporters.
Either way it's unsound electoral law. Labour limited spending by 'third party' campaigners to fetter rich tory interests from screwing the election, and National is removing the cap on spending by 'third party' campaigners to release rich tory interests to screw the election as much as they like. Either way, democracy is the loser, not that you'll read that in Granny Herald.
Mike #2 - Why don't you wholeheartedly appreciate the work of Simon Power for once?
Any change to the election system that can get rid of the toxic Greens from the parliament is most welcome. Eddie #3 - Here a "Little", there a "Little", nothing but brittle. He is one of the waste elements of our party.
EFA was a panic piece of legislation by Her Excellency, Order of New Zealand, Dr Clark. It had to go.
The best part of the day was HEOON Dr Clark's appearance in Breakfast this morning. It was music to my ears when Pippa referred to our dear leader as "FORMER Prime Minister Ms Clark". Isn't that wonderful?
It isn't so much what's in the law that counts - it's how well people use their freedom of speech. Advertising is a bunch of soundbites, not a debate; what's missing is a dialogue. The election campaign will prove interesting. If GST goes up National are in trouble, especially if their plans to nuke the snails or attack teachers go ahead. I have no axe to grind for snails or teachers, that's just the way it is.
The EFA is just one of the crimes against NZ that ‘Her Excellency and Dear Leader, Order of New Zealand, Hon Dr Clark should be immediately banged up in Mt Eden for. As stated before about 30 years should do it.....
Can you imagine the list of NACT supporters? The Exclusive Brethren church, the Density(sp?) church, The Business Roundtable, Australian mining interests, private prison companies, Goldman Sachs, foreign investment lawyers, lawyers, Rupert Murdoch, Peter Shirtcliffe... have you tories thought this through?
All rise - On the House stands adjourned
Dumb and dumber: Axing Heather Roy
Carter commits political suicide
Green leader out of line with protest
Get Carter, but not because he's gay
Party's over for Labour's Hooray Henrys
Whinegate unlikely to sozzle the PM
English sprinkles the fairy dust
Schoolgirl sex video man guilty
Sir Richard Taylor named New Zealander of the Year
Dazzling Adele silences critics
Kiwis in cruise ship cocaine bust
Mallard offers ticket cash back
Sonny Bill Williams finds rugby boring: mate
'Starved, beaten' teen weighed just 32kg
No radiation leak on plane, says Fire Service
You are in town , Ms Clark . Care to comment ? No. didn't think so.