0 Cash for policy?

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?

0 The Herald on Taurima

The Herald devotes its editorial to the Shane Taurima/TVNZ/Labour Party affair. And it doesn't make good reading for any of those named in the preceding sentence. Under the headline Credibility before politics for journalists the Herald opines:

Shane Taurima thought he could keep his affiliation to a political party entirely separate from his journalism, and to a degree he was successful. The Prime Minister, for one, felt fairly treated by him in television interviews despite Taurima's affiliation to the Labour Party. It is not hard to put personal views aside in the interests of objective journalism even when a subject is political. But the independent report into political bias at Television New Zealand was right to find him at fault. Partisan politics and mass media journalism do not mix.
The report found Taurima not only had a clear conflict of interest, but had used TVNZ facilities for Labour Party activities. These included a $343 credit card bill for an air fare and the use of TVNZ's offices and email for Labour Party planning and campaigning. Clearly the problem is not confined to the former head of its Maori and Pacific programming unit. Three of his staff also participated in the party activity.

But if these misuses of company property had not occurred, Taurima's position would still have been untenable. He not only joined the Labour Party while working in news and current affairs, he made an unsuccessful bid to be Labour's candidate in the Ikaroa-Rawhiti byelection last year. Strangely, after missing the selection, he was able to return to his position at TVNZ. There, his continuing Labour activities reached a level that, the report says, "would plainly be deeply embarrassing to TVNZ if it came to light".
He must have known that would be so. It is elementary to journalists that joining a political party is not an option unless they plan to make their career in the party's publications. Those who want to be credible reporters of news and politics for a mass audience cannot belong to a party. If they did, they would have to declare their affiliation, and their audience would rightly question the reliability of everything they reported.

The Herald's leader writer makes a very valid point here. Most senior journalists profess to be political agnostics, and we would be surprised if many are members of political parties. Shane Taurima would appear to be the exception to that rule, along with Julian Wilcox at Maori Television, who must either be a member of the Labour Party or an intending member if he has even a passing intention of contesting the Tamaki Makaurau nomination. Common sense would suggest that he is already a Labour Party member given the party's requirement of one year's membership before being nominated as a candidate for election.

The editorial then addresses the Public Service Association's rather quaint, Utopian view of these matters:

The Public Service Association seems not to understand this. It thinks a recommendation to ban reporters, content producers and editors from political activity is a draconian and unnecessary breach of their rights as citizens. It believes the State Services Commission guidelines for public servants are sufficient for the state broadcaster and that TVNZ will set "a dangerous precedent for other public servants".
Public servants serve the Government of the day. They can belong to a political party and take part in its activities after hours because the primary audience for their professional work is ministers and other politicians understand their code. State-owned media such as TVNZ and Maori Television are different. Their primary audience must know their reporters, producers and editors are not a member of any party in their spare time.

The leader writer makes a very good point here. TVNZ, Radio New Zealand and Maori Television are different from other media outlets because they are ultimately owned by the state. Their staff, including journalists, are essentially public servants, and the public service is, in an ideal world, politically neutral. It seems rather strange that the PSA, the union representing public servants, does not understand the concept of the public service not only trying to be neutral, but being seen to be neutral.

The editorial closes with an insight into how the Herald manages these issues:

None of this is to suggest that journalists should be devoid of political views and judgment. They would be less than citizens without them. Their views and judgment will be apparent to the audience and acceptable so long as there can be confidence they come from an interested, well-informed, even concerned person who has no conflict of interest.
The Herald does not allow its editorial staff to participate in community or political activities that could compromise their work. This means not only membership of political parties but taking part in public campaigns that they could have to cover. Preserving this distance from politics is not an onerous restriction for those whose credibility is paramount. They have the privilege of observing, reporting and commenting on public affairs. Once they cross the line to partisan participation, there is no coming back.

Shane Taurima had a clear conflict of interest when he returned to TVNZ after his failed tilt at the Ikaroa-Rawhiti nomination. There is evidence that he was less than honest with his employer about his future political intentions, although TVNZ concedes that its own management of the conflict was not ideal. But there was no justification whatsoever for Taurima doing Labour Party work on the taxpayer dime, via TVNZ.

That Shane Taurima seems to believe that the TVNZ inquiry report vindicated him is telling. Perhaps he needs to undergo some more training in the principle of public service neutrality before embarking on another journalistic career in the state sector, or a lesson in managing conflicts of interest before furthering his political aspirations. In both areas, he has been found wanting.