Dom Post on Electoral Finance Bill
A thumbs up to the Dom Post for devoting an editorial to the “draconian” Electoral Finance Bill. They state:
Prime Minister Helen Clark swore she would put an end to anonymous trust funds and donations, which have financed both major parties, and that allowed National to outspend Labour in 2005. The public, she said, wanted to know who funded political parties and thereby pulled their strings. But the bill before the House does no such thing.
The Electoral Finance Bill thus caps third-party expenditure at $60,000, preposterously small given the cost of newspaper or television advertising.
But the greater concern is the bill’s attack on freedom of expression, the right to which is enshrined in the Bill of Rights Act. Choosing how to spend one’s own money is a freedom Kiwis individually and jointly have long enjoyed – now they are being told that, in election year, they can go this far and no further. It’s draconian.
Labour’s agenda is clear. It is determined to do all it can legislatively to make it very difficult for opponents to wage a political campaign in 2008 but, at the same time, will almost certainly add to the millions it is already spending on telling the community how to behave via a veritable wave of public education campaigns.
It’s just a pity that the Dom Post has devoted so little space in their news pages to the Bill. 99% of people who do not read blogs will have little idea about how far reaching the third party restrictions are. In their weekly Monday roundup of the previous week in the House, they didn’t even mention the Bill’s introduction as a major issue for the week.
July 30th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Poor old Liarbour, trying to stop the tide with a sponge. Haven’t they heard about the internet? It doesn’t cost a cent to promote your views to millions of people worldwide.
I was thinking today about why there have been so many scandals lately. Has it occurred to anyone that a government shares so many secrets with the public service that it is dependent on them to keep its confidence. Screw them over and they spill the filth.
Looks to me like the public service are sick of labour and are leaking like the Titantic. When even the public service wants Labour gone, you know the end is nigh.
Keep up the job hunt Helen. You’re not eligible for the parliamentary pension plan yet!
July 30th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
The public service would rather collectively catch Herpes than see this govt out. The growth in non productive govt jobs has been phenomenal throughout this regimes tenure. The only person less likely to want Klarke out is Bob Jones who must be minting it with Wellington Commercial rents.
In the unlikely event that we mange to rid ourselves of these thieves and get a right thinking govt, wellington property prices will plummet as all those mandarins get their cards.
July 30th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
The whole debacle is bloody depressing. The mixture of the current self serving government, MM freakin P, the 3 year term, this piece of legislation and the fact that any future government will almost undoubtedly be dependent on Dunne, Peters, The Maori Party or the greens heralds a long(er) period of stagnation in NZ. What worries me is that we have barely survived whilst the world economy has been electric. What will happen when there is a down turn?
July 30th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
Colin Espiner had a good blast against the bill, in todays Chch ‘Press’.
July 30th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
I think it’s pretty clear now that Labour have no principles whatsoever, other than staying in power. This bill takes another substantial step down the road towards a Mugabe-type state. Now the only effective opposition to be allowed is the “approved” opposition. Everybody else is effectively silenced.
The worrying thing is, this bill doesn’t make sense for a party that may expect to be in opposition, facing the resources of Government advertising campaigns. It only makes sense if Labour expects NEVER to be in opposition.
If we don’t throw this rabble out, we will lose even more of our democratic freedoms after the next election.
July 30th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
The open seaon the Labour Party has allowed itsself on the use of taxpayers money through the Government publicity machine is a monstrous perversion of our democracy. The Setchell appointment only became policially sensitive to the Labour Party because they intend to abuse tax payers’ funds in the Environment area and much else.
July 30th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
I hope this is an issue which starts slowly and builds a massive momentum. Certainly the response in the House last week by Bill English and Simon Power was a positive step. But National MPs and John Key especially need to talk about the consequences of this bill at every opportunity. He needs to bring to the forefront of public speaking and ensure this corruption of our democratic system becomes the defining issue of the year.
People need to expose this for the corruption that it is. I will be writing to several MPs and expressing my views at this corruption. This is another step towards an all controlling Police State.
Quite simply our great uncles and grandfathers did not fight for the freedoms of this country to have this bunch of lying self serving socialists deny the rights to free speech.
Labour are an absolute disgrace for even thinking they could put this far reaching legislation before parliament.
July 30th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
I am convinced that politicians cannot be trusted to sort this kind of thing out. Neither National or Labour. Labour have already shown what lengths they’re prepared to stoop to suit their own ends. But, I am not confident National would act any differently. If National gets involved in changing this Bill, it will be in a way that suits the Party. The wider democratic interest continues to be ignored.
July 30th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
look the truth is no-one reads editorials and no-one really gives a crap about this anonymous donations shit. the only thing people remember is National flip flopping over nuclear ships, the Cullen Fund, KiwiSaver, etc.
[DPF: And when was Stanley appointed as spokesperson for everyone?]
July 30th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
This bill is clearly going to be one of the worst fiascos in NZs recent political history. The politicians are circling the voting citizens waiting for the feeding frenzy to start, and their only interest is in how the legislation can be made to help their party in a MMP situation. But they are assuming their party might not grow or shrink in support but will forever be stuck with about the support they have now!
July 31st, 2007 at 12:29 am
Did you see the good skit on this on FaceLift tonight?
Surely this bill deserves a march on parliament. Count me in to turn up and boost the numbers.
July 31st, 2007 at 7:34 am
Much as I’m thoroughly enjoying all the right-wing pain in evidence on this thread, have to agree with the Dom on this one. Labour’s thoroughly earned an electoral arse-kicking.
July 31st, 2007 at 8:06 am
Barnsley Bill
Nah – Jones is not so stupid as to have short term lease agreements for Government Departments. It will take yars of the taxpayer paying rent on empty buildings for it to work its way out of the system.
July 31st, 2007 at 8:43 am
BTW in case anyone is interested a yar is public service definition of the working part of a year after deducting sick pay, department days, annual leave, study leave, domestic leave, tangi leave, cultural sensitivity training days, te tirity study, gender equalisation and promotion of social minority working party meetings offsite, pophiris and morning teas with the minister. equates to approximately 83.5 wde (working day equivalents in turn defined as 7.4 hours of which 64 minutes is lunch time, 2*17 minute breaks are for morning and afternoon tea and an unspecified allowance for slippage in late arrivals and early departures to catch the bus.)
July 31st, 2007 at 9:04 am
Labour and their minor party supporters are simply entrenching their position as the most corrupt Parliament in the hisrory of this country?
July 31st, 2007 at 9:11 am
Peter Muck: We have had a Police State for years- endorsed by Helengrab
July 31st, 2007 at 9:26 am
Funny – Sonic, Selma, Sam are a little quiet today.
July 31st, 2007 at 9:46 am
peter mc said..
“..But National MPs and John Key especially need to talk about the consequences of this bill at every opportunity.
He needs to bring to the forefront of public speaking and ensure this corruption of our democratic system becomes the defining issue of the year..”
(thanks for the first belly-laugh of the day..!
yeah..national are going to campaign to end anonymous donations..
and my day-job..is as the tooth-fairy..
get (some sorta) grip..!..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 31st, 2007 at 10:35 am
DavidW
July 31st, 2007 at 11:21 am
Phil u……….
National have already attacked the bill in the house & in the media.
They voted against it in the house.
The fact you attack the Nats on this and ignore the connotations of the bill shows your real agenda.
Don’t let the facts get in the way of your twisted views now will you.
What is it with socialists, do you all get lobotomies along with your party memberships?
July 31st, 2007 at 12:00 pm
heh-heh..!..
craig m..are you (seriously) trying to tell us national support the end of anonymous donations..?
a party that gets over 90% of its’ donations that way..?
as i said..heh-heh..!
and as for your so totally off the mark assumptions about my attitudes to this legislation..?
http://whoar.co.nz/2007/the-coalition-for-open-government-slams-this-dog-of-an-electoral-reform-bill-dreamed-up-by-labourand-the-greens/
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 31st, 2007 at 12:53 pm
phil…
they might not like it, but they won’t fight it. Why risk losing all the political capital they have gained on this?
Given your explanation (unexpressed on this thread, hence my assumption) I withdraw my comments regarding your views on the bill.
Still think you’ve had a labotomy tho
July 31st, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Should we be concentrating on who/what can advertise political views in election year so contributions can be organised accordingly. Perhaps a suitable organistion can then be set up to oppose Labour/Greens/NZ1 & Dunny without actually trying to win office? Are unions exempt?
July 31st, 2007 at 2:09 pm
it’s actually lobotomy..oh brainy one/intellectual giant..!
(smiley face and all..)
and you are talking absolute drivel..
you are seriously proposing that national will campaign to end anonymous donations to ‘retain political capital’..?
which raspberry bush were you born under..?..this morning..?
and maybe you didn’t need a lobotomy..darling..
going on the evidence to date/hand..
you are already very close to a state of catatonia..
carry on..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 31st, 2007 at 2:41 pm
wrong phil, it was actually labotomy – where an individual has the politically confused parts of their brain removed and becomes a drone who can say nothing negative about the LP. Perfect examples I can produce are sonic, selma, nome, idiot. They thought they were successful with Milt but he parked a spark of intelligence off to one side and they missed it.
xx
July 31st, 2007 at 3:03 pm
If this was an election year, given that Pita Sharples and Helen Clark have both publically opined on the issue of child abuse, then Plunket, Barnados, Parents inc and parent centre would not be allowed to spend more than $5000 a month highlighting this issue, if this bill was to become law.
Even less if their membership had a member under 18 years of age!
Great Law eh!
July 31st, 2007 at 9:19 pm
Not commenting on the bill itself, the process by which this bill has arrived at the first reading is a disgrace.
First, this bill should have begun, at the very least, with the issue of a White Paper or commission and pre-legislative consultation (i.e. like they did in the UK, and was recommended by the NZ Constitutional Arrangements select committee). Instead, this bill was the product of secret horse-trading among the governing parties. Peter Dunn and Nandor Tanczos (who sat on the Constitutional Arrangments select committee and discussed this kind of issue) should hang their heads in shame – admitedly, Peter Dunn is a political prostitute, but I did expect the Greens to show some concern for a democratic consultation process instead of the secretive bargaining.
Second, this bill is very poorly drafted, and is really just a bad cut-and-paste from the Canadian electoral financing act. An important check on bad legislation is ensuring the bill is properly drafted – yet this bill is so badly drafted it seems that it was devised in a Labour Party office and PCO had little role in this. Again, this is a disgrace. Selective parts of the Canadian Act relating to third parties are copied (though none of the balancing provisions), while the PPERA Act evidently hasn’t – this shows the very selective – or plain ignorant – drafting that went on.
Third, the AG’s statement on BORA is extremely weak – much of the AG’s statement depends on reference to a Canadian case, Harper v. Attorney General, which, in a controversial Supreme Court majority decision, allowed for strict restrictions on third party election advertising. However, the Canadian Act is fundamentally different from this bill, in that the Canadian Act balances the restrictions on third party freedom of speech with restrictions on party donations and very generous State funding of political parties. In contrast, in New Zealand, the electoral financing bill intends to impose quite draconian limits on expression but also limits the ability of opposition parties to campaign – this is obviously a basic point of difference between NZ and Canada, in that Canada sought to use State intervention to create a ‘level-playing field’, while the NZ bill is clearly intended to skew the field in favour of the government. So the AG’s statement on the impact of the bill on s.14 of BORA is garbage.
The process by which this bill has been devised is about the most flawed and undemocratic I can imagine. I appreciate that I am in a tiny minority of people who care about proper democratic process for bills and other such constituional niceties, but these things matter a hell of a lot – if one party plays partisan politics with the electoral system, then there is nothing to stop the other party, when it comes into power, from doing exactly the same thing.