COG on Electoral Finance Bill
July 30th, 2007 at 10:09 am by David FarrarI have already given several examples of how incredibly bad the Electoral Finance Bill is. Now a few partisans out there think hey anything DPF is against must be good, so they are mindlessly supporting it.
So let me quote from some blog posts the Coalition for Open Government has to say on it. And bear in mind this is a lobby group which supports restrictions on third party campaigning.
First of all in this post they point out that the $60,000 limit is even worse if an unincorporated organisation has even a single member who is 17 or a foreigner. That organisation is then banned from being a third party and can spend only $5,000 in election year. So if a campaign group had a single member aged under 18 they would not be able to spend more than $5,000 in election year.
Secondly they point out that the ban on “taking a position on a proposition with which 1 or more parties or 1 or more candidates is associated” is so wide it will affect even commercial advertising. If a candidate stood for election with a policy of students should study at their local university, then Otago University would be banned from spending more than $60,000 encouraging students to enrol at Otago. If the Greens adopt a policy of encouraging people not to eat at McDonalds, then McDonalds will be banned from advertising itself. Yes the bill really is that fucked.
Thirdly the COG looks at how the EFB defines publication in relation to election advertising. They conclude the following activities will now be regulated and need statutory declarations or registration in order to be able to legally undertake any expenditure on:
- handing out leaflets on a protest march
- sending out a press release
- operating a website
- displaying placards at a demonstration
- posting clips onto Youtube
- putting up posters
- writing slogans in chalk on the pavement
Then the COG discovers the bill is so badly written that it actually bans political parties from publishing issue ads in election year. So a Green Party advertisement opposing the Trans-Tasman Therapeutics Agency would be illegal.
But it gets even worse than that. The definitions are so wide, that if it was election year National would not even be allowed to send out and publish press release calling for the Prime Minister to sack her Environment Minister. Because as a proposition identified with a party, that is an election ad.
Now this is not my analysis. This the analysis of a lawyer who is a member of the Coalition for Open Government.
If there has ever been an issue on which you should ring up talkback about, write a letter to the editor, alert any organisations you belong to, and most of all make a submission to the Select Committee – this is it. This is the biggest threat to free speech that we face. Do not just assume that the bill is so draconian and badly drafted that of course it will be made better in select committee. This is too important to leave to blind faith.
Related posts:
- 30 hours left to make your submission on the Electoral Finance Bill
- More on Electoral Finance Bill
- Ralston on Electoral Finance Bill
- Incinerate the Electoral Finance Bill
July 30th, 2007 at 10:25 am
The left never cared for free speech.
There true colours are now showing.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 10:36 am
ANTI-DEMOCRACY BILL
First the first time in my life, this issue caused me to write to my MP. Heck, the email was even acknowledged!
I also wrote to the Herald following their ridiculous editorial on the issue (July 26th) although they chose not to publish it. I have seen very few letters publishged on the subject, yet it is one of the most potentially damaging bills I have ever seen. You would have thought that the media would be up in arms.
I cannot understand any party voting for this, yet the Greens, NZ First et al did so. Stuff the arguement about getting it to select committe so they can have an influence, this piece of crap should have been killed off at inception.
The bill is draconian in it’s intent. I can’t even believe Labour intended it too be so bad. I can only assume that they did not think it through. Morons.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 10:43 am
CraigM,
They did think it through.
Vote:This is just the best that they could come up with!
July 30th, 2007 at 11:09 am
In my view there are very few igrey areas in the Electoral Act 1993.
Out of bounds areas were clearly signposted. Easily understood by the average layman.
It lacked any direct reference to the Crimes Act 1961. It failed to define: Bribes” – “Policy”.
It was the failure of Police to follow up on allegations of misappropriation of Public Funds that has brought about this present sorry state of affairs.
.
For your interest, Helen Clark, John Key, Rt Hon Winston Peters, along with other Parliamentary Leaders, most Members of Parliament, Media, etc including the Coalition for Open Government received e-mails and attachments that most nad received previously on 30 July 2006 (COG excepted). These exposed allegedly corrupt behaviour by parties involved in the last election.
It also contained the Allegation against Taito Philip Field that Police at the Time did not investigate.
For the information of Parliamentarians, I downloaded and posted on the e-mail an article from this site. I sent it also to Mark Prebble, Public Service Commissioner.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 11:47 am
Everyone is very surprised about just how bad this Electoral Finance Bill has turned out to be. The interesting question for me is why it’s so incredibly bad. Obviously there must be a strong degree of incompetence involved. But more than that, I tend to think that the nature of electoral finance ‘reform’ is so fraught and problematic that inevitably such attempts to tightly regulate political activity end up being a bit of a farce. It’s really such an uncontrollable and complex area that it’s very hard to come up with sensible and workable legislation in this area. And that’s a good reason why we should have as limited regulation of political activity as is possible. But I’d be interested to hear from proponents (or opponents) of ‘reform’ about how this bill could have been better. Does COG et al just think this bill is bad due to incompetence by Labour, Mark Burton, and the Ministry of Justice?
I also note the Dominion Post also has a very negative view of the legislation, see: Funding reform is draconian, at: http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominionpost/4145214a6483.html
Bryce
Vote:http://www.liberation.org.nz
July 30th, 2007 at 11:49 am
OK, I know this is tin-foil hat territory but could it be possible that the Government deliberately put up an unspeakably bad bill so that any SOP — however objectionable — invariably looks good by comparison? Or am I crediting Mark Burton et. al. with more intelligence than they actually possess?
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 11:53 am
Craig: you are crediting Burton with more intelligence that he has. He is an idiot and National holds information on how dodgy the process used to develop this Bill was.
[DPF: NatStaffer - please do not use NatStaffer as your posting handle unless you are a National Party staffer]
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Natstaffer said,
“you are crediting Burton with more intelligence that he has. He is an idiot and National holds information on how dodgy the process used to develop this Bill was.”
Well why not share it with us all.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Seamonkey said
“CraigM,
They did think it through.
This is just the best that they could come up with!”
SMM – don’t you mean this was the best they could get away with??!!
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
this does have possibilitites. Using the second point raised if I started a political party with my policy that people should vote labour would that limit labour’s spending to $60000?
cheers
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
This bill is negotiable with Cullen setting the terms of the negotiation. The Government publicity machine cannot be allowed to be exempt from this. They got rid of a Government official who would be administering one of these programmes on the grounds of a policial conflict of interest. So it seems that the Government DOES intend to use the Government publicity machine for its political purposes. And there is no pocket deeper than the taxpayers.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Inventory2:
While it has been proven in the past that Labour has been corrupt enough to draft a bill this badly worded, I would also think that they are just plain stupid and lazy as well.
A combonation of the two – stupidly corrupt??
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
And today’s early front runner for Most Sweeping Comment of the Day goes to Mark. No doubt he’ll face some stiff competitition from Red later in the day, but I am picking Mark’s contribution is going to be a strong contender!
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
The Terry Gilliam movie Brazil springs to mind or V for Vendetta.
Vote:Scary times when Klarke pushes through legislation like this, the complete banning of all contrarion opinion is what we face here. New ministry of Culture required to manage all “public information” will be the next step.
Balkanisation of NZ bubbling along nicely.
July 30th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Seamonkey said “While it has been proven in the past that Labour has been corrupt enough to draft a bill this badly worded, I would also think that they are just plain stupid and lazy as well.
A combination of the two – stupidly corrupt??”
Or maybe corruptly stupid? Both adjectives apply in large measures! What is even more worrying though, is the fact that the MSM has yet to expose this Bill for the sham that it is – not that I’ll hold my breath waiting! At best, it is very bad legislation, at worst, well………..
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Well intentioned and badly worded or is it badly intentioned and perfectly worded? make your own minds up.
Either way we (taxpayers and voters) are being taken for absolute fools and mugs
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Much like the Homer Simpson quote:
“Let us all bask in television’s warm glowing warming glow.”
Talking of pulling a Homer…
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Will be interesting to see what National does. Recently they have shown that they are soft on crime with the Chris Finlayson debacle during the debate on the judicial reform bill. As he is deputy chair of the Justice and Electoral committee one can only dread what lunacy and idiotic thinking he will bring to the EFB debate during the select committee phase. National has proven it is soft on crime and I predict it will show it has no idea about freedom of speech either. But never fear, Heather Roy will save the day again by making the necessary amendments during the “in committee” stage. I mean who else in Parliament, other than ACT, cares about individuals rights and freedom of speech?
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
This bill should be renamed the Electoral[Mugabe] Finance Bill.
This is a completely breathtaking attack on the fundamental principle of freedom of expression.
Keep the door wide open to your secret funds but lookout anyone that detracts ,speaks the actual facts or dares to oppose the Regime.
It would also explain more reasoning behind the Births Death and Marriage secrecy amendment. Another classic Mugabe move .
Dare I say it but would someone like to check out if Ms Clarke actually got formally married to Mr Davis – try finding it in the Register ? Quick outlaw it.!!!
I note the Police investigation into the Stolen emails has stalled -Another classic Mugabe move – control the police and what they can investigate. If someone had been murdered the Police would have got them found out as quick as but when it is a direct attack against the principles of democracy of a scale worse than Watergate Mugabe wont act against itself. Help no – we have ‘Broad’ control over the Police!!!
Of course Taito jumped ship – turn on the Police.
Benson Pope tennis balls – turn off the Police “he’s one of us” remember “not in the public interest” …… oops oh he’s not now- um-er he hasn’t spoken out yet best keep him warned of our sweeping Mugabe powers. It will keep him quite
Why doesn’t some one in the Nats asked Helen what she knew about the Setchell affair — can you not imagine that she didn’t get completely briefed about it from H2 who as always is pushing all the buttons before she was sacked.
Vote:DBP wouldn’t have acted so directly if H1 hadn’t identified the danger for Mugabes future election program. Helen defended Logan and what he did and Logan will soon take the jump and join DBP as convienient fall guys as always to keep the focus and heat of Mugabe[Helengrad]
July 30th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
A single member under 18? That’s the end of student union camapigns then.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
This bill is so astoundingly bad that one should laugh if it wasn’t so scary.
These guys are meant to govern this country. fir the life of me I cannot understand why the parties on the left of the house are even giving this the time of day. Bad governments make bad laws, and I cannot think of a better example in New Zealand.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Matt – that’s single member under 18 of an unincorporated body (e.g. most churches, the “Campaign for Civil Unions” etc.). If a group forms an incorporated society (all unions, the major NGOs like Greenpeace, Amnesty etc.) then it’s allowed 17 year-old members.
It’s the unincorporated ones that this law particularly shafts.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
I wonder if there is any way around it? Maybe if advertising is released on the last few days of December 2007? Still, you really need it closer to the election.
A friend of mine reckons that the Jan 1st date for electioneering means that Labour might have a snap election. I don’t know what good that would do them.
It really is dirty communist politics; we’ve never had a party who played this dirty here in NZ before. They know they haven’t the money because of having to pay back for the pledge card, so they’ve decided to shut up any dissenting views.
Helen, you should be ashamed
Vote:July 31st, 2007 at 1:23 pm
I would have thought that the Green Party would be opposed to this as it is just as likely to negatively impact on them as on National.
Vote: