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.

Even less if their membership had a member under 18 years of age!

Great Law eh!

(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)

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

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)

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?

“..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)

Surely this bill deserves a march on parliament. Count me in to turn up and boost the numbers.

[DPF: And when was Stanley appointed as spokesperson for everyone?]