Posted by Blogger Name. Category:
Cash for access
,
Liam Hehir
,
Manawatu Standard
,
Media balance
,
Political neutrality
,
Public Service Assn (PSA)
,
Trade Unions
We've heard a lot about "cash for access" in the last couple of weeks. But all we've really discovered is that pretty much all political parties fund-raise, and their MP's are a significant drawcard.
But writing in the Manawatu Standard, Liam Hehir wonders about cash for policy, and addresses the elephant in the room. Under the headline Deals keep the grassroots tilled Hehir opines:
Are you ready to hear something that will shake your faith in our democracy? Brace yourself.
I can reveal that a network of highly organised corporations have gained influence over one of our political parties. They give this party thousands of dollars - and there is no doubt they get their money's worth.
For instance, the corporations in question have privileged party connections. As hard as it is to believe, they actually have a direct hand in choosing the party leader. Less directly, a high number of party MPs and organisers used to work for them.
The party regularly proposes legislation that furthers the goals of these corporations.
One of their umbrella organisations was even awarded a government contract that one watchdog group called a "cosy deal" to do "little, if anything".
Goodness; who could this be? Is Mr Hehir talking about the Business Roundtable? Is he talking about the Exclusive Brethren, or the Chinese branch of the Cabinet Club?
Well no, actually he isn't; he continues:
Yes, the role and influence of unions over the Labour Party is truly disturbing.
Oh, the unions. Isn't it strange, that as the media leaps to condemn the National Party for daring to leverage the popularity of the most popular Prime Minister in living memory, the role of trade unions in funding the Labour Party continues to pass beneath the radar.
It has of course been a minor topic of discussion this week with the Public Service Association's rather quaint notion that politically neutral public servants in broadcasting should be free to be openly political. That in itself rather diminishes the outrage over National asking its supporters for donations, which are given willingly, to help it get re-elected.
Liam Hehir's piece is deserving of a read in its entirety. There are two sides to the "cash for access" argument, but one side doesn't get many column centimetres or soundbites; is that good, balanced journalism?
