Comments on: COG on Electoral Finance Bill

By: Shawn

Shawn — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 01:23:46 +0000

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.

By: fletch

fletch — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 09:53:18 +0000

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

By: Graeme Edgeler

Graeme Edgeler — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 08:25:43 +0000

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.

By: slightlyrighty

slightlyrighty — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 07:59:56 +0000

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.

By: Matt

Matt — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 07:36:08 +0000

A single member under 18? That’s the end of student union camapigns then.

By: Calculus

Calculus — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 05:57:12 +0000

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.
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]

By: Zarchoff

Zarchoff — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 05:33:25 +0000

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?

By: Seamonkey Madness

Seamonkey Madness — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 02:07:00 +0000

Much like the Homer Simpson quote:
“Let us all bask in television’s warm glowing warming glow.”

Talking of pulling a Homer…

By: DavidW

DavidW — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 02:06:18 +0000

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

By: Inventory2

Inventory2 — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 01:30:25 +0000

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………..

By: Barnsley Bill

Barnsley Bill — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 01:15:35 +0000

The Terry Gilliam movie Brazil springs to mind or V for Vendetta.
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.

By: Dead Duck Dux

Dead Duck Dux — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 01:08:28 +0000

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!

By: Seamonkey Madness

Seamonkey Madness — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 01:08:10 +0000

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??

By: TIM BARCLAY

TIM BARCLAY — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 01:02:41 +0000

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.

By: Kiki

Kiki — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 00:19:40 +0000

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

By: Inventory2

Inventory2 — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 00:17:04 +0000

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??!!

By: cubit9f

cubit9f — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 00:11:03 +0000

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.

By: NatStaffer

NatStaffer — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 23:53:27 +0000

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]

By: Craig Ranapia

Craig Ranapia — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 23:49:30 +0000

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?

By: Bryce Edwards

Bryce Edwards — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 23:47:53 +0000

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
http://www.liberation.org.nz