22 June 2014

Time to consider full state funding of political parties?

Mr Donghua Liu's claims of making large donations to the Labour Party are (as I write this) under dispute by party officials who say they can find no record of them. But there is no doubt about a $22,000 donation to the National Party in 2012. Either way, these donation scandals are embarrassing to both parties. Under Labour, Mr Liu gained residency, and under National, citizenship. Both parties are now being interrogated over Mr Liu's donations. For embarrassing donations, though, you can't beat that made by Mr Louis Crimp to the ACT Party in 2011. That was a cool $125,520, and then Mr Crimp was quoted by the NZ Herald as saying things that can only be classified as racist. Mr Crimp apparently believed that ACT would stop special treatment for Maori, but, as far as I can tell, his investment has not paid off.
Any large donation could be interpreted as an attempt to 'buy influence' in some manner. And not many people can afford to make donations of the size that Crimp or Liu have made. Not many people get the direct access to politicians that Liu is reported to have had. Mr Liu has stated, however, that his donations were made "in good faith without any expectation." He suggests that he may have been singled out due to his being Chinese. The fact that his residency and citizenship were granted by ministerial discretion and "against official advice" may of course be purely incidental.
One response to all of this is: "so what?" The big donations are publicly disclosed, so we should leave things alone. Political parties also receive direct and indirect support through parliamentary-services and electorate-office funding, and contributions to electoral campaigns, and that's quite enough tax-payer money. There are limits set on the amounts parties can spend on election advertising. So it could be argued that, in this country, you can't just 'buy' an election result (we the people decide), or 'buy' the policy decisions you want (no matter how much a donor gives, a government has to act within the law, including laws against corruption).
At present, we have a mix of private-donor and public funding of the parties. But a shift to full state funding would, some argue, put an end to the unfairness by which some parties (like ACT) get large donations and others very little, tilting the playing-field. State funding within a clear set of parameters would level that out.
Many sceptical New Zealanders would find the idea of paying more public money to political parties a hard one to swallow, I suspect. And others have argued that full state funding (and a ban on private donations) would mean that parties would become more disconnected from their constituencies. Fund-raising events are a lively part of the activities that keep politicians in touch with the people they represent, and they allow supporters to connect directly with their party leaders and MPs.
I would encourage more people to contribute small amounts regularly to the party of their choice (not necessarily as a full party member), and that would mean parties would have less reliance on the wealthy donors. Ten or twenty dollars a month are within the 'anonymous' bracket. It's better to have parties dependent on a large number of regular contributors than to go all out to schmooze a few rich donors.

08 June 2014

Will ACT return from the grave on 20 September?

Short answer: probably it will.
By announcing his resignation from Parliament (effective appropriately from Friday the 13th), Mr Banks has done all concerned a big favour. The House will have time enough to vote against a by-election in Epsom. (I can't see the Opposition being bloody-minded enough to insist on one.) And John Banks can be scripted out of the political soap opera.
Ever since the brutal take-over staged by Banks and Don Brash, the ACT Party has been headed down-hill. The PR disaster caused by the infamous cuppa tea meeting before the 2011 election cost National a significant percentage of votes and helped to propel Winston Peters back into the House. A one-seat wonder, ACT supported the National-led government, as planned. But it wasn't long before its sole MP was embroiled in controversy over donations to his earlier unsuccessful bid for the Auckland mayoralty. First he had to resign from his ministerial post, and now, found guilty of filing a false return, he has chosen to resign as an MP.
That's all history though. Banks's successors – Jamie Whyte as leader of ACT and David Seymour as candidate for Epsom – are fresh new faces. They are bringing ACT back to its ideological roots: oligarchic rule by private enterprise, fewer public services for the poor and the middle-classes, harsher welfare laws, tougher sentences, unregulated urban development, less government, more market, and a low and flat tax structure. All the stuff that most Epsom voters must love (well, they vote for it), and about enough to earn ACT one per cent of the party vote nation-wide.
Political memories are short. And the election is more than three months away. That's close to eternity in twitter-time. Moreover, National are embarrassed by their lack of likely support parties for post-electoral negotiations. It's highly likely, therefore, that, once again, Epsom voters will get the nudge-and-wink from Mr Key: don't vote for the National candidate, vote for the ACT guy. Doesn't matter who he is. Just vote and forget.
So, as the undead, it's likely that ACT will rise from the grave on 20 September to haunt the House for at least three more gruesome years!