Transparency

One comment on “Transparency ”

• Comments are now closed

1. doc whose asking 1

   3 June 2009 at 11:53 am

   well done that blogger – I’d been hoping one of the week’s lead stories so far might surface here..

   from your link:—

   Mr Key said the fallout from the British scandal could not be ignored.

   “We can’t sit back and be blind to the fact that what happened in the United Kingdom has increased pressure from voters around the world for a higher level of transparency.”

   To some extent the “british scandal” is media mojoed (Daily Telegraph not least, aka advantaging tories, of which in enzed NACT would hold sympathies etc and so perhaps hope for political advantage in like disclosures)..

   Tis, however, the “pressure from voters around the world” to which this comment is addressed..

   Received this day a full-on coverage of which the following clip illustrates..(my emphasis)

   Mr. Peterson, whose constituents include farmers, who are historically suspicious of Wall Street and whose livelihoods depend on efficient markets, is a longstanding critic of loose regulation. And since his committee oversees the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, he would retain more of his prerogatives overseeing the market if the C.F.T.C. were the main regulator.

   Mr. Peterson’s bill specifically bars derivatives trading in a clearinghouse regulated by the New York Federal Reserve, which he said in an interview “is a tool of the big banks’ that “wouldn’t do much’ to regulate the contracts.

   Because the banks’ lobbyists persuaded some of his Republican colleagues to resist more sweeping changes, Mr. Peterson said, he has had to modify a bill he introduced that is similar to Mr. Harkin’s in calling for wide-ranging limits on derivatives.

   “The banks run the place,’ Mr. Peterson said. “I will tell you what the problem is — they give three times more money than the next biggest group. It’s huge the amount of money they put into politics.’

   As a result of the lobbying efforts, champions of broad-based regulation are concerned that proposals will be significantly limited by banking interests.

   “The outrage among the public means that things have a chance to change, if things move quickly,’ said Michael Greenberger, a professor at the University of Maryland Law School and a former director of trading and markets at the C.F.T.C. “We’re in this brief moment of time when the average citizen is on a level playing field with the lobbyist.’

   To which I’d ask that insofar transparent ‘expenses’ declarations and disclosures by politicians be made known to the Parliament and voting public of New Zealand, do not settle for less than detail of who sees whom and wherever in the manner of their likely business and expenses.

   Oh yes, I heard (RNZ) a minister in the government this morning say that one-to-one contact/communication would be going too far in disclosure terms. Which, given the nature of this business, amounts to a singular admission.

   But should it, why can’t others – whether minister, committeed, appointee, or not – be enabled make their own case as opposed one presumed rule for all.

   Affiliations, too. As the above story makes patently clear lobbyists can hold multi-positions and interests. As can MPs.

   And looking at the NZH’s list of expenes a bunch of loopholes look possible..

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS