Login
You're viewing the social.lein.us public feed.
  • Strypeystrypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
    Aug 20, 2026, 2:56 AM

    The first topic Jack Tame asks Wong about is regulating lobbying;

    "[Opportunity] want a stand-down period, a lobbyist's register, and a code of conduct. Poor lobbyists."

    He doesn't sound very sympathetic ; ) But so far so good. Tame goes on to summarise TOP's definition of 'lobbyist';

    "Someone who is paid by clients to influence decision-makers, or who spends a substantial part of their time lobbying."

    What this means, in practice, depends on how they define 'lobbying'.

    (3/?)

    #PolicyNZ

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0

Replies

  • Strypeystrypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
    Aug 20, 2026, 3:00 AM

    Arguably I spend "a substantial part" of my time trying to influence decision-makers. Occasionally I even email them, or even less often, speak to them in person. Does that make me a 'lobbyist', even though nobody pays me to do that?

    If so, opponents would be quite right that regulating 'lobbyists' would have chilling effects on democratic participation. Any reasonably definition needs be limited to people who are *paid* to influence decision-makers.

    (4/?)

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Strypeystrypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
    Aug 20, 2026, 3:10 AM

    Jack Tame asks whether a stand-down period would go both ways. But Quilae Wong clarifies that Opportunity's policy would only stop people leaving "government" and walking straight into a lobbying job.

    "The other direction is less of a threat, and it would severely limit the ability of people to stand for office."

    People whose *job* has been to schmooze politicians on behalf of anyone with enough spare money to pay for that (not most kiwis). I don't agree this is "less of a threat".

    (5/?)

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Strypeystrypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
    Aug 20, 2026, 3:15 AM

    I'm almost offended by the suggestion that there aren't enough capable and public-minded people in Aotearoa who are *not* paid to lobby politicians, to fill 120 seats every 3 years. This answer suggests too that the Opportunity party list has a few people on who were recently paid for lobbying. If so, at lease the party is being consistent, but ...

    It's picking up on small but important details like this that make Jack Tame one of the most formidable interviewers in NZ media.

    (6/?)

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Strypeystrypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
    Aug 20, 2026, 3:23 AM

    Jack Tame quickly covers Opportunity's proposal for an "anti-corruption body". This one's a no-brainer, especially given the blatant policy aution we've seen from the NatACTs this term.

    Tame points out we're widely perceived as one of the least corrupt countries in the world. Arguably that's because some forms of corruption have been effectively legalised (see above), so they're not reflected in the data being compared. But to the degree it's true, it's because we're proactive about it.

    (7/?)

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • 💬 2🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Strypeystrypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
    Aug 20, 2026, 4:36 AM

    "We should be making this a contest of ideas, not who can put the most billboards out there, or pay for as many social media ads as possible."

    #QuilaeWong, 2026

    Agree. So what policy can ensure that, while still fully protecting freedom of political expression?

    Jake Tame tells us Opportunity policy is to ban donations over $30,000, as proposed by the Independent Electoral Review in 2024;

    justice.govt.nz/justice-sector

    I'd go further, but sounds sensible enough.

    (9/?)

    #CampaignFinance #PolicyNZ

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Strypeystrypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
    Aug 20, 2026, 5:15 AM

    Jack Time would not be doing his job if he didn't ask Wong about Opportunity accepting donations over what would be allowed under their own policy. But I think Wong's answer is quite reasonable; they're playing by the rules as they stand, in the hopes of getting in and improving them. AFAIK there is *no* NZ political party that imposes any limit on the size of donations received.

    So why does Tame get out the stick on this? Wong acknowledged the inconsistency What more is there to say?

    (10/?)

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Strypeystrypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
    Aug 20, 2026, 5:19 AM

    "Your polling has increased from 0.4% a year ago, to 8% today. Why should TOP get to benefit from a campaign fueled by big donations, and potentially make it into Parliament, then immediately pull up the ladder so that smaller parties who want to replicate your success can't do it in the future."

    #JackTame, 2026

    youtube.com/watch?v=c9YV3hc6cVk

    I'm deeply disappointed in Tame. This kind of badgering really is beneath him, and this is a deeply disingenuous question.

    (11/?)

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Strypeystrypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
    Aug 20, 2026, 5:25 AM

    For a start, it's very clear Opportunity's policy would make it easier for smaller parties to compete for attention and votes, not harder. That's one way the premise of the question is misleading.

    Then there's the implied claim that other parties polling reflects their merit, while Opportunity's comes from spending money. Even though the NatACTs are spending many times more, and both Winston First and Labour are spending more too;

    nzpt.cjs.nz/finances/

    (12/?)

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Strypeystrypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
    Aug 20, 2026, 5:32 AM

    But Jake Tame isn't done chewing on this bone.

    "You've currently taken more big donations than the Labour party."

    youtube.com/watch?v=c9YV3hc6cVk

    As with Tame's opening comment on polls, technically true, but misleading.

    Yes, Labour has received more of its campaign funding for medium donations than big ones. But by wording it this way, Tame implies Opportunity are spending more than Labour. Not true, according to figures I just shared.

    Very disappointed with the game Tame is playing here.

    (13/?)

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Strypeystrypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
    Aug 20, 2026, 5:41 AM

    To be fair to Jack Tame, perhaps he expected Wong to do what NZ politicians tend to do when asked a question like this. Ignore it and answer a vaguely related one, blurt a talking point like CLuxon would, or quibble with the claim that they're not practicing what they preach.

    Maybe he was taken aback when Wong gave an honest answer immediately, admitting the inconsistency? So much so that he didn't know what do, except plough on with his prepared gotchas. Wasting valuable interview time.

    (14?)

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Strypeystrypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
    Aug 20, 2026, 5:49 AM

    The part of the interview focused on the campaign donation limit policy starts about 3mins in. Despite having his point acknowledged when he first makes it, Jack Tame spends a full 4mins grinding on this point, out of a 24min interview,

    Then he moves on to the gotcha about the Board's carefully limited power to discipline a rogue caucus, if they're going against the party charter. I've already commented on this, so I won't rehash it here;

    mastodon.nzoss.nz/@strypey/117

    (15/?)

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Strypeystrypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
    Aug 20, 2026, 6:05 AM

    To be fair to Jack Tame, this time Quilae Wong didn't give the correct answer to his question about the Board veto when he first asked it. So he had to read her the constitution for context.

    This could be deception, or maybe Wong just doesn't know the Opportunity constitution well enough. This is something a leader definitely ought to know about their party, and be prepared to vigorously defend (eg referencing rogue caucuses past).

    (16?)

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Strypeystrypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
    Aug 20, 2026, 6:10 AM

    I still think Jack Tame is drawing a long bow here. To hit the target, his arrow has to pass through Opportunity's polling being purely a function of campaign spending, making the party subject to the will of the donors, and the membership tolerating the Board using an emergency measure to routinely whip the caucus.

    As with any conspiracy theory, you've got to admire the creativity of all this conceptual plumbing. But was this really the best use of almost 3mins out of 24?

    (17?)

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Strypeystrypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
    Aug 20, 2026, 6:38 AM

    After this, thankfully, the interview returns to policy. I'm glad Jack Tame brought up the impact of Opportunity's UBI on recent returnees, who wouldn't get a Citizens' income until they've been back for up to 5 years. I didn't know this, and it's detail like this I rely on interviewers like Tame to draw out.

    I don't agree with this bit of TOP policy. Every citizen and permanent resident ought to get UBI for every week they're in the country. Basically like benefits now.

    (18/?)

    #UBI #PolicyNZ

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Dave Lane :flag_tino: 🇳🇿lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz
    Aug 20, 2026, 3:48 AM

    @strypey it does raise some hard-to-ignore internal party process questions. Like how does the party decide on policy? Candidates? What happens if their funders put conditions on future funding? What if there're conditions on current funding we don't know about?

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0