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?

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.

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.

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?

Sharpening their pencils and firing paper darts…any resistance will have to come from lobby groups. Doh!

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 …

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.

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?

hehe – exactly what National did with the employment contracts bill in 1990.