Jon Johansson on EFB
This is an excerpt from Jon Johansson’s speech to the recent NZ First conference. Jon is a political scientist from Victoria Uni and is not known as a far left ideologue intent on destroying the National Party. Thanks to Audrey Young for pointing me to this on her blog.
If one stands back, one can see that successive reforms have all moved in the direction of strengthening our democracy.
I also say here that despite Labour’s poor framing and handling of the Electoral Finance Bill This electoral reform is a necessary and natural step in strengthening our democracy.
As someone who also studies American politics I have the view that money and elections make for a volatile and unseemly mix. Too much money and any country risks losing its democratic character and sliding towards an oligarchy, something we rid ourselves of here in the 19 th century.
In the 1986 Royal Commission Report into electoral systems it was eloquently argued that if there is one area we should reasonably tolerate some limitations on our freedom of expression it is around how we elect our governments.
Make no mistake, the completed Electoral Finance Bill is not intended to, nor will it stop my mum castigating Gerry Brownlee if the mood takes her and if he is silly enough to knock on her door (Ron, you’ll be welcome mate). It is intended to, and will be a step in preventing the covert rorting of our electoral rules such as we saw in 2005.
November 14th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
what a crock..!
ending anonymous donations was trhe strongest democracy-strengthening aspect of the initial proposals..
that is nowhere to be seen..
hence..johansens words..(’you’ll be welcome ron!;..(shudder..!)
are that ‘crock’..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 14th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
So why have these successive reforms not led to a bigger voter turnout? The Local bodies faced the lowest turnout yet, and next year’s election you’ll see a massive ENV.
November 14th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
I don’t understand your objection Phil. The Greens strongly support ending anonymous donations but you are blaming us for that not being in the Bill?
As Russel said in his other post:
“We need to crackdown on the use of trusts to channel money to the parties and on anonymous donations. the Green policy is that anything over $1000 should be clearly identified as to the true source.”
November 14th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
so..why are you supporting/voting for a bleeding bill that dosen’t do what you want..
or are those words..just words/lip service/spinning..
i think it’s also called ‘talking out of both sides of your mouth’..
say one thing..do the opposite..
do you think we are all really stupid or something..?
and can’t see what you are doing..?
what you have been promised by labour..?
phiil(whoar.co.nz)
November 15th, 2007 at 11:41 am
“Jon is a political scientist from Victoria Uni and is not known as a far left ideologue intent on destroying the National Party.’
Not entirely true. As a former student of his, I can say Johansson had a rather irrational hatred of National and Brash in particular. Every lecture he would somehow bring up the Orewa speech, no matter the topic. He’d skite about how he spent the entire election campaign attacking National over Owera, and the impact he made etc etc.
Course if my politics class was anything to go by, he probably was as much of a joke during the last election as he was to us.
If Russel is going to ignore the Human Rights Commission’s objections to the ERB, and if you’re going to pretend the Bill is anything more than an attempt to kneecap democracy for your own gain, then you’re just as big a joke as Johansson. And I’ll never want to hear any of you talk about human rights ever again.
November 15th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
stuey
You are a trooper. But best to ignore Phil U. He is a troll and unable to see past his irrational hatred of the Greens. But do not be concerned. If Phil could write coherent prose, maintain a linear argument and accept that people who disagree with him might have a valid reason to believe what they do, he will remain marginalised shhouting pointlessly from the margins.
Note that on his frequently updated blog there are almost no comments. Since he is incapable of sensible debate there is no point debating with hhim.
Example: so..why are you supporting/voting for a bleeding bill that dosen’t do what you want..
You can tell him till you go blue that there needed to be reform, and after Labour (Burton actually, who paid the price)so badly screwed up the EFB it had to be fixed in select committee. But Phil will not listen. I do not think he thought that the status quo was better, or letting New Zealand First get control would be a good idea. He just will not understand that it is politics! He continues to act like a 15 year old baby punk with an ALF patch at an anti-vivisection rally on daffodil day!
Mike Heine
If Russel is going to ignore the Human Rights Commission’s objections to the ERB, and if you’re going to pretend the Bill is anything more than an attempt to kneecap democracy for your own gain,
Russel will be safe then. He has not ignored the HRC. And he (and the rest of the Greens involved) are doing their best to fix the bollocks handed to them by Burton.
W
November 15th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
..and are doing it by writing this from Metiria Turei. This is astonishing!!!
The Greens view on electoral finance reform is guided by three key principles. Transparency - that voters have a right to know who is funding political parties. A level playing field - elections should be a contest between different ideas and policies not a contest as to who has the most money - And finally avoiding state dependency
http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2007/11/greens-party-of-principle.htm l
Transparency - this was originally to be included but was then removed by your coalition partner
Level Playing Field - This is not achieved by making all/any interested citizen register before opening their mouth
Avoiding State Dependency - The Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill - which your party is supporting - provides de-facto state funding for political parties… relieving them of the need to seek financial support from their constituencies
November 15th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Y’know all the sturm und drang that is being flang about a bill which is presently in a completely unknown and unspecified condition inside the committee chambers, is totally and completely wasted.
When it comes OUT of the select committee it will have provisions vastly different from what went in, or it will be summarily jettisoned. I think we’ve all, at least all of us who are actual greens, made that clear.
It would be a good idea if the “select committee” would float a draft past the rest of the electorate… get additional comments and input and refine it further. If that is possible.
Otherwise I really wish you’d all just direct your comments to the committee or wait until the flipping thing is available to be read, and then we see what we (as greens) and everyone else think of it.
The less is known about a thing, the louder the disagreements. That’s why religious wars are so hard to avoid and end.
If you know nothing about the current form of the bill as it is being rewritten in the committee, then don’t talk about the damned thing as if you do. Since it is not public, most of you do not… nor do I. I made a submission… did you? I WILL wait to see what comes out before I decide that it is TEODAWKI (the end of democracy as we know it).
BJ
November 15th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
The least known thing in any religious war is which politicians are pulling the strings. When a political war is successfully disguised as a religious war it is almost impossible to bring it to an end. If you can’t see what the problem is you can’t fix it. Religion is just one of the populist causes used by politicians to justify unjust wars. ‘Democracy’ tends to be the deception of choice for politicians in secular societies.
November 15th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
bliss…(heh-heh..!..)
‘irrational hatred of the greens’..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 15th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
and is ‘bliss’ the state you put the animals into..?
y’know..?..those ones you eat..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 15th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
btw..sue kedgley in questiontime today informed the nation that every (raw) chicken sold in this country has campylobactor..
(…mmmm!!!!…eh..?…)
‘finger-licking good’..
eh bliss..?
the minister for food safety agreed with kedgley..
and advises you chicken eaters to ‘cook it well’..
and hey..!..wash your hands..!..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 15th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
davec
Transparency - this was originally to be included but was then removed by your coalition partner
Why blame the Greens for what Labour have done? Reading the letter from Meyt posted at keepingstock it seems the Greens are trying to put it back in.
Level Playing Field - This is not achieved by making all/any interested citizen register before opening their mouth
Again blaming the Greens for the stupid bollocks put there by Burton. The Greens are (again according to the link you posted) trying to get that stupid idea out.
- The Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill
WTF? What is that?
W
November 16th, 2007 at 12:12 am
well said bliss, that’s a good letter from Meyt. I doubt that any of indignant commenters on this thread or that one actually read it.
And did you spot that the davec words are actually copied from the Andrew who wrote to Meyt, and whose response is also republished in that thread
no wonder blogs and your views seem to be full of irrational indignant bullying hyperbolic doomsaying right-wingers these days, it’s because they just go around recycling each others words all the time, it gives them more time to make more posts.
November 16th, 2007 at 7:25 am
Russell,
If the Greens were serious about the EFB they would move an amendment at committee of the whole stage to abolish all anonymous donations above the discloseable limit. Will the Greens stand up for their principles or have they done a dirty deal with Labour to protect Labour’s anonymous donations so that they can become a coalition partner in a Labour Govt.
PS, in terms of the other thread, copyright rules were followed. If you dont think so, thjen tel me which ones werent, ok?
November 16th, 2007 at 8:39 am
davec said:If the Greens were serious about the EFB they would move an amendment at committee of the whole stage to abolish all anonymous donations above the discloseable limit
Might make a political point, I guess, but unless one of Labour or National vote for it, it will fail. And it is in the interests of those two parties to retain provision for anonymous donation, because they are the ones who receive them
November 16th, 2007 at 8:50 am
toad, National hasn’t received an anonymous donation in years (well, not a disclose-able one, anyway).
National’s secret donations come by way of trusts.
November 16th, 2007 at 9:00 am
The Greens seem to have succeeded in obtaining some sort of clamping down on anonymous donations in the EFB. The backroom deal appears to allow all anonymous donations under $1000 to escape declaration. If the Greens are opposed to anonymous donations in principle, then why agree to this? It strikes me that this could make the situation worse - in the sense that donors will be able to make unlimited donations to parties and the electorate will assume this isn’t happening. This creates a false sense of security.
Let me explain. Any wealthy individual, corporate or institutional donor will *in practice* still be able to give unlimited anonymous donations simply through making a large number of $999 donations. In practice there will be nothing to stop a party legitimately receiving $999 every day or every hour from an unknown source. These will not need to be declared under the Green-Labour proposal.
Bryce
November 16th, 2007 at 9:38 am
Might make a political point, I guess, but unless one of Labour or National vote for it, it will fail
Actually, it might show that the Greens are principled, and back up what they say they believe. We`ll see. The Greens should not be doing unprincipled backroom deals and present themselves as MPs who share the hypocrisy of Labour
Lets see that amendment. Then we`ll see how proncipled the Greens actually are, or whether they will just roll over and do nothing…
November 16th, 2007 at 10:21 am
“..And it is in the interests of those two parties to retain provision for anonymous donation, because they are the ones who receive them..”
what happened toad..?
just the other day you were telling us how you could raise/get anonymous funding for the greens ‘easy-peasy-as..’
remember..?
i have been expecting news of your ‘new mission’..
and now..?
(do you now resile from your earlier words/hot air’..)
and stuey gets all petulant..and chides us..
for not believing the ’spin’..
(heh-heh..!..eh..?..)
sometimes..ya just gotta wonder..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 16th, 2007 at 11:04 am
Phil said: just the other day you were telling us how you could raise/get anonymous funding for the greens ‘easy-peasy-as..’ remember..? i have been expecting news of your ‘new mission’..
I wasn’t advocating it. I oppose it, so of course I wouldn’t do it, was just saying that the current law would allow me to do it.
November 16th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
I have a scoop, apparently there is going to be a new sign at Auckland airport welcoming all visitors (and convicted terrorists seeking refugee status) it will read….”Welcome to NZ, you are now entering one of the most corrupt countries on earth”
Not only do we have an electoral system where a party receiving 5% of the vote can pass legislation that the vast majority of Kiwi’s do not want we also have a electoral system that allows all political parties to steal from the tax payer once every three years to fund their election campaign.
November 16th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
A party receiving 5% of the vote can pass legislation that the vast majority of Kiwi’s do not want?
No it can’t, don’t be daft. A minor party can only get legislation passed if a majority of the other parties agree with the minor party.
Or if they hypnotise them.
Hmm, maybe that is why National voted for Section 59 repeal, Sue B did voodoo on them.
November 16th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Come on Stuey, you are being economical with the truth and you know it.
Bradford’s disgusting piece of social engineering was part of an overall deal with Liarbore, they supported Bradford’s bill and you agreed to buckle under on the EFB.
I do not often agree with the Greens but I always thought you had principals, sadly it seems that the Greens are cut from the same old political cloth.
November 16th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
So why did National vote for it?
November 16th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Beats me Stuey, giving into Clarke was a dumb thing for the Nat’s to do.
The saving grace is that they will repeal the bill as soon as they gain power at the next election.
November 16th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Big Bro,
The Greens may have principals, its the principles that are lacking. And when principles get discussed on this blog, the Greens are silent. Especially as to why they are allowing anonymous donations to the EFB that they are, in principle, against.
The EFB is not only going to lose Labour votes, it will lose Green votes -and some of these Green votes will shift to the very party it is trying to get list votes off - the Maori Party. This blog may be called Frogblog but the Greens have now been exposed as Labour Party toadies until it can stick by its principles..
November 16th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
So why did National vote for it?
Because it was the statesman like thing to do, to reach a workable compromise and establish National as the party of the centre. And by doing so water down the bill to ineffective enough to please core National supporters.
Why did the Greens vote for National’s compromise amendment?
November 16th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Because the Greens have a policy of voting for legislation that does some good things even if there are other aspects of the legislation that we do not agree with. We do not storm off in a huff if we don’t get our way and then refuse to back the entire legislation (unless we feel that a proposed change alters the legislation too much).
This is why we are also likely to vote for the EFB, because although we won’t get every change we want to it, there are more parts of it we support than disagree with.
November 17th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
OK stuey. can you then explain why the Greens want to vote for the EFB without appearing to want to do an SOP on anon donations?
November 17th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
>big bro Says:
>November 16th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
>I have a scoop, apparently there is going to be a new sign at Auckland airport welcoming all visitors (and convicted terrorists seeking refugee status) it will read….�Welcome to NZ, you are now entering one of the most corrupt countries on earth�
Interesting. Transparency International have consistently rated New Zealand one of the five least corrupt countries in the world (out of about 180 countries). Are you now going to tell us that someone must have bribed them to say that?
November 18th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Funny you should mention them kahikatea. They issued a warning that passing the legislation validating electoral spending would affect NZ’s standing in a future assessment, should it pass. It did pass.
They also made a submission on the EFB.
I will not be surprised when their points are also ignored as Labour and the Greens press ahead with changing the electoral rules without extensive public consultation.