Unions receive money directly (and indirectly) from the government. They also donate money to the Labour party. Effectively, the Government pays for their electioneering using our tax dollars.
They have affiliations to maximize their political impact. They have many staffers that go on to become politicians. No surprises so far.
In their submission on the Electoral Finance Bill, the CTU wanted the $60,000 cap on election spending raised to $100,000. Perhaps that gives one an idea of their budget?
They also asked to limit this amount to external costs. Using staff and members to print and distribute material (free labour) should not be counted, especially in 'market rate' terms. A critical point was also to lobby to make sure 'communications' to members were not treated as political advertising. Last election, at least two unions were dobbed in for leaving these 'communications' in public places (reception desks etc). Within the news letter, they ask for members to distribute their election advertising to as many non-members as possible. Here is a sample of a member communication:
I don't want to regulate this any more than I wish to regulate the Exclusive Brethren publishing a brochure. But I'm not sure I want a system where tax dollars fund one, whilst denying the other the ability to spend their own money. It was never a level playing field to begin with. Any reform of Electoral Finance needs to be a wide ranging look at the total picture, with due consideration applied.
I can accept some of the aims of the EFB, and think there may be a place for disclosure, limits on spending etcetera, but what has been proposed so far seems only half thought out. People are focusing on the content of the EFB. What is missing, is what the EFB doesn't talk about. Finding what's missing takes more time than we (the public) are being given. And it is we, the public that should have more input into the controls placed on our MPs. They are voting for themselves, not for the people they supposedly represent. The rush to implement this proves that.
Name: ZenTiger
Address: NZ Conservative (The Blog)
Declaration: I declare this is not an election advertisement and that I have received no money to state my opinion.
They have affiliations to maximize their political impact. They have many staffers that go on to become politicians. No surprises so far.
In their submission on the Electoral Finance Bill, the CTU wanted the $60,000 cap on election spending raised to $100,000. Perhaps that gives one an idea of their budget?
They also asked to limit this amount to external costs. Using staff and members to print and distribute material (free labour) should not be counted, especially in 'market rate' terms. A critical point was also to lobby to make sure 'communications' to members were not treated as political advertising. Last election, at least two unions were dobbed in for leaving these 'communications' in public places (reception desks etc). Within the news letter, they ask for members to distribute their election advertising to as many non-members as possible. Here is a sample of a member communication:
PSA Special EditionRelated Link: PSA electioneering
Last month I took great pride in presenting, at the PSA Te P¯ukenga Here Tikanga Mahi 2005 annual general meeting, my first annual report since I was elected President.
It is a report that brims with the union’s achievements over the last year. It is a report that is real evidence of a union that is strong and active, and has been growing since 2000 - and one which we believe is making a real difference to the working lives of our 50,000 members.
It is also a report offering tangible proof that our strategy is successful. It must be acknowledged and recorded that the results we have achieved, and the plans we have for the future, would not be possible without the political environment that recognises unions and the contribution we make, and the agreements we have signed both with the Labour-led governments and with many individual public sector employers.
Those attending the July AGM also spent some time discussing next month’s general election, which is a crucial one for all of us. As you know, PSA has been proactive in collating and analysing the policies of the various political parties and making judgements about which ones we believe are in the best interests of members, the union movement, and New Zealand as a whole.
This special edition of the Journal is dedicated to election issues. PSA has a duty, on your behalf, to encourage and actively seek the election of a government that values quality public services and recognises the role of unions as social partners. The stories and information contained in the following pages aim to inform, and assist those reading them with their voting decision on September 17.
Your executive board is clear about their choice and made a decision some time ago to work at influencing opinion so as to return a Labour-led government. The differences in party policies relating to the public sector are stark – Labour’s continuation of investment in and rebuilding of public services, or National’s job and funding cuts and the reinstatement of industrial law akin to the Employment Contracts Act. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive how the choice could be made any more clear.
We are providing extra copies of this Journal special. We would like delegates and members to distribute them as widely as possible, including to non-union colleagues. The more information they have – particularly in relation to the differences between the party policies around public services – the clearer their choice at the election.
At the same time, ask them if they would like to join the PSA – the bigger we are, the stronger we are.
Finally, if you know of anyone who is not enrolled to vote, strongly encourage them to do so and steer them towards the Electoral Enrolment Centre, www.elections.org.nz or phone 0800 36 76 56. Voting is the only way to have your say. The importance of this election result cannot be overestimated.
Keith Gutsell
President
I don't want to regulate this any more than I wish to regulate the Exclusive Brethren publishing a brochure. But I'm not sure I want a system where tax dollars fund one, whilst denying the other the ability to spend their own money. It was never a level playing field to begin with. Any reform of Electoral Finance needs to be a wide ranging look at the total picture, with due consideration applied.
I can accept some of the aims of the EFB, and think there may be a place for disclosure, limits on spending etcetera, but what has been proposed so far seems only half thought out. People are focusing on the content of the EFB. What is missing, is what the EFB doesn't talk about. Finding what's missing takes more time than we (the public) are being given. And it is we, the public that should have more input into the controls placed on our MPs. They are voting for themselves, not for the people they supposedly represent. The rush to implement this proves that.
Name: ZenTiger
Address: NZ Conservative (The Blog)
Declaration: I declare this is not an election advertisement and that I have received no money to state my opinion.