It is like how you can tell the Coalition is more scared of the Green Party than Labour as they spend a lot more time trying to write them off as loony lefties etc. When they are attacking you, you know you are doing a good job
".. illegal for government to engage with unregistered lobbyists .."
Whilst government lobbying can be a very uneven playing field in my view restricting who can communicate with politicians would be: a) contrary to democratic principles b) create a new class of ticket clippers, licensed lobbyists ... please no.
Rather I suggest much of the problem and the solution lies with government itself, which needs to shift the culture away from being beguiled and captured by those perceived as "big" players, not only when it comes to lobbying but also procurement and other matters.
A significant part of the solution is of course much of the point of a 4th estate, i.e. the very task that you have set yourself Bryce, where MSM is failing so miserably.
Do you really think that the current coalition government partners will realize the error of their ways and stop being influenced by lobbyists for rich corporations and people? I seriously doubt it, as it is a winning formula for them, where they get large donations to help them win further electrinos - so why on Earth would they stop?
As for the 4th Estate, the mainstream media is increasingly being controlled by rich and powerful people, so we cannot expect them to help. There are some lone voices in the wilderness, like Bryce here, Bernard Hickey, Gary Payinda, etc but the tiny proportion of people listening to them currently means that the 4th Estate is pretty useless in the fight.
Regulation of lobbying is the only realistic answer - and it will probably take a change of government to make it happen - but it will come eventually
Attempting to legislate away unfairness in lobbying I suggest has as much chance of success as legislating against hate speech and would be a similarly authoritarian, neo-socialist style attempt at applying red tape to force human nature into submission.
To me much of the answer is electing better Government with a compelling, achievable vision for New Zealand and strategy to get there. This would cut through much of the self-interested lobbying, though I don't see any realistic candidates waiting in the wings. The National part of the coalition is a disappointment in this and many other respects, not helped by a woke, unimaginative corporate manager as a leader.
That said, I still very much support Bryce calling out potential corruption wherever it raises its ugly head.
So, we just need to elect better politicians - seriously? How do we stop electing "corruptible" politicians when those are the very ones who get the biggest budgets from donors to spend on their election campaigns so that they can get themselves elected? That's not going to happen in the real world.
If we don't regulate, or otherwise shine a light on lobbying and lobbyists, then nothing will change - we can't seriously expect things to get better, when they have been getting worse when left to their own devices
Shining a light on potentially unfair lobbying is exactly the right thing to do. Indeed, one place where more light should be shined is throughout the country where formal arrangements have or are being established providing direct access to local councils by self-interested tribal lobby groups well beyond that which is available to everybody else.
More generally, electing better politicians I suggest is largely down to voters understanding what one of those looks like, itself a problem. It would undoubtedly help if there were better ways of enabling voters to look past glib manifestos that only say what people want to hear.
So information and transparency are for me the key rather than attempting to censor lobbying, or much of anything else really.
By "Tribal lobby groups" I presume you mean Maori - that generous people who signed a treaty that allowed europeans to come and live in their country, but which retained special rights for them which correctly gives them more access to decision makers as they are guardians of the land, water, sea and air. The "eveyone is equal" argument forgets that we signed up to unequal rights in exchange for being allowed to live here. And the many abuses of the treaty by pakeha over the years do not mean the treaty is dead or irrelevant or can be rewritten by pakeha unilaterally. And the pittance paid in recompense for all that was taken illegally, which is less in total than the $2.9bn landlords received in tax breaks over just 4 years, does not balance the scales. Maori have special rights - the treaty of waitangi says so, and always will - get used to it
There is nothing at all in the three very simple articles of the Treaty of Waitangi where it was agreed that Maori tribes should be provided with special access to NZ decisions makers over and above the access provided to any other group or individual.
When a wealthy business owner on the other side of the table from you tells you they've been pushing Minister X hard towards their thinking - you realise it's not a level playing field. Glad the Institute is lifting the lid on the lobby game.
Brilliant Bryce. Unfortunately, integrity is something missing from most of your critics. Keep up the great writing. Perhaps go full Stephen King at some point and talk about the inequality fuse being lit by the wealthy and wax lyrical about its detonation. Inequality, after all, if pushed too far, is ultimately combustible.
Did they Post give you a right of reply to the criticisms from lobbyists, before they published the article? If not, why not? The Post appears to be heading the same way as The Herald did, and changes in ownership are only going to make mainstream media worse than it was before
It would make sense for all groups meeting with government to have their meetings recorded on a register, whether they are lobbyists or advocacy groups, so we can all see who politicians decide to meet with. We already know that the Minister of Workplace Relations doesn't see meeting with Union representatives as necessary, while she regularly meets with organizations representing business interests - it would be good to see that in black and white in a register. Can you imagine if a Labour-led government met regularly with Unions but refused to meet with business-people? The outcry would be huge
There is a fundamental difference between lobbyists promoting, say, a tax break or a subsidy for a business, and a union lobbying for the greater good of its members, as Bryce wrote in his article. I have witnessed teacher organizations on many occasions and generally they were the advocates for bettering the lives and learning opportunities of our children. One word which comes to mind which is missing from the rhetoric of most lobbyists is "ethics". In public life I often sat quietly and reflected that the person sitting in front of me complied with the definition of "hire a liar".
Public sector unions should not be considered lobbyists because their interests as employees are directly opposed to the interests of government as the employer. Therefore they cannot surreptitiously persuade government to put in place measures which are of material benefit to the membership of those unions when such measures will by definition cost the government money. Unions can make constructive suggestions to government about anything affecting their field of interest, but that is all. As soon as they start advocating for their workers in the matters of remuneration or conditions they are directly at odds with government and there is no possibility of connivance. Corporate lobbyists are different. They can lobby for actions which do not harm or cost the government directly, but benefit the corporation and do collateral harm to society. That is the only kind of lobbying that constitutes an abuse of democracy. (The letting of government contracts is a separate issue, where full transparency must apply. In that situation lobbying does not matter, it is part of the process. However the process of awarding contracts must be transparent. In New Zealand it is usually highly opaque. We never know why a particular company has been given a contract, and in many cases it can be put down to straight political corruption).
And yet, can you name something that the PSA has "won" for its members that is as bad for society as the tobacco lobbyists getting the government to drop the Smoke Free NZ legislation, of them getting tax breaks for Philip Morris's heated tobacco vape products?
If you think Unions are a dangerous as corporate lobbyists, then you are not looking at reality
I imagine trying to extract $12b from the public purse for imagined parity between social workers and air traffic controllers might be comparable — in the sense that is $12b that can't be spent on health, say.
Some harms are more direct than others — but indirect harms can be just as damaging.
Whereas gifting $2.9bn in tax breaks to landlords, who are already amongst the most wealthy in NZ, is perfectly fine - NZ Propert Council lobbied for that. And not all of that $12bn was for social workers vs air traffic controllers as you well know - that was the extreme case latched upon to justify stopping it all - much of it was for direcrtly comparable jobs - and the public purse should be used to right wrongs - like for Treaty Settlements which in total to date are less than the $2.9bn tax break Landlords will get over just 4 years, and yet we have people talking about maori being priviliged. We live in a selfish, screwed up country
As soon as you describe reinstating tax deductibility for landlords as a "tax break" you are demonstrating a degree of financial illiteracy that reduces my willingness to take any of your points seriously.
It's a standard deduction of expenses available to any business.
People are using the terms tax relief and tax break interchangeably in this situation, and nobody misunderstands what they mean - why do you find it so hard? It is not financial illiteracy, but a matter of perspective, and either term is equally valid - you playing the card that it means I am financially illiterate is lazy and probably means you just have no answer to the points made, so you try to wave it away using semantics - very like people who used to say they don't take your points seriously because you made a spelling mistake in your response or had an apostrophe in the wrong place, because they had no real answers - a truly pathetic tactic.
Interestingly, this government said we are broke as a country but then increased national borrowing at the same time they gave this tax relief to landlords - they claimed that "no, the borrowing was for something else, not for interest deductibility" - nonsense - the additional borrowing would not have been required if they did not reinstate tax deductibility on mortgage payments - the Minister lied and did not resign, as she had promised to do if more borrowing was required to fund this tax relief.
Beside, at the same time the government reinstated tax deductibility for residential landlords, they actually put that tax burden back for commercial landlords - so why is that not a standard deduction of expenses available to any business - why is renting property for housing given advantages that renting commercial building space to businesses is not?
Explain that without looking financially illiterate yourself
Almost all the issues ( national and international) that are closest to my heart, they all have one thing in common. They are by definition “wicked problems” ( not ‘evil’ but devilishly complex and for various reasons, highly resistant to resolution) E.g. Housing, climate change, poverty, justice, the arms race, peace on earth, et al.
This morning’s “A ha!” moment was realising that passing powerful laws and rules about lobbying ( or electoral reform) are Not in that category. Yes, some powerful players / vested interests resist, but actually the issues are not especially complex or hard to understand or difficult to resolve.
Keep hitting those nerves Bryce
It is like how you can tell the Coalition is more scared of the Green Party than Labour as they spend a lot more time trying to write them off as loony lefties etc. When they are attacking you, you know you are doing a good job
Jordan Williams got an extensive write up in "Dirty Politics'. Nothing I have seen since convinces me he has changed since then.
Thanks for your work on behalf of public interests. So important
".. illegal for government to engage with unregistered lobbyists .."
Whilst government lobbying can be a very uneven playing field in my view restricting who can communicate with politicians would be: a) contrary to democratic principles b) create a new class of ticket clippers, licensed lobbyists ... please no.
Rather I suggest much of the problem and the solution lies with government itself, which needs to shift the culture away from being beguiled and captured by those perceived as "big" players, not only when it comes to lobbying but also procurement and other matters.
A significant part of the solution is of course much of the point of a 4th estate, i.e. the very task that you have set yourself Bryce, where MSM is failing so miserably.
Do you really think that the current coalition government partners will realize the error of their ways and stop being influenced by lobbyists for rich corporations and people? I seriously doubt it, as it is a winning formula for them, where they get large donations to help them win further electrinos - so why on Earth would they stop?
As for the 4th Estate, the mainstream media is increasingly being controlled by rich and powerful people, so we cannot expect them to help. There are some lone voices in the wilderness, like Bryce here, Bernard Hickey, Gary Payinda, etc but the tiny proportion of people listening to them currently means that the 4th Estate is pretty useless in the fight.
Regulation of lobbying is the only realistic answer - and it will probably take a change of government to make it happen - but it will come eventually
Attempting to legislate away unfairness in lobbying I suggest has as much chance of success as legislating against hate speech and would be a similarly authoritarian, neo-socialist style attempt at applying red tape to force human nature into submission.
To me much of the answer is electing better Government with a compelling, achievable vision for New Zealand and strategy to get there. This would cut through much of the self-interested lobbying, though I don't see any realistic candidates waiting in the wings. The National part of the coalition is a disappointment in this and many other respects, not helped by a woke, unimaginative corporate manager as a leader.
That said, I still very much support Bryce calling out potential corruption wherever it raises its ugly head.
So, we just need to elect better politicians - seriously? How do we stop electing "corruptible" politicians when those are the very ones who get the biggest budgets from donors to spend on their election campaigns so that they can get themselves elected? That's not going to happen in the real world.
If we don't regulate, or otherwise shine a light on lobbying and lobbyists, then nothing will change - we can't seriously expect things to get better, when they have been getting worse when left to their own devices
Shining a light on potentially unfair lobbying is exactly the right thing to do. Indeed, one place where more light should be shined is throughout the country where formal arrangements have or are being established providing direct access to local councils by self-interested tribal lobby groups well beyond that which is available to everybody else.
More generally, electing better politicians I suggest is largely down to voters understanding what one of those looks like, itself a problem. It would undoubtedly help if there were better ways of enabling voters to look past glib manifestos that only say what people want to hear.
So information and transparency are for me the key rather than attempting to censor lobbying, or much of anything else really.
By "Tribal lobby groups" I presume you mean Maori - that generous people who signed a treaty that allowed europeans to come and live in their country, but which retained special rights for them which correctly gives them more access to decision makers as they are guardians of the land, water, sea and air. The "eveyone is equal" argument forgets that we signed up to unequal rights in exchange for being allowed to live here. And the many abuses of the treaty by pakeha over the years do not mean the treaty is dead or irrelevant or can be rewritten by pakeha unilaterally. And the pittance paid in recompense for all that was taken illegally, which is less in total than the $2.9bn landlords received in tax breaks over just 4 years, does not balance the scales. Maori have special rights - the treaty of waitangi says so, and always will - get used to it
There is nothing at all in the three very simple articles of the Treaty of Waitangi where it was agreed that Maori tribes should be provided with special access to NZ decisions makers over and above the access provided to any other group or individual.
When a wealthy business owner on the other side of the table from you tells you they've been pushing Minister X hard towards their thinking - you realise it's not a level playing field. Glad the Institute is lifting the lid on the lobby game.
Brilliant Bryce. Unfortunately, integrity is something missing from most of your critics. Keep up the great writing. Perhaps go full Stephen King at some point and talk about the inequality fuse being lit by the wealthy and wax lyrical about its detonation. Inequality, after all, if pushed too far, is ultimately combustible.
When will it become time to "Eat the Rich!". I have no idea why cannibalism is always portrayed in such a negative light these days
I’ll bring my spice rack….
Did they Post give you a right of reply to the criticisms from lobbyists, before they published the article? If not, why not? The Post appears to be heading the same way as The Herald did, and changes in ownership are only going to make mainstream media worse than it was before
As an interested onlooker i wonder why teachers and unionists are not included as
known lobbyists. the 3 that are mentioned are known right of centre- what about 3 who are known as left of centre/
It would make sense for all groups meeting with government to have their meetings recorded on a register, whether they are lobbyists or advocacy groups, so we can all see who politicians decide to meet with. We already know that the Minister of Workplace Relations doesn't see meeting with Union representatives as necessary, while she regularly meets with organizations representing business interests - it would be good to see that in black and white in a register. Can you imagine if a Labour-led government met regularly with Unions but refused to meet with business-people? The outcry would be huge
There is a fundamental difference between lobbyists promoting, say, a tax break or a subsidy for a business, and a union lobbying for the greater good of its members, as Bryce wrote in his article. I have witnessed teacher organizations on many occasions and generally they were the advocates for bettering the lives and learning opportunities of our children. One word which comes to mind which is missing from the rhetoric of most lobbyists is "ethics". In public life I often sat quietly and reflected that the person sitting in front of me complied with the definition of "hire a liar".
Public sector unions should not be considered lobbyists because their interests as employees are directly opposed to the interests of government as the employer. Therefore they cannot surreptitiously persuade government to put in place measures which are of material benefit to the membership of those unions when such measures will by definition cost the government money. Unions can make constructive suggestions to government about anything affecting their field of interest, but that is all. As soon as they start advocating for their workers in the matters of remuneration or conditions they are directly at odds with government and there is no possibility of connivance. Corporate lobbyists are different. They can lobby for actions which do not harm or cost the government directly, but benefit the corporation and do collateral harm to society. That is the only kind of lobbying that constitutes an abuse of democracy. (The letting of government contracts is a separate issue, where full transparency must apply. In that situation lobbying does not matter, it is part of the process. However the process of awarding contracts must be transparent. In New Zealand it is usually highly opaque. We never know why a particular company has been given a contract, and in many cases it can be put down to straight political corruption).
Good point, Robin. The PSA is one of the biggest, most powerful lobbying groups in the country.
And yet, can you name something that the PSA has "won" for its members that is as bad for society as the tobacco lobbyists getting the government to drop the Smoke Free NZ legislation, of them getting tax breaks for Philip Morris's heated tobacco vape products?
If you think Unions are a dangerous as corporate lobbyists, then you are not looking at reality
I imagine trying to extract $12b from the public purse for imagined parity between social workers and air traffic controllers might be comparable — in the sense that is $12b that can't be spent on health, say.
Some harms are more direct than others — but indirect harms can be just as damaging.
Whereas gifting $2.9bn in tax breaks to landlords, who are already amongst the most wealthy in NZ, is perfectly fine - NZ Propert Council lobbied for that. And not all of that $12bn was for social workers vs air traffic controllers as you well know - that was the extreme case latched upon to justify stopping it all - much of it was for direcrtly comparable jobs - and the public purse should be used to right wrongs - like for Treaty Settlements which in total to date are less than the $2.9bn tax break Landlords will get over just 4 years, and yet we have people talking about maori being priviliged. We live in a selfish, screwed up country
As soon as you describe reinstating tax deductibility for landlords as a "tax break" you are demonstrating a degree of financial illiteracy that reduces my willingness to take any of your points seriously.
It's a standard deduction of expenses available to any business.
People are using the terms tax relief and tax break interchangeably in this situation, and nobody misunderstands what they mean - why do you find it so hard? It is not financial illiteracy, but a matter of perspective, and either term is equally valid - you playing the card that it means I am financially illiterate is lazy and probably means you just have no answer to the points made, so you try to wave it away using semantics - very like people who used to say they don't take your points seriously because you made a spelling mistake in your response or had an apostrophe in the wrong place, because they had no real answers - a truly pathetic tactic.
Interestingly, this government said we are broke as a country but then increased national borrowing at the same time they gave this tax relief to landlords - they claimed that "no, the borrowing was for something else, not for interest deductibility" - nonsense - the additional borrowing would not have been required if they did not reinstate tax deductibility on mortgage payments - the Minister lied and did not resign, as she had promised to do if more borrowing was required to fund this tax relief.
Beside, at the same time the government reinstated tax deductibility for residential landlords, they actually put that tax burden back for commercial landlords - so why is that not a standard deduction of expenses available to any business - why is renting property for housing given advantages that renting commercial building space to businesses is not?
Explain that without looking financially illiterate yourself
Great work and keep it going
Almost all the issues ( national and international) that are closest to my heart, they all have one thing in common. They are by definition “wicked problems” ( not ‘evil’ but devilishly complex and for various reasons, highly resistant to resolution) E.g. Housing, climate change, poverty, justice, the arms race, peace on earth, et al.
This morning’s “A ha!” moment was realising that passing powerful laws and rules about lobbying ( or electoral reform) are Not in that category. Yes, some powerful players / vested interests resist, but actually the issues are not especially complex or hard to understand or difficult to resolve.
Thanks Bryce on behalf of us all.
Not sure about the waiting for ‘turkeys to vote for Christmas’ aspirations though. Do they really need much longer to think it through?
On a more positive note, bringing said characters into the ‘light of day’ will give them greater ‘name recognition’ and ‘profile’…
Great stuff, Bryce. Keep up calling them out on behalf of all us "little people".
great article
I applaud your work - thank you and Marilyn and Grant Nelson for their support
Would love to have you on my podcast to discuss this Bryce... I'm planning on coming to Wellington soon.
Is it only me having the "Mandela Effect" that Cameron Slater from Whale Oil had died?
I'm very much alive
Hadn't heard anything at all about you for so long I felt sure you must have died