Democracy reforms looking good

There are a range of contributions in the media claiming to discuss what is on the agenda for reforms of the electoral laws. I've already discussed the proposals of the Coalition for Open Government.

At the end of the day there has to be one key objective: to make sure the system is clean. To do that, there need to be clear rules in place that nobody can get wrong, and which make sure that all sources of funding are transparent and open.

The likely quid pro quo is that some expansion of public funding is required. That's fine. Parties are, under MMP, an integral part of the democratic process. Recognising that role and compensating for the inevitable reduction in funding flows that will come with greater transparency through some public funding is simple common sense.

If we only go half way, and make the funding system more transparent, then we probably reduce the information that voters will have at their disposal when deciding who to vote for. That would be bad for democracy and bad for all parties, no matter whether one or another might gain from it in the short term. Certainly it would be better than the status quo, but it would not be as good as a full blown reform that tackles both sides of the issue.

I'm looking forward to seeing the debate unfold over common months. Do we want a cleaner electoral system? Or are parties going to support instead the status quo?

Comments

[Craig]

Your sense of humour is a beautiful thing. The way you put "democracy" in your banner, that really had me laughing out loud, thanks.
The NZ Herald poll this morning is running at around 90% against tax payer funded electoral "reform". That is probably a temperature check of the electorate that is worth taking into account. Of course, we poor shmucks don't know anything or have just reacted to the poorly delivered media message.

[Gerrit]

At first look you are going to have to define a few of the terms used in the leaked documents.

1, What is a third party and who sets the rules on whom they represent. For example if I as a third party distribute anti NZ First material but not promoting either National or Labour, will the %60,000 cap fit under the National or Labour cap and who decides?

2, Define a union (who are going to be excempt)? If I get together with a whole string of mates and call ourselves the Lion Red Drinkers Union who will decide if this is a legitimate union? A huge loophole we can explore! Just think the manufacturers union, the federated farmers union, the self employed workers union, etc, etc.

[peter mck]

Jordan, this debate has only just started and already you have lost it. Especially because the proposal says "fuck you" to democracy and freedom of speech. Labour have put their own self interest above that of the nation and democracy. As Audrey Young says in the herald this morning (http://subs.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10433367) in particular “But the memory of that unfortunate episode is fresh. Labour's attack on the Auditor-General and the passing of retrospective legislation to validate invalid expenditure reinforced the perception that political parties will always put self-interest before public interest when it comes to political funding.

There are merits in many of the proposals, yet to be publicly released.

But most serve Labour's interests at the expense of National's."

Again Labour have under estimated the people - but this time they have reacted so quickly that I am amazed. Talkback radio lines are loaded with ex-labour voters who are now deserting your party because of this and other recent issues such as the anti-smacking.

NZers have an innate sense of fairness and they have immediately been able to see through this proposal.

To quote Helen Clark in 1999 - "clinging on to power is all that motivates this desperate and dangerous Government now"

That quote is now entirely appropriate for Labour in 2007. History does repeat.

[Insolent Prick]

Jordon,

Yet again Labour has massively misread the electorate, and made outrageous assumptions about what it thinks the voters will let it get away with.

This is not campaign finance reform. This is: "Cut off National's Donors while Protecting Our Own", and "Political Parties Raiding Taxpayers Funds" even more than last time, by stealth.

The truth is that Labour has run out of money, needs to change the playing field by legislating more public money for itself, and needs to choke off National's advantage.

Put up any disclosure regime you like, Jordon. Hell, even vote yourself a few million in public funds. I dare you to do it. The public will vote you out of office so fast, only to have National come in, get rid of public funding of parties, and then place the unions on the same footing as every other third-party campaigner, and you will be in opposition for a long, long time.

Labour just can't keep its thieving snout out of the trough.

[sdm]

Jordan

So Unions can spend money but business cant. What this is Jordan is a restriction in the participation in the political debate. Now, only those with-Labour can speak.

If it smells anti-democratic, looks anti-democratic, tastes anti-democratic then guess what? It probably is anti-democratic.

Insolent: I hope you are right, I really do. But with so many now dependant on the state for their primary source of income, one wonders how likely they will be to vote against Labour. But you are right - this is a sick, thieving government.

Oh and a reminder - I was a member of Labour - I campaigned for them. To everyone reading this please accept my sincere apologises for backing the bastards - I have opened my eyes and am now fully committed to getting rid of them next year.

Cheers
Scott

[Blighty]

Craig -- can you paste a link to that poll? I can't seem to find it.

[Craig]

Blighty - my apologies, it is on the nz.yahoo.co.nz website, not the Herald site.

[Craig]

damn- www.nz.yahoo.com

working and reading blogs at the same time......must learn to multi task more efficeintly

[Wash your mouth out]

I don't think Labour's plan would pass in its current form. The exemptions for unions and expat Kiwis, especially, should be chucked or at best modified to make them more neutral. I note that these exemptions are nowhere in the Coalition for Open Government's principles, which I endorse.

(I wonder how many of your commenters have actually read COG's principles? It's also odd that they're outraged at Labour "giving itself" election funding, but none have mentioned that National would get the same amount of funding. Are they opposed to a level playing field?)

But Helen has actually done a good thing in raising this issue. As things stand, donors can hide behind trusts or donate anonymously. Labour's plan would simply require them to be up-front about who they give money to; what's wrong with greater transparency?

[Blighty]

Craig - That's an online poll. Hardly scientific. Also, the framing of the question as an issue of taxpayer funding rather than transparent elections is suspect to say the least.

[Craig]

Blighty - I made no claims about it being scientific, I used the term 'temperature check'. By scientific you mean a survey sent to labour party members only? It's a random poll with around 3000 responses, it's a good temp check as to what peoples reactions are. I think you are also drawing a very long bow implying that taxpayer funding will ensure transparent elections. They are two seperate issues.

[Blighty]

"By scientific you mean a survey sent to labour party members only?"

Oh, I get it; that's humour. Because Labour supporters are objectively anti-democratic. How silly of me not to realise.

[burt]

Well current (as in today - now...) Labour supporters must be "anti-democratic" - they accepted retrospective legislation to hide undemocratic election spending. They still support the party that is proposing new legislation and hasn't even paid back the money it stole under the current legislation. How twisted is that - partisan, myopic, stupid - call it what you like.

[Mainly Politics]

Sorry, where did Jordan suggest that unions should be allowed to campaign but business shouldn't? I must have missed that.

Despite the frenzy this issue seems to have whipped up among some of the more frantic comment posters, I have yet to hear anyone articulate a compelling case for keeping political donations annonymous. What is so offensive about telling people where your dosh comes from? And if having to reveal where the money comes from would result in National's donor pool drying up, as you have suggested, what does that tell you about who is giving to National now?

I'm not the least bit surprised National and ACT supporters are opposed to state funding. The idea of a level playing field must be just horrifying to you.

[anon]

Why don't you ask Kit Richards why donations should be private?

This Government is the most vindictive, spiteful, loathsome collection of pond-scum the country has ever had the misfortune to be run by.

There are literally tens of thousands of New Zealanders who fear what will happen to them if they make their view of the government public.

Anonymity protects them from a corrupt regime.

[Insolent Prick]

MP:

Nothing stopping the Labour Party from going out, drumming up a decent membership, holding cake stalls and raffles, and doing everything it can to associate with a membership base to get money from them, as the National Party has done for the last 72 years.

The Labour Party has always relied on unions to pay its way at election time. It has tens of millions in assets under its direct control, with unions owning more than a hundred million in assets. Unions are direct funders and suppliers of support to the Labour Party. Unions are virtually exempt from Labour's legislation.

I don't care about the disclosure regime. But this legislation isn't about a disclosure regime: it is about Labour using its theft of taxpayer money last time to outspend everybody else illegally as a ruse to make all taxpayers pay their bills next time.

There already is a level-playing field on campaign expenditure. That has nothing to do with how campaigns are funded. There is no mandate for taxpayer funding.

Keep your filthy snouts out of the trough, FFS!

[burt]

Jordan

There is comment over on Rodney's blog about the nature of Canadian campaign funding rules. James Reid posts some detail here: http://www.rodneyhide.com/index.php/weblog/comments/whats_wrong_with_free_speech/P25/

In essence it boils down to a donation cap of $1,000 for an individual, $5,000 for a company. This way funding directly represents the parties support. IE: A party has to convince a lot of people and/or a lot of companies to get significant campaign funding. How would you see a scheme like this working in NZ?

[Razorlight]

There may well be merit in some of the proposals which are being put forward. But to introduce legislation which makes such a major chage to our electoral law without a clear mandate or the support of the National Party, stinks of self interest.

If Labour really believes in this reform they must campaign on it at the next election and allow the electorate to decide whether this is appropriate. Once they receive this mandate then push through these reforms.

It is still fresh in our minds that Labour overspent at the last election and have still not paid it back. To introduce this legislation now has the clear perception of desperation. The opponents to the reform will argue this line as well.

If you mistook the mood of the electorate over the overspending try and have some foresight now. By all means introduce a party policy, but if you push this through prior to the election there will be real anger out here in the real world and the Labour Party will pay by loosing the Treasury Benches.

If it is power you want I would advise you to not legislate until after the election

[tim barclay]

People are entitled to keep confidential their support for a political party. Next you will be advocating we do not have a secret ballot.

[Clint Heine]

I am all for donations being kept private. Anon is right, what happened to Kit Richards was appalling. Would love to hear what justification Jordan has for that case, and why Unions should be exempt. Locking National out of this is crazy, surely this won't progress further without some public consultation?

[Anon]

Now you are blatantly bribing the smaller parties! See http://www.stuff.co.nz/4021830a6160.html
How corrupt can you reds get? Why don't you set up a proper independent body to sort the new rules out rather than do it unilaterally?

[phillipjohn]

Gerrrit: "2, Define a union (who are going to be excempt)? If I get together with a whole string of mates and call ourselves the Lion Red Drinkers Union who will decide if this is a legitimate union? A huge loophole we can explore! Just think the manufacturers union, the federated farmers union, the self employed workers union, etc, etc."

ah, well firstly a union must "operate at arms length from management and employers", so there goes that dream.

Looks like the legislation will be going through and we will have state funding of elections, just as exists in most western democracies. The list below was posted over at kiwiblog yesterday. Evidently, in the countries where private funding predominates. Incidentally it is a fact that countries where private funding of campaigns predominates have higher incidents of cronyism and political corruption. It's time to clear out the hollow men.

Democracies and public funding for parties
------------------------------------------

Argentina: Yes
Australia: Yes
Austria: Yes
Belgium: Yes
Benin: Yes
Botswana: No
Brazil: Yes
Bulgaria: Yes
Canada: Yes
Chile: No
Costa Rica: Yes
Czech Republic: Yes
Denmark: Yes
Dominican Republic: Yes
El Salvador: Yes
Estonia: Yes
Finland: Yes
France: Yes
Germany: Yes
Ghana: No
Hungary: Yes
India: No
Ireland: Yes
Isreal: Yes
Italy: Yes
Jamaica: No
Japan: Yes
Latvia: No
Lesotho: No
Lithuania: Yes
Mali: Yes
Mauritius: No
Mexico: Yes
Namibia: Yes
Netherlands: Yes
New Zealand: No
Norway: Yes
Panama: Yes
Peru: No
Poland: Yes
Portugal: Yes
Romania: Yes
Sensgal: No
Slovakia: Yes
South Africa: Yes
Spain: Yes
Sweden: Yes
Switzerland: No
Thailand: Yes
U.K.: Yes (No for elections)
Uruguay: Yes
U.S.A.: No
------------------
Yes=75%
No=25%
N=52
-------------------

Adapted from Biezen and Kopecky in Party Politics VOL 13. No.2 pp. 242–243.

[Anon]

PJ: The idea of taxpayer funding of political parties is not unusual (your list should be amended to show the United States has such funding for presidential candidates) but a government using a partisan process to introduce such funding, after it was found to have broken the law last time, is outrageous, especially as it is now trying to bribe the corrupt NZ1 and UF parties to force the idea through parliament. You need to separate the substantive issue and the corrupt process Labour is following.

[phillipjohn]

Anon: while technically public funding is allowed for intra-party presidential candidate elections, it hasn't been used since the 1970s as hasn't been used because it doesn't provide enough money. Essentially, the government will match any money that the candidate can raise privately, up to a certain threshold. Unfortunately the threshold is set so low as to make it useless.

Yes labour is trying to level the playing feild between itself and National in the area of funding, so it could be seen as self interested legislation. But no one can tell me that any government doesn't want to stay in power. So the fact that Labour is legislating in its own interest is moot. Alternatively this bill can be seen as strengthening our democracy - i.e. politcal power in New Zealand will be more evenly dispersed - to my mind this is a good thing.

[Graeme Edgeler]

PhillipJohn - the list is inaccurate - the US offers a lot of public funding of elections to candidates (matching funds $1:$1 if candidates agree to a spending cap) and so does New Zealand (including indirectly through the Parliamentary Leaders' funds and directly through the broadcasting allocation).

[Anon]

But PJ, it is debatable whether or not the playing field is being levelled by these proposals. Remember that Labour has often out-fundraised and out-spent National, and the decision to give unions special rights to "communicate" to members creates a bias towards Labour (yes, I know there is the same provision for other organisations but conservative people, as individualists, tend not to belong to mass membership organisations so the provision favours Labour, as it is designed to do).

But, to the real issue, you admit Labour plans to legislate "in its own interest". Do you not see how outrageous that is when it comes to electoral law? Electoral law reform has always been done through a multiparty process because - till now - all our governments have had sufficient integrity to understand that maintaining the non-partisan nature and reputation of our electoral laws is vital to maintaining public confidence in our democracy. Even Muldoon never sought to manipulate, to his own advantage, our electoral laws. This really is a very dangerous development.

[Gerrit]

PJ,

"ah, well firstly a union must "operate at arms length from management and employers", so there goes that dream."

Who says? Is that law in which case which one? You saying an employer cant start a union? Or are employers associations and farmer organisations banned from electioneering because they are not "union".

How about lion red drinkers who are neither management or employer. Or members of workingmen or cosmopolitan clubs, even football clubs. Even beneficiaries could join together to become a "union"

Please point to a URL which defines what a union is under the electoral act Labour is trying to modify. I found this on google

http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&cr=countryNZ&defl=en&q=define:union&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

The word "union" covers workers and their relation ship with management PLUS a whole raft of meanings. So you need to define what is a union in the context of the electoral act the Labour party wants to modify.

If "unions" are as you define by your narrow interpretation as "workers only", then the whole process is flawed.

[Graeme Edgeler]

Gerrit - the definition you seek is here:

http://legislation.govt.nz/libraries/contents/om_isapi.dll?clientID=246575&hitsperheading=on&infobase=pal_statutes.nfo&jump=a2000-024%2fs.14&softpage=DOC#JUMPDEST_a2000-024/s.14

Section 14 of the Employment Relations Act 2000.

[phillipjohn]

"you admit Labour plans to legislate "in its own interest". Do you not see how outrageous that is when it comes to electoral law?"

well, yes, except when 75 percent of democracies around the world have laws very similar to those being proposed.

"Electoral law reform has always been done through a multiparty process"

The only parties opposing this will be the ones who have an advantage under the current system - i.e. those that receive proportionally the most funding from big business. For this reason National and Act (and possibly United future will be against it. New Zealand First, the Green Party, the Maori Party, and Of course Labour, will be for it. It is ridiculous to argue that a consensus needs to be reached to make any changes to electoral laws as there is clearly no consensus on the current laws. Therefore, the principals of parliamentary democracy must apply - i.e. the government elected by the people has the right to legislate on behalf of the people.

[red rag]

"while technically public funding is allowed for intra-party presidential candidate elections, it hasn't been used since the 1970s as hasn't been used because it doesn't provide enough money."

You really do talk crap PJ. Presidential candidates have often used public funding since the 1970's e.g. in 1996 when Clinton and Dole who both received approximately $62 million in public funding. I believe 2004 was the first election when both major condidates decided not to use any public funding. Whether the same will happen in 2008 is as yet undecided.

[phillipjohn]

GE: "the list is inaccurate - the US offers a lot of public funding of elections to candidates (matching funds $1:$1 if candidates agree to a spending cap)"

Technically you are correct. However, as I have shown in the post above, the provisions for elections are an irrelevancy as they are never used. So for all intents and purposes the list I provide above is accurate.

[phillipjohn]

"Presidential candidates have often used public funding since the 1970's e.g. in 1996 when Clinton and Dole who both received approximately $62 million in public funding."

well, ok red rag, that was a mistake on my part. However, my primary point still holds. That is, state funding of elections in the US is all but an irrelivancy.

To show this I will quote from the herals tribune. http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/04/02/america/NA-POL-US-White-House-Clinton.php

"However, in more recent elections top White House contenders say they can raise their own cash and do not need the spending limits that come attached to money from the taxpayer- financed presidential fund, particularly for the general election."

[Gerrit]

Thanks Graeme,

Pretty narrow definition which leaves out a large section of New Zealand society. Employers, Beneficiaries, Self Employed, Non Unionised Workers for starters.

Why should one section of society (unions) have priviledge under the electoral reform act and not other groups?

This is patently wrong. But I think looking at it now that it is a strawman to be sacrificed later.

[phillipjohn]

"Why should one section of society (unions) have priviledge under the electoral reform act and not other groups?"

As I understand, any company is permitted to communicate with its employees with regards to elections under the proposed laws.

[burt]

Come on phillipjohn, just come out as say what you really mean. Labour stacking the cards in their favour is in the publics best interest. Just like dipping into the public purse, just like ensuring that Darnton Vs Clark was killed off, just like retrospective legislation to ensure we never know how much has been spent on elections in the last 14 years, just like not prosecuting prima facie cases against Labour MP's.

As long as the Labour party insist on attempting to ram new legislation into play, without the blessing of the opposition, before they have repaid their debt's under the current legislation - we are all justified to think they are up to their usual power at any price tricks. Naturally partisan supporters will not ask the obvious questions - why would they use their own brains when they can just repeat the spin that spews from the party.

[Anon]

PJ says: "75 percent of democracies around the world have laws very similar to those being proposed".

I very much doubt that 75% of democracies limit communications by sector groups and individuals to NZ$60,000 for the entire year of election year as a way of silencing their political advocacy ... but provide an exemption for unions (who just happen to support the party proposing these laws).

PJ also says: "the principals of parliamentary democracy must apply - i.e. the government elected by the people has the right to legislate on behalf of the people."

This is totally wrong. Electoral law and rules are constitutional matters. While our constitution is unwritten, it is governed by convention, and the Government of the day is acting unconstitutionally if it uses a simple majority to change our electoral laws. This is not a situation where it has a mandate, or an issue of day to day policy - say, changes to the social welfare system. Labour's behaviour is even worse when you realise all parties in Parliament AGREE there needs to be changes, so it could achieve strong and satisfactory reform if it followed the more conventional and constitutionally proper process.

The big question is: Why is it trying to use a political/partisan process for this? What would be wrong with using the correct process? What is behind all this?

[phillipjohn]

Burt, to me this reform of the electoral act is about levelling the democratic playing field in this country - to allow ordinary, dare i say "main stream" New Zealanders more of a say in how this country is run. Because I believe in democracy, i see this as good for New Zealand.

You can frame it as cynically as you like burt, but this law change will be good for New Zealand, and I would support it regardless of the party proposing it.

[burt]

Oh really, you would support it irrespective of the party proposing it? So you are saying that if any party decided that it knew what was best for the country, while all the opposition were screaming foul play, you would support it?

[Anon]

PJ, you say that "this law change will be good for New Zealand, and I would support it regardless of the party proposing it". That is the point. It is not clear that these ideas could not gain wider support, so why the cloak and daggers, leaks to the newspapers, secret process. Why won't Labour do the right thing procedure-wise. Has it reached the point that doing the right thing is beyond it?

[burt]

pj

Do you vote based on the party that was ahead in the last political pool before the election ? Just interested in how your political compass is orientated, it's a genuine question.

[phillipjohn]

"I very much doubt that 75% of democracies limit communications by sector groups and individuals to NZ$60,000 for the entire year of election year as a way of silencing their political advocacy ... but provide an exemption for unions (who just happen to support the party proposing these laws)."

Actually, the proposed law change provides and exemption for Unions and companies when communicating with their members and employees, so it's not as biased as you try to make out. However, just to get rid of any confusion around this issue, I would have it abolished and make the restrictions apply evenly across all organisations.

[phillipjohn]

Burt:

"So you are saying that if any party decided that it knew what was best for the country, while all the opposition were screaming foul play, you would support it?"

If I agreed with the policy, then yes. Just as I expect a right winger would support a controversial National party policy that they agreed with, despite strong disagreement from the opposition parties.

And, to your second question - the answer is No.

[Spam]

"It is ridiculous to argue that a consensus needs to be reached to make any changes to electoral laws as there is clearly no consensus on the current laws. Therefore, the principals of parliamentary democracy must apply - i.e. the government elected by the people has the right to legislate on behalf of the people."

So PJ: By your reasoning, you'd also support a change to actually outlaw the opposition?

[phillipjohn]

"Electoral law and rules are constitutional matters. While our constitution is unwritten, it is governed by convention, and the Government of the day is acting unconstitutionally if it uses a simple majority to change our electoral laws."

I doubt you would ever get anything like a consensus on this issue - right wing parties rely on getting an undemocratic advantage derived from big business financial contributions/inducements. They would never vote for such a change. At the moment the New Zealand public has the opportunity to break free of the shackles imposed on the political process by big business.

BTW, you're right, we don't have a constitution. This is New Zealand, and the government is bound by the laws of New Zealand. As such, a majority vote will decide the issue whether you deem it "constitutional" or not.

[Insolent Prick]

Bullshit, Phillipjohn. This is not about the long-term health of democracy. Until 2005, Labour frequently received more in anonymous and corporate donations than National. Business backs not just a party they think is more friendly to them, but the party that is most likely to be in Government.

Labour just has its nose out of joint because in 2005 National received substantially more in corporate and anonymous donations than Labour. The issue isn't about anonymous donations and cronyism at all: anonymous donations are anonymous. If Labour wanted to tighten up anonymous donations to make sure they genuinely were anonymous, then I'd have no problem with that.

What pisses people off is Labour is using its presently shattered finances, following its illegal use of taxpayers' money last time, as an excuse to gift itself $3.5 million over the next term, rather than have to go out and raise cash and membership the hard way.

Most of the "democracies" you list do not have a long history of democratic government. New Zealand has a long history of democratic activism. It is mass membership, and the requirement to listen to its supporters, that has made the National Party survive over the last 72 years. Labour has survived 92 years without public funding of its activities. The only excuse Labour has got now is that it has run out of cash.

That is utterly despicable. If democracy can survive in New Zealand, with two strong political parties relying on mass membership for 72 and 92 years respectively, no Government should unilaterally gift itself a right to raid the taxpayers' purse without a full public mandate.

[phillipjohn]

"So PJ: By your reasoning, you'd also support a change to actually outlaw the opposition?"

um, no spam - if you read my posts above you will see that I believe strongly in democracy. Also, as has been established above, this proposed law change is very normal in advanced western democracies. A one party state, um, kind of isn't.

[phillipjohn]

IP:

It's an established fat that 100% of posts that begin with an expletive degenerate quickly into nonsensical rants. Your above post is no exception to that rule.

[phillipjohn]

ok, that last post was a bit glib, in fact occasionally you do produce at least a semi-reasoned argument IP, so I'll address this point you make.

"Labour just has its nose out of joint because in 2005 National received substantially more in corporate and anonymous donations than Labour."

Be this as it may, I still support this legislation. big business has had far more than its democratic say in how this country is run for far too long. As you point out, this has been the case under National and Labour party leaderships. As a result we have the second highest income gap between the richest 10% and the poorest 10% in the OECD - second only to the USA. To change this situation the Labour Party is proposing a law change that will bring us in to line with the vast majority of democracies around the world.

To paraphrase, I don't care who the corporates are donating to. Whoever it is, it dilutes our democracy terribly.

[Spam]

No PJ, you stated that the govt has the right to ram-through any legislation that it has a majority for.

Where do you draw the line? How do you determine what is "democratic" and what isn't? People here have argued that labours proposals are undemocratic, in exactly the same way that you have argued that banning the opposition is undemocratic. Yet you dismiss their arguments based on.... err... that your opinion is that they can do whatever they can get a majority for, because err.... Its democratic!

[Insolent Prick]

Oh, for fuck's sake, PJ. This legislation has NOTHING to do with the income gaps between the wealthiest and poorest in the OECD. New Zealand, by the way, is also the second poorest country in the OECD, and has not climbed up the rankings in the last eight years of Labour government.

Nor has this Bill got anything to do with your view about who should and who should not fund political parties. It is entirely about the Labour Party building in a strategic advantage for itself because it has run out of ideas, run out of members, and run out of cash, and the only way it can fight the next election is to raid the taxpayer yet again, after being caught out doing it illegally last time.

Labour has survived the last 92 years by having to communicate with its members and maintain a constituency, and solicit donations from them, in terms of time and money. At this stage in the electoral cycle, as a tired old government with nothing new, and having expended most of its political capital, it is struggling to maintain its support and funding base.

This is a fundamental change to the way political parties operate in New Zealand. The list you give is overwhelmingly stacked with new democracies: countries without a long-term history of mass membership and political activism. Simply changing the rules mid-stream because it happens to be to the Labour Party's advantage now, without any reference to the voters, is an utterly contemptible way to govern the country.