1st reading at 3 pm
Thanks to the Coalition for Open Government for alerting me to the fact that the Electoral Finance Bill has its first reading at 3 pm today.
Up until I saw the bill, I never considered it would be so flawed that one should not support it at first reading. And while there are some positive aspects to it, the bill is so badly done that I think the best thing would be for Parliament to reject it and tell the Government to go away and come back with something more acceptable.
You see this bill is so flawed that the Select Committee (which has only three out of eight parties on it) will have to make massive changes to it, to make it workable. And these changes could then be passed by Parliament in just a couple of weeks before Christmas. The opportunity for public input into the revised bill will be extremely limited.
I can’t believe what a wasted opportunity this has been. Every single aspect of how Labour have gone about this has been flawed. They should have released a green or white paper on options for reform, and allowed public input into this. They should have then published a specific proposal, and consulted the public and other parties on it. Then they should have drafted legislation on the basis of the public and parliamentary consensus.
But instead it has been the ultimate in grubby self serving politics. They unilaterally kill off any clampdown on anonymous and trust donations, because Labour is so reliant on them. And they come up with the most bizarre, bureaucratic and draconian third party advertising restrictions you could think of.
Sadly the bill will pass its first reading. Labour, Greens and NZ First will vote for it and that is 61 votes as a minimum.
The select committee process will be shortened also, restricting the public’s ability to have their say on it. The normal report back date to Parliament would be in six months, but I suspect they are going to impose a report back date of just four months so they can ram it through before Christmas.
July 26th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
The scary thing is I have stopped being surprised at how self-serving this government’s legislative agenda is, and how far into the dirt they have pulled other parties with them.
July 26th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
DPF said “I suspect they are going to impose a report back date of just four months so they can ram it through before Christmas.”
Ho bloody Ho bloody Ho! Thanks a bunch Labour!
July 26th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
“And these changes could then be passed by Parliament in just a couple of weeks before Christmas. The opportunity for public input into the revised bill will be extremely limited.”
hehe – exactly what National did with the employment contracts bill in 1990.
July 26th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
At least labour have made the Bill available for the public to read though – which is more than can be said for National’s ECB.
July 26th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
This is a major constitutional reform done in secret and rushed through once they have the bare numbers. The is a curse on constitutional reform and it bites the hand of people promoting it. I just hope this holds true of the Labour Party and I trust no mercy will be shown to them when things hit them hard.
July 26th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
My proposed (subject to further input) submission to the Select Committee has been posted on your website. So it will be interesting how the Select Committee Members, as those in the Service of the Crown who are subject to the Special Sections in the Crimes Act deal with “Proposed Corrupt Actions” if they approve this Bill?
July 26th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Here we go again
rogered gnome – the ECA was legislation that regulated parts of the economy EXTERNAL to the Parliament. As such it is not uncommon for Government to implement its policies in this way – take budget measures for example or perhaps you are too young to remember Arnold Nordmyer in action.
This proposed legislation will regulate the machinery that creates our Government, affects every person in New Zealand over the age of 18 employed or not and goes to the heart of how our country is managed.
Just a subtle wee difference that I would have thought a student of politics and a marker of a paper on political use of the mass media might have had a modicum of interest in and at least a passing opinion on instead of this sort of sniping from the sideline.
Why will you not enter in to the debate on the sacrifice of principles implicit in this Bill or is it just that you don’t give a stuff?
July 26th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
The best thing we can hope is that it provides the tipping point It seems that even hard core Socialist supporters are looking aghast at the constitutional corruption now being played out. I repeat this is a conflict of interest. We have the alcoholics deciding how much booze they should have. The trouble is the MSM is still in their pockets. Most citizens have no idea or understanding of whats going on and the MSM is making no attempt to point out the bad governance. Mind you most of the MSM understands good governance and well as it understands advanced nucleur physics.
July 26th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Just heard a good speech form Bill English in response to the bill. Very passionate indeed. Lynn Pillay’s response, however, was the usual trite sycophantic crap.
G
July 26th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Power’s speech was IMHO, even better than English’s – not as much passion, but a systematic dismantling of the Bill and exposure of its flaws. Agree with you Grant – Pillay’s speech was dull, predictable, and almost delivered with the air of someone resigned to her fate.
July 26th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
“exactly what National did with the employment contracts bill in 1990″
This is getting so predictable it’s boring. Lefty response seems to be when faced with an ugly truth, resort to the “you did it before so we can do it now” answer.
Didn’t your mother ever tell you two wrongs dont make a right?
besides, as pointed out so eloquently by Davd W, it is hardly the same thing now is it…Roger?
You know that you don’t like the bill as it is written.. As a whole, it sux and you have admitted as much. Why keep stirring the pot.
July 26th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
The corruption of this governemnt, and its willingness to change the law to suit itself, is beyond belief.
July 26th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Where are the military when we need a coup?
July 26th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
“rogered gnome – the ECA was legislation that regulated parts of the economy EXTERNAL to the Parliament.”
The ECA profoundly altered the way in which employment relationships operated. It effectively put all the power in he employer’s hands to unilaterally determine pay levels and working conditions – not such an insignificant thing if you ask me. Various surveys showed that around 60% of voters were opposed to it.
I agree that labour should have consulted more widely on this issue – I just like to point out the hypocrisy of the right. Keep you guys on your toes etc …
July 26th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
thehawk “Where are the military when we need a coup?”
Sharpening their pencils and firing paper darts…any resistance will have to come from lobby groups. Doh!
July 26th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
People really ought to read the bill.
A ‘third party’ is defined as ANYONE who is not a candidate or political party and, in effect, has a public opinion on something.
Clauses 14-21 require any ‘third party’ to be registered, and they have to go through a whole array of administrative and financial hoops to do so. This includes any public advocacy group, including, for example peace groups, human rights groups such as Amnesty International, Maori groups, anti-GM campaigners, and so on, who will have to register with the government. The Chief Electoral Officer has the power to refuse to list a third party on very vague grounds (i.e. it is “offensive” or “likely to cause confusion or mislead voters”). So the civil service now regulates who is permissible to be able to take part in politics.
Third party advertising and election expenses are defined in a very broad manner. In fact, the range of expression that is proposed to be regulated is so broad that clause 5 of the bill actually ends up defining what isn’t (i.e. books sold for no less than its commercial value if the book was planned to be made available to the public regardless of any election, etc). In effect, the restrictions on freedom of expression within this proposed bill could include:
Political books or biographies, such as by political scientists or historians;
Protestors trying to stop Genetic Modification;
Posters and hand outs by an environmental group trying to stop mining;
A human rights campaign mail out, critical of government policy;
A Maori iwi opposed to Foreshore and Seabed or government settlement policies…
Clause 121 gives powers to the police and other State agencies to search (i.e. harass) non-governmental groups (or, ‘third parties’, which is in effect anybody with a publicly expressed opinion on anything).
I think when various lobby groups, activist groups, and so on read this bill there will be a huge outcry!
A question I would like to know is
“Has anyone – anyone at all – in the Green Party or the Maori Party actually READ this Bill and considered its impact on political activism?
July 26th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Greenjacket – the Maori Party opposed the first reading of the bill.
DPF, if the bill was refused a first reading, the Government couldn’t just go back to the drawing board. Standing Order 265 would prevent its being proposed again this year.
In the end, leave was granted so that the Justice and Electoral Committee would have 6 additional voting members for the discussion of this bill (another Labour and National to maintain some proportionality, and an ACT, United Future, and New Zealand First member, and a vote for Hone Harawira (who is currently a non-voting member)).
I note also that the motion referring the bill to select committee did not set a shorter time-frame for it’s report. The six month maximum set in Standing Order 291(1) would therefore appear to apply.
July 26th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
You may also be interested to hear that Tony Ryall used the phrase “kiwiblog dot co dot nz” in the debate…
July 26th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
The introduction to the Bill was the most hypocritical, mealy-mouthed, sickening speech I’ve heard from a Member of Parliament.
I liken it to a person, narrowly missing being convicted under the Crimes Act as a result of engineered perversion and denial of the course of justice, being allowed to propose a Bill that supposedly overlooks previous transgressions as though they had never existed.
This supposedly will provide transparency and integrity in the next election process. This despite that the lawmakers were able to validate their previous unlawful actions, and now “with a holier than thou attitude” introduce new rules of discrimination in a supposedly democratic election.
July 26th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
This may seem somewhat extreme but when we have a government that wants power at any cost I’m glad New Zealanders have such high gun ownership figues. I’m not for one moment saying we sould have a armed uprising but if they get away with shit like this, whats next.
Dear Leader use to say democracy was the bedrock of our society. I would suggest the bitch would not Know what democarcy was even if it kicked her in the arse.
July 26th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
Greenjacket might like to read the bill a little bit better him (or her)self. There’s an out for third parties who sign statutory declarations that they’re not spending more than $5000 (or $500 in an electorate): see s53. This means they don’t have to register. THough it does mean they have to sign that statutory declaration, if they want to disseminate their views, which still seems pretty objectionable.
July 26th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Quite true Steven.
Surely it is deeply objectionable, in a ‘free’ society, for an individual or a group to have to register or make a statutory declaration to the government that they won’t spend more than $5000 for expressing a political opinion?