If I were on the Justice and Electoral Committee

... and considering the Electoral Finance Bill, I would (contrary to what I had said before I read the Bill in some depth):

* insert a section preventing trust-based donations to political parties.
* tighten the rules on anonymous donations and those from third parties.
* increase the amount that third parties can spend, compared with the current proposals, and make the regulatory framework simpler with tighter definitions of what is restricted and what is not.
* insert a section providing for state funding of political parties.

That of course is consistent with what I advocated for earlier this year when the debate about public funding happened. I think these changes, together, would markedly improve the bill and reduce some of the criticisms of it that are being aired by all sorts of players.

Even better, I would never have brought forward a Bill like this in the first place. I would have created a six month commission of inquiry, starting last October, and included the political parties in its deliberations, and required it to hold Citizens Juries around New Zealand to also see what the public thought, in a sensible low key debate. Such a process would, I am sure, have led to quite different legislation being proposed, and would have turned it from what is being seen as a "partisan" issue to a much simpler and cleaner debate about how best to run our electoral system. It would also have meant it would be difficult for anyone to criticise the outcome, given the wide engagement that would have happened.

Note - because some have asked - yes I do support registration for third parties and spending limits on them, and yes I do support those limits for third parties and for political parties applying for the whole of election year.

The former to avoid a repeat of the Brethren/National Party skulduggery. The latter to remove any uncertainty about when the spending limit applies for, and to prevent a very rich party massively tilting the electoral playing field by massive spending prior to the current three-month spending limit period.

Comments

[Cactus Kate]

"insert a section preventing trust-based donations to political parties".

Why Jordan? Here is a list of Labour MP's currently using trusts to structure their personal affairs as disclosed in the pecuniary interest register.

Helen Clark
Rick Barker
Clayton Cosgrove
Shane Jones
David Parker
David Benson-Pope
David Cunliffe
Annette King
Lynne Pillay
Steve Chadwick
Harry Duynhoven
Steve Maharey
Mita Ririnui
Charles Chauvel
Dave Hereora
Nanaia Mahuta
Ross Robertson
Parekura Horomia
Mahara Okeroa
Dover Samuels

http://asianinvasion2006.blogspot.com/2007/04/matter-of-trust-for-labour.html

[Oliver]

Personally I think that this Bill is unlikely to become an Act so it will be interesting to see how Labour reacts when they fail to get a Bill through for the 2nd (someone correct me if I'm wrong on the numbers) time this year.

[Jordan Carter]

Kate - because I don't think intermediaries should be able to facilitate finance flows to political parties. If parties want money from people then the names should be disclosed. That is, in my opinion, what the law should be.

I suspect quite a lot of high income people have trusts. Where's your list of National MPs with the same?

Oliver - I am out of the loop. I'd be very surprised if nothing is passed, though. The government would not put forward a bill it couldn't get through in an area like this, and the changes which are being discussed by all sorts of people are likely to increase the chances of more MPs supporting the final bill, not decrease the chances.

[tim barclay]

Nothing about the 12 month rule. Nothing about the Government publicity machine. This bill is aimed at shutting down criticism of the Government and leaves it wide open the abuse of tax payer's money by the Labour Party. There should be NO Government advertising 3 months before the election save for the electoral commission. Third parties can spend what they like but with some controls 3 months before the election.

[anon]

What you are telling us here is that you blogged on a Bill you hadn't read, including saying that: "Anyone who opposes it in substance is essentially saying, "I want New Zealand to retain electoral finance laws that mean elections can be bought by the people with the biggest wallets"." Now you reckon you have "read" the Bill and reached a different conclusion. It is very unlikely you have "read" the Bill - it is nearly a hundred pages of dense legal writing. What you really mean is that the spin from the Beehive has changed, so you are changing too. Do you ever have independent thoughts?

On the question of trusts, you say: "If parties want money from people then the names should be disclosed. That is, in my opinion, what the law should be." This is how insane Labour thinking has become. Politics does not - or should not - start with "the party" which may "want money from people". It is people or organisations that decide they want to give money to the party because they support it. Why shouldn't a trust be able to give money to a party if the trustees decide the trust should support that party? Why shouldn't any of the Labour MPs listed above donate money to Labour out of their family trusts rather than personally? The problem Labour has with its fascist Bill is that because it wants to stop the (somewhat dodgy) Waitemata Trust from giving money to National, it is stopping all trusts from giving money to any party. Charitably, you could say this is unintended consequences rather than a direct attack on people being able to manage and use their money as they want - but that would also suggest the Government is incompetent.

[Cactus Kate]

Jordan

Several National MP's were named in the article as well. Thing is, National aren't opposed to trusts "for other people". Labour are.

A trust is used as a vehicle or "intermediary" as you call it, to avoid disclosure of assets in the pecuniary list.

[Insolent Prick]

Jordon,

I am surprised by this frannk posting of yours, and I would note that your engagement with commenters, and the feedback you're getting from most comments, is of a very high standard. I note your honesty in finally deciding to pan a piece of shoddy legislation which not even you can argue in favour of, despite your original assertion, some weeks ago, that anybody who was opposed to the Bill was anti-democracy.

Here's a question for you. If the Select Committee came back to the House with all those changes as you've proposed, with the exception of the public funding option, would you support it?

If the Labour Party put up a supplementary order paper including a public funding model, after the Select Committee reported back to the House, would you be in favour of that?

[dave]

Jordan, would you suport the bill if the select committee did what you propose - despite you saying nothing about the Jan 1 rule or the definition of an election advertisment being "any form or words or graphics".

[Adolf Fiinkensein]

Jordan, why don't you concede that you're fucked and broke and you want to steal my money for your next campaign?

[Jordan Carter]

Adolf - because I'm not into lying. If you want to get into the gutter that's fine by me. You've got it all to yourself.

Others - I forgot to mention the 1 yr rule. I support that. The period will give absolute certainty to political parties and all other players about what time period is covered, and removes the ability of an incumbent government to "trap" an opposition party through suddenly calling an election and suddenly including spending on campaigning in the cap when that was not expected.

IP - I'm not opposed to the legislation, I am opposed to some parts of it and support others. I do think we need tighter restrictions on electoral finance, including spending by third parties, given the rort that happened at the 2005 election with the Brethren etc. I think anyone who opposes the current bill in toto is a bit mental. Cleaner funding is a good thing for democracy and even as it is now, the Bill will clean things up. I just happen to think it can be done better.

Anon - if I say I've read something, I've read it. In my working life I spend quite a lot of time reading statutes. If you think this bill is complex, I suggest you try reading the Telecommunications Act sometime! In terms of trusts: what is not acceptable is for funds to be laundered through trusts. Either, you ban trusts from donating funds. Or, you require trust donations to disclose the contact details and names of the people who financed them for the purposes of the political donation. The aim is transparency. I don't care about the method that much.

Tim - I support the 11 month rule. I am not convinced that government publicity should be banned. Government policies do need to be communicated to the public. They should be done in a manner that focuses on policy not politics. Given the competitive electoral environment and the scrutiny which all such advertising next year will inevitably receive, I think officials are going to be pretty damn careful. Don't you?

[burt]

Jordan

You should leave the country more often. It's good to hear your views on this.

Transparency is not something many trust the Labour party to do well. For this reason a nonpartisan approach as you suggest is essential with such an important piece of legislation. Labour's credibility hits the floor for proposing such a twisted piece of legislation in such a partisan way. Their arrogance has not gone down well with the public. However I'm pleased that you have also opened your mind to the idea that blatant manipulation of the battle for the hearts and minds come election time is just not cricket.

[dad4justice]

Great to see you write this Jordan . You seem to be rather light with red coat allied support troops on this thread . Do you want me to jump fence and attack these naughty blue coat nats ? Yeah right !!

[anon]

Jordan says: "Given the competitive electoral environment and the scrutiny which all such advertising next year will inevitably receive, I think officials are going to be pretty damn careful. Don't you?"

No. I think that the Beehive is going to force departments to make these advertising campaigns highly political. For example, with climate change, many millions of dollars of advertising is planned - and the govt has said this advertising is "political sensitive", in the context of firing Madeleinne Setchell.

The Labour Party has shown in recent weeks that it will say and do ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING to stay in power. Twisting a few ad campaigns to make them favourably to Clark is the least we can expect.