In a carefully reasoned and comprehensive report the Independent Electoral Review Panel, comprising of some highly respected academics and public servants, has made various recommendations to the Government about the electoral system.
The Government has responded by immediately ruling out some of the proposals, without even the ability for there to be a reasoned and principled discussion about the report.
From Radio New Zealand:
Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith has ruled out several recommendations from the Independent Electoral Review set up by the previous government.
The minister on Tuesday released the final report, which makes more than 117 recommendations, after it was delivered to him at the end of November 2023.
Goldsmith ruled out action on some recommendations, including:
Lowering the voting age to 16
Allowing all prisoners to vote and stand for Parliament
Freezing the ratio of electorate to list seats, which would lead to an increase in the number of MPs over time
Repealing the offence of ‘treating’ voters with refreshments and entertainment.
So much for the hope of the panel that the matter be approached independently and with open minds.
The motivation for opposing the lowering of the voting age is clear.
Clearly for Seymour the important issue is who they are going to vote for, not what is right.
My personal view is let them have a say in who our leaders are. They have more at stake in the proper managing of our collective future than the rest of us.
Three proposals made by the panel that I believe needs to be given serious consideration are that donations from corporations and people not on the electoral roll should not be allowed, donations should otherwise be capped at $30,000 and that third parties should be obliged to disclose all donations they receive over $30,000 in value.
The Panel’s reasoning is contained in this passage:
58. Parties and candidates mostly rely on private donations and loans to pay for their day-to-day activities and for their election campaigns. In Aotearoa New Zealand, people have the right to support any party. While the law should enable this form of participation, it also risks enabling the exercise of undue influence through financial means.
59. We recommend that only individuals enrolled to vote should be able to make loans or donate to parties and candidates. This means that all entities, whether trusts, companies, trade unions, iwi, hapū, or unincorporated associations, would be prohibited from providing funding. They will continue to be able to participate as third-party promoters or by donating to third-party promoters.
60. Currently there are no restrictions on the amount that an individual may donate or loan to a party or candidate. We recommend introducing a cap of $30,000 per party and all its individual candidates for each election cycle. We also recommend reducing the amount of money that can be donated anonymously from $1,500 to $500. The reduction will improve transparency while still allowing for “grass-roots” fundraising. The rarely used protected disclosure regime for larger anonymous donations should be removed.
61. We make further recommendations in response to submissions about loopholes and avoidance issues. Registered third-party promoters who are required to declare their election expenses should also be required to disclose all donations over $30,000 received from any person (whether as a single donation or multiple donations) in an electoral cycle used for election expenditure. Increased monitoring and new offences would be required to enforce new restrictions on third-party promoters. These changes are needed to limit, for example, the potential for donors to collude with parties and subvert our recommended changes to private funding.
As to the first the right’s standard complaint is that the Unions fund the Labour Party. While it receives generous donations from different unions the amounts are dwarfed by those corporations give to the right.
In the 12 months to December 31, 2023 Labour received the following Union donations over the sum of $20,000:
It received no reported corporate donations over $20,000.
During the same period National received the following corporate donations over $20,000:
Act was also the recipient of considerable largesse:
Even NZ First received some big coporate cheques:
These are not the final figures for corporate donations. They are only the large amounts paid to the parties that were reported to the Electoral Commission.
The following table is my analysis of the potential change based solely on the large donations made last year.
| Party | 2023 Large Donations | Not allowed under proposal | Allowed |
| ACT New Zealand | $1,813,900 | $1,318,725 | $495,175 |
| Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand | $651,686 | $360,000 | $291,686 |
| New Zealand First | $831,141 | $621,141 | $210,000 |
| New Zealand Labour Party | $658,804 | $478,804 | $180,000 |
| New Zealand National Party | $2,429,816 | $1,562,796 | $867,020 |
| Te Pāti Māori | $50,000 | $20,000 | $30,000 |
You can see this would have a considerable effect on funding but if we don’t want our electoral system to be dominated by the interests of the wealthy the change is needed. The shortfall would be met by an increase in state funding and reallocation of the Broadcasting Allowance.
The suggestion that third parties should be obliged to disclose all donations they receive over $30,000 in value I believe that this proposal is overdue. Already there is concern that unregulated money is being used to tilt the electoral system to the right.
As I pointed out in this post the relationship between the Tax Payer’s Union and the right wing Atlas Network is of concern. In the post I said this:
In 2017 [TPU head Jordan Williams] highlighted fundraising as a major challenge. Back then the TPU’s income was $355 thousand and it had cash reserves of $11,000.
This has increased dramatically. From public records we are aware that last financial year ending December 31, 2022 it received $2.826 million in income and had nearly a million dollars in cash in its bank accounts. The return for this year will be very interesting. The change in funding over 5 years is stark.
And as pointed out by David Williams this funding was used last year to pay for polling at the national and electorate level, the issuing of almost 100 press releases, hosting seven political debates, publishing four policy reports, starting a petition, drafting alternative legislation, and rolling out a debt clock gimmick all between August 1 and election day. If only the left had a similarly resourced entity to drive policy formation and public opinion.
It has been suggested to me that all of TPU’s funding comes from small donations. If so it has nothing to worry about.
George Monbiot has described the effect of dark right wing thinktank money on elections graphically in these terms:
These junktanks are like the spike proteins on a virus. They are the means by which plutocratic power invades the cells of public life and takes over. It’s time we developed an immune system.
The proposal by the panel concerning donations would be the start of an effective immune system to protect the system from the distorting effects of donations by the wealthy. Which is why I suspect the Government will not have a bar of it.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress