An example of the proposed Act
Many NZers hate battery hen farming. There is I am sure a group out there that campaigns on that.
Now the Greens have identified themselves as wanting battery hen farming to be outlawed.
This means in election year it will be illegal for any organisation to spend money promoting or advertising that battery hen farming should be illegal, unless they do the following:
(a) File a statutory declaration every time they do anything costing money, that the cost over the year will be under $5,000.
or
(b) File an application to the Government to be registered as a “third party” and then appoint a financial agent and an auditor and then have the agent place the ad for you.
Seriously. That will be the law. That will be the only way one can spend money to say battery hen farming is wrong and should be stopped.
This will be a nightmare for newspapers. If someone wants to advertise a protest march in election year, the newspaper will need to check if the march is about a policy which is associated with a political party, and then get a statutory declaration from you or seek proof you are registered and that this person is your financial agent.
And imagine the nightmare for the Chief Electoral Officer, the Electoral Commission, the Police and Judges. They are all going to have to decide what is or is not a “position on a proposition with which one or more parties is associated”.
I hope Dr Catt and Mr Peden are putting in budget bids for lots more staff. Maybe to provide certainty (and laws are meant to provide certainty) the Electoral Commission in election year could say daily update a list of policies or propositions we are not allowed to spend money on, without registering. Just as Sulla provided helpful lists in 81 BC.
By the way it applies to all parties, not just those in Parliament. If the nutters in AMBLA set up a pedophile rights party, then one could not advertise against pedophilia being legalised in an election year, without following the procedure above. Because that would be unfair to the pedophile rights party. Never mind they are only 0.001% in the polls.
I’m sorry, I have to say this. I am trying to be restrained. But what retard dreamed up this bill. I mean seriously, having to register with the Government to advertise your opinion on a policy or proposition associated with a political party. Did no one at all in Cabinet read the bill?
July 25th, 2007 at 11:08 am
DPF is entirely correct – and his example is actually very apt. Although the Electoral Finance Bill will probably be supported by many leftists and liberals, it is the very groups that these people might usually support that could be mostly strongly impeded by the new law. Traditionally in the wider world the left (or at least socialists) have been opposed to stupid clamp downs on political activity – partly out of principle and partly because they know that they are usually the ones most affected by it. So it says a lot about the current state of the left in NZ that they’re willing to go along with such a draconian and conservative piece of legislation. It’s far better to have as fewer regulations and general state controls on political activity as is practical. Ultimately the more the state intervenes in political activity, the more (often unintended) negative consequence occur as a result.
Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz
July 25th, 2007 at 11:11 am
Does this effectively nationalise political advertising?
July 25th, 2007 at 11:23 am
The entire concept of the “The Helengrad Gag” is flawed and corrupt and an invasion of civil liberties and freedom of speech.
I fear what the next step will be in order to keep power. As the Helengrad Gag gets exposed for what it is, Winston and Prissy Peter will have no option but to withdraw support.
I hope we are looking at another failure in the house for this increasingly desperate and corrupt Labour Government.
July 25th, 2007 at 11:42 am
How would people react if National presented this Bill?
What if, in spite of all these measures, National wins the next election and governs alone? maybe a slight amendment disallowing unions from ever promoting or opposing political views.
I think National should fully support this Bill and release even futher measures to shut down opposing views. I think then people would realise what this means.
July 25th, 2007 at 11:45 am
Sad, but why be surprised by any of this crapola masquerading as law? By their fruit you will know them.
July 25th, 2007 at 11:58 am
“And imagine the nightmare for the Chief Electoral Officer, the Electoral Commission, the Police and Judges.”
No nightmare at all for these people. They would just carry on as last time and drag there feet and do nothing.
They cannot even give an interpretation of “Bribe” and “Policy” and there is no interpretation of these in the proposed Electoral Finance Bill or any reference to The Crimes Act 1961: s. 99 Bribery”. Bribe” means any money, valuable consideration, office, or employment, or any benefit, whether direct or indirect:
The last Election was the Mother of all Bribes. Remember the cartoons. Cartoons tell the truth.
Big Question: “Will Political cartoons be permitted from 1 January 2008? One cartoon is worth 10,000 words. How do you assess their worth and what rigamorole would they be subject to before printing?
Gone are those delightful animated cartoons on TV that lampooned politicians for the “Hollow “ people they are. Too expensive now for proposed criteria? What a sick country New Zealand is becoming, with the blessing of its citizens?
July 25th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
One assumes that Labour has got enough third party support to get this Bill through its first reading. That means NZ First and United Future are supporting its introduction, and the Greens, if not supporting, then abstaining. Hard to gauge where the Maori Party may go, but Sharples seemed miffed yesterday that they had been out of the loop for a few months, which would suggest they will oppose it. If the intent of the Bill is as draconian as has been outlined so far, it’s a pretty strange measure for parties who are languishing below the 5% threshhold to be supporting. If the public are in any way informed by the MSM as to just what this Bill could mean, the 2008 election could yet be a two-horse, FPP race.
July 25th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Well said DPF.
I am very much in favour of anything that would stop third party spending in the way that the Exclusive Bretheren did at the last election. However the thought of free speech being shut down in this way during an election year seems far worse than the original problem.
Third party advocacy groups / issue groups should be allowed to promote their views any time. I also have no issue with these groups publicly advertising which political parties support their views. In following the example you gave DPF, why should SAFE not be allowed to campaign against battery farming and remind the public which parties support their views?
I guess my biggest issue last election, was not the Exclusive Bretheren promoting their views, it was more with the huge amount of money they spent doing so and the fact that rather than being open and honest about who they are, they tried to be secretive.
Personally I think a limit should be put on the amount a third party can spend during election year – only on things where they specifically promote or oppose a particular political party. I also think it is fair to force a declaration on any publications as to who made and authorised them.
While I would like to go further in some way banning the tactics used by the Exclusive Bretheren, I cannot think of any way of doing so without also banning legitimate campaigns by other groups.
July 25th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
DPF: You miss the point. Helen Clark and the Labour Party support battery hen farming, so why should anyone be able to oppose it in election year? People opposed to battery hen farming should “move on” and “get a life”.
July 25th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
@Clueless:
I was more disappointed that the EB issue became “who were they?” rather than an objective analysis of what they were actually saying. They actually made some very good point in their pamphlets.
July 25th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
“I was more disappointed that the EB issue became “who were they?” rather than an objective analysis of what they were actually saying. ”
True, but this outcome was a result of the limp wristed mainstream media’s propensity for running with Labour Party/ left wing talking points at the expense of the real issue. They always do it. Commie scumbags, preening themselves as the ‘guardians of democracy’ when they’re in reality nothing but mouthpieces for totalitarian big government.
July 25th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
did yous say hellengrand is retards farra,
they can’t even move in economic crisis,
i keep telling them green that it NAT government following,
do yous think they see farra what do yous think,
July 25th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
“I mean seriously, having to register with the Government to advertise your opinion on a policy or proposition associated with a political party. Did no one at all in Cabinet read the bill?”
DPF, you’re being a bit naive. Of *course* the Government wants you to have to register to advertise your opinion. This effectively gives the incumbent Government complete control of political discourse in election year.
July 25th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
“Many NZers hate battery hen farming. There is I am sure a group out there that campaigns on that.
Now the Greens have identified themselves as wanting battery hen farming to be outlawed.”
Doubt any direct action groups involved with the battery hen campaign will be spending over 60,000, so perhaps not the best example. $60, 000 is a lot of money – so there will be still a huge bias in favor of the super-rich. What the right seems to be arguing for is the unlimited political power of the super-rich – in other words they are arguing for plutocracy, an absolute anathema to democracy.
[DPF: PJ: You can keep repeating it as much as you like but absolutely no one but you is talking about unlimited money. Its a cheap red herring which you use to avoid the real issue. That the Government should not unnecessarily restrict freedom of speech. Why the hell should SAFE not be able to spend $200,000 on fighting batter hen farming if say a wealthy animal lover gave them a donation so they could do a newspaper campaign. It is outraegous you want such groupos to be forbidden from spending their own money on issues. As others have commented I would bet $10 million that a law like this introduced by a National Govt would have you condmening the Govt in the loudest possible terms]
July 25th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Ah but the plot thickens – the government has infinite resources to prosecute those it chooses, but who will prosecute the law breakers that the government agrees with and leaves alone? The political parties?
July 25th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
“Why the hell should SAFE not be able to spend $200,000 on fighting batter hen farming if say a wealthy animal lover gave them a donation so they could do a newspaper campaign.”
Why couldn’t they? They could spend $70,000 in each of the two years before the election and $60,000 in election year. Look, I’m as much for free speech as anyone, but freedom of speech is means to an end, not an end in itself. That is, the ultimate goal of freedom of speech is to facilitate democracy. So it’s only a “good” thing in so far as it achieves this end. Obviously when a “hands off” approach allows a small few wealthy third-parties swamp the media with their promotional material, “freedom of speech” is not serving democracy as well as it might. So this is purpose of this new bill, to allow a more diverse range of view-points to be heard come election time, so that voters have more choice and are better informed. In fact it enhances the purpose of freedom of speech.
July 25th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
So Roger, what are your views on one of the “few wealthy parties” swamping the meida with their promotional materials being the government of the day, “promoting polices”? What if they are Trade unions “communicating with members”?
July 25th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
“So Roger, what are your views on one of the “few wealthy parties” swamping the meida with their promotional materials being the government of the day, “promoting polices”? What if they are Trade unions “communicating with members”?”
All red herrings Spam – The government departments (which are in fact different from the party(s) in power) can communicate with the public so that they know what changes in the law have occurred. Not exactly election spending. Secondly, businesses are also allowed to communicate with their members about the election – it’s not just about the unions. And lastly, nobody is forced to join a union, if they don’t like the political affiliations of the union thy are free to discontinue their membership.
July 25th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
So what were those helpful little kiwisave ads that I saw online a couple of weeks ago? You know – the ones that pointed you, not to the http://www.kiwisaver.govt.nz website, but to the http://www.labour.org.nz one?
And to say that its OK for trade unions to advertise to their members because… errr… well… businesses can as well – is bollocks. Businesses don’t have members.
July 25th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
“The government departments (which are in fact different from the party(s) in power) can communicate with the public so that they know what changes in the law have occurred.”
Yes Roger, we know Roger. No wonder the environment ministry has had a sudden change of staff at the head of their communications.
July 25th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Isn’t election year the time we want more information not less?
July 25th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Slightly
I heard that DBP has admitted there were five conversations between his office and MfE – DBP’s office must be really thick if it takes that many conversations to discover whether Ms Setchell was involved with a National staffer
July 25th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
the most important part of this bill is the fact that there are no restrictions on the government or the public service.
As an example of how the public service and associated quangos do the government’s bidding, half of all papers on medline (the database that reports *medical* research when searched on “racism”, “ethnicity”, etc and New Zealand were written in the last 7 years, paid for of course by us.
July 25th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
AAAh but gnome consider this.
I cannot run my planned campaign next year until the Summer has hit, trying to convince the population to think rationally and resign their union memberships. It is planned around the winter but it is too late for this year.
If this bit of nonsense becomes the law, it will no longer be my choice as the LP has a position on union membership. Meantime I know that Trades Hall is planning a million dollar campaign telling all sorts of bull about the benefits of union membership.
My choice has been removed, is that right or proper?
Can Air New Zealand encourage travel during election year while the Greens have a position on the use of aeroplanes?
Can Big Ben advertise his pies while Sue Kedgely has a position on pies?
The bill is a load of garbage and, if passed will provide a playground for the mischevious who will lay complaint after complaint about every bit of advertising being undertaken that could remotely be connected to a party or candidate’s “position”.
Muses briefly ………
In fact it would be quite simple to form The Positions Party whose slogan is “we have a position on everything” Then we could have a 11 months in every 36 without any advertising for anything at all. Wouldn’t that be fun?
July 25th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
whatever spam, replace members with employees ….
July 25th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
Roger Nome says: “the ultimate goal of freedom of speech is to facilitate democracy”. That really says it all about the left. Our freedoms are only there to promote political ends (in this case, a good one – democracy). RN: Freedom of speech is not about “facilitating” anything. It is about being human; being heard; being able to express oneself. Do you not see that? It is an end in itself, not a means.
July 25th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
“I cannot run my planned campaign next year until the Summer has hit, trying to convince the population to think rationally and resign their union memberships. It is planned around the winter but it is too late for this year.”
The bill is a load of garbage
July 25th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
oops – he that should have been
“I cannot run my planned campaign next year until the Summer has hit, trying to convince the population to think rationally and resign their union memberships. It is planned around the winter but it is too late for this year.”
The is a load of garbage
July 25th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
“It is about being human; being heard; being able to express oneself.”
“Freedom of speech is not about “facilitating” anything. It is about being human; being heard; being able to express oneself. Do you not see that? It is an end in itself, not a means.”
ah yeah whatever – being super-rich and dominating political debate with your money is about being human etc etc – what a load of twaddle …
July 25th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Roger,
Once you get out of university, and into the real world, you will realise that employers rarely actually tend to try to influence the vote of their employees.
July 25th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
“oops – he that should have been”
Freudian slip roger? love it. The subconscious mind always reveals the truth.
July 25th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Roger Nome says: “being super-rich and dominating political debate with your money is about being human etc etc”. Who are the super-rich people who want to dominate political debate? Don’t recall any.
And free speech is NOT about politics, cunt. You say the ultimate goal of free speech is to facilitate politics. Can’t you imagine it might have value outside politics?
July 25th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
“Once you get out of university, and into the real world, you will realise that employers rarely actually tend to try to influence the vote of their employees.”
Whether they use their liberty or not is their choice, so what’s your point?
“Who are the super-rich people who want to dominate political debate?”
Don’t know. They tend to operate anonymously you see. Though you could read “the hollow men” if you want some good indications.
“You say the ultimate goal of free speech is to facilitate politics.”
No, it’s about facilitating “democracy”, which is quite different.
July 25th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
FFS Roger! Your attempts to justify the clear bias for unions are shocking. Well, they’re not actually – not from you.
For what its worth, I think unions should be able to explain policies to their members. But the way in which the Labour government is trying to allow this, yet crack down on any other discussion of policies by any other parties is disgusting and cynical.
July 25th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
…And its interesting that you play the ‘liberty’ card, when that is exactly what dear Leader is trying to take away. I would suggest that the only reason you say its OK for employers to try to influence their employees votes is that you know damned well that they would never do it – but it is a nice little strawman to try and push your “no problem here” point.
July 25th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
Roger None you stupid cunt:
When you say ““Who are the super-rich people who want to dominate political debate?” Don’t know. They tend to operate anonymously you see. Though you could read “the hollow men” if you want some good indications.”
Don’t you realise that the proposed legislation won’t stop that sort of thing – even though National said it would work with Labour to stop it. What it will do is stop people who fully declare who they are and how much they are spending from being able to communicate effectively with the public.
So your evil Labour friends aren’t dealing with the problem you are worried about but they are smashing basic principles of the same democracy you say you worry about.
And, clearly, you don’t get that even if no one had ever thought of democracy, free speech would still be a virtue worth having. That you don’t understand that suggests you are either very young and stupid, or a communist.
July 25th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Another idea, wait until 2 weeks from the election and swamp the media with the truck loads of dirt that is readily available – no time for
Labour to deny or prosecute and when elected repeal and enact suitable penalising legislation to bankrupt Labour and their union supporters, QED
July 25th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Roger Nome, I have a sick cow, would you consider comming around to read a few of your posts to it, it will save me the expense of a bullet.
July 25th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
Better go see your gynaecologist Roger! LOL
July 25th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
Roger nome wrote:
“Look, I’m as much for free speech as anyone, but freedom of speech is means to an end, not an end in itself. That is, the ultimate goal of freedom of speech is to facilitate democracy. So it’s only a “good” thing in so far as it achieves this end.”
Errr, no.
Freedom of speech is a fundamental and inate human right. People have a basic right to freedom of speech because of their basic inalienable rights as human beings. Democracy is rule by the ‘people’ – quite different.
Roger nome – before embarrassing yourself further, I suggest you try reading and learning some basic political theory.
July 25th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Any law leans heavily upon the presumption of voluntary compliance. Complicity will always be tested by bad law. I will be among those who choose not to comply with this bad law. Our elected representatives would do well to remember that they remain at our will.
Post script for pinko socialists, you might think that one must serve the cause of Government by defending the assholes, the rest of us don’t. They should busy themselves with serving us to the extent we require them to – no more.
July 25th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Section 14 Bill of Rights Act 1990:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.”
Clauses 14-21, clauses 53-57 and clauses 99-118 are a direct attack on that.
I really do urge people to read this Bill, in particular these clauses relating to Third Parties trying to express themselves.
It is such a naked attack by the State on political activism. Under this proposed legislation, Amnesty International, for example, will have its activities curtailed. Peace Groups opposed to New Zealand’s involvement in foreign wars will find themselves under government monitoring. Opposition ot the Foreshore & Seabed laws will be curtailed.
Political activists of all hues must read this proposed legislation – while the obvious intent of it is to silence the EBs, the effect of it will be to muzzle liberal political activism. This is an extraordinary betrayal by Labour.
July 25th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
“This is an extraordinary betrayal by Labour.”
Betrayal of whom, exactly? The only people who could be betrayed in this case are those gullible enough to vote for them … and, frankly, they deserve everything they get. Anyone capable of objectively studying their policies & practices will have seen this one coming a mile off.
July 28th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Brian Tracy, briantracy,brian tracy international, brian tracy quotes…
BrianTracy…