Politics
There are improvements, but not enough. This is a report card from election law experts regarding changes to political contributions proposed by the Minister of Justice.
The newly appointed Minister of Justice Kiritapu Alan believes that New Zealanders will renew their confidence and confidence in who is donating money to politicians after a number of election change proposals were announced on Monday. I am.
“New Zealanders should be very pleased with where these things landed,” Alain said, with political contributions and financial reporting being considered from all angles.
Acting Prime Minister Grant Robertson told the newsroom, given that he had time to make changes ahead of next year’s elections. His proposal was a “significant improvement.”
However, Tim Cooner, an associate professor at the University of Auckland, said the change did not meet expectations for transparency and increased voter confidence and confidence, but instead “takes a step in the right direction.”
“I hope all these little concessions don’t lose the big picture,” he said.
Due to this change, for party donations over $ 5,000, the donor’s identity must be disclosed. It’s currently $ 15,000.
In addition, the parties must disclose the number and total amount of donations less than $ 1500 that are not made anonymously, and the percentage of in-kind donations must be disclosed through the annual report.
Another important change is the need to report donations in excess of $ 20,000 from a single donor. The current threshold is $ 30,000 and donations must be disclosed within 10 business days of receipt.
This change lowers the threshold, but the 10-day labor requirement applies only to the election year and shifts to annual disclosure for the remaining two years of the political period.
In effect, large donations to political parties mean less frequently reported, but in theory, by the end of the political term, the lower thresholds reveal more money. Will be.
“One possibility is that the government wants to go further, but realizes that it can’t be done unless there is a replacement.”
– Graeme Edgeler, Lawyer
Robertson defended the revocation of disclosure for only two of the three years of the political cycle.
“There was an agreement that we needed to reduce the amount. The most important period was clearly during and around the election. The 10-day disclosure period within the election year shows that,” he said in the newsroom. Told to.
Couner said large political contributions need to be disclosed on a regular basis as they depict who is applying “pressure and incentives.”
He said that nondisclosure agreements are so important that loyalty between political parties and donors should not be hampered by paperwork when it comes to large amounts of money.
Wellington’s lawyer, Graeme Edgeler, said regular disclosure is essential to ensure transparency when talking about large amounts of money.
“If some industries donate $ 50,000 after the bill has passed Congress or a special committee, it’s useful to know it within 10 days instead of 15 months,” Edgeler told Newsroom. ..
Robertson discusses a “administrative burden” on the decision by the Ministry of Justice to lower the threshold for disclosing donations to $ 5,000 instead of the $ 1,500 proposed in the briefing paper to then Minister Kris Faafoi. I applied the weights of.
The message that both Robertson and Alan received in the newsroom was that the lower the threshold, the harder it was, and the landing site was in the right balance.
“As we go further down, management costs and burdens begin to balance what we’re trying to achieve,” says Robertson.
That wasn’t the case for Mr. Kuner, who said that “the discussion of executive branch burden is not very convincing.”
He said there are ways to reduce the burden, including real-time disclosure, and adequately fund the election committee to handle much of the workload.
Both Kuhner and Edgeler said the election amendment bill, which will be announced in the coming days, will provide more detailed legislative details about what the changes will look like.
It also provides information stating that the Kuomintang needs to decide whether to support the change.
“I hope all these little concessions don’t lose the big picture.”
– Associate Professor Tim Kuner, University of Auckland
National’s Chris Penk told the newsroom that the caucuses will discuss the proposed changes when they meet on Tuesday, but need to look at the bill to understand more about what that means.
However, Mr. Penk said the changes needed to fix the broken ones, and he wasn’t convinced that the suggested ones were.
He said there was a need to balance transparency and participation.
The ministry’s report recommends lowering disclosure standards for donations above $ 1,500, but Edgeler believes it is below that because fewer people will make donations if their identities cannot be kept secret. ing.
“One possibility is that the government wants to go further, but realizes that it can’t be done without a replacement,” he said.
Edgeler said parties would risk losing political contributions without any kind of funding safety net until a broader discussion of finances, which is part of a broader review to be released next year. He said he was reluctant.
All of these changes are in the midst of a high-profile donation scandal, with Labor, Kuomintang, and New Zealand First all leading to serious fraud charges.
Kuner said these investigations have surfaced many of the donation reporting issues, but the changes need to go a long way.
“We need to look not only at disclosures, but also lobbying. There are also conflicts of trust and interests in the company, and there may be sufficient registration of interests,” he said.
“It’s a huge ecosystem of economic influence.”