Chinese Government Rules on Criticism
The following are the proposed rules from the Chinese Government on criticism of the Government in 2008:
- If you wish to significantly criticise the Government you must register with the Government and provide your name, address and contact details.
- Political parties and candidates are banned from publishing their views on any government issue.
- Regulated criticism shall include any advertisement, any message handed out or displayed, any message sent to any member of the public, delivered to a member of the public or left at the house of a member of the public, any broadcast, any film, any video, any non-personal Internet message and any electronic message.
- Regulated criticism includes any message advocating a vote against a party in Government, or against any proposition associated with the Government.
- Commercial advertising which is not in accord with Government policy is also regulated and restricted.
- Critics must notify the Government of the name and address of their agent who shall be held accountable for their criticisms.
- The names, addresses and contact details of any significant donors to the criticising organisation must be revealed to the Government or face a $40,000 fine.
- If a critic receives over $500 from an undisclosed source, they must hand that money over to the Government.
- Any placards in a protest march must have the name and address of the person who approved them in the placard.
- Minor critics do not need to register with the Government so long as they swear a statutory declaration that they will spend less than 10% of a significant critic.
- A significant critic is restricted to two full page advertisements per year. Criticism beyond this level is illegal and can result in jail terms.
- It shall be illegal for any publisher to accept an advertisement which criticises the Government, or any policy associated with it, unless the critic has registered or signs the aforementioned statutory declaration.
- Breaches of the anti-criticism law are punishable by up to a year in jail.
Boy I’m glad I live in a country where a Government would never try and pass a law as draconian as the Chinese one.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: Electoral Act
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:04 pm
We’re not draconian at all. Unless of course you’re a woman who has an ingrown toenail and then you’ll be asked by the powers that be if your partner has ever criticised you.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Heh, Good one DPF..
Scary isn’t it.
We are getting closer.. and closer… and closer….
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Outrageous! Draconian! Totalitarian! … and coming to a small pacific ‘democracy’ soon.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:24 pm
brilliant when put in that context david. I find it extraordinary that this is only causing angst in the blogoshere. This is the single biggest hammer blow that civil liberties has had in this country.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Is that actually a chinese law or is that just an example of how bad the Govt electoral reform bill is?
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Lest we forget the article in the ChCh Press 15 March 2007 called ;
“Blog Attack – Canty police accused of corruption .”
It is very dangerous living on the edge when you are right and the government is wrong !!
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Nice, shocking silence from the MSM on this one. Is it too hard for them to work out?
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Kudos to Mr. Farrar for continuing to highlight this vastly important matter. Once again, the blogosphere pursues the issues that count, and stands up for freedom, while the antique media continues as the fawing sycophant of socialism, political correctness and big and powerful government.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Have some of the articles been plagiarised into the proposed Electoral Finance Act? They appear familiar!
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:52 pm
A cynic might say that the Chineses have instructed Helen to implement a similar plan if she wants a Free Trade Agreement.
Not that I am a cynic.
But we should be afraid, very afraid
All joking aside, that the Electoral Finance Bill is just way too close to China’s rules should have alarm bells ringing….but as BB says, why isn’t the electorate worried?
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Grant sadly the latter
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Anybody know how to send this post to Transparency International? For that matter, what do Amnesty International have to say about all this?
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Excellent post DPF – but most likely WAY too subtle for the likes of Sam, Selma & Sonic. Meanwhile, I’m still suspicious that Winston’s trip to that paragon of democracy, North Korea, has sinister undertones – maybe the Baubles of Office have finally got to him, and Dear Leader has arranged some good, old-fashioned “re-education” for him!
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Now we know what’s going on when those Chinese officials come over. They’re fine tuning our electoral reform bill.
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Who copied who I wonder?
I bet the Yanks ain’t got the balls to lampoon the Chinese government like they did ours. As well deserved as it was though.
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:34 pm
lets stop calling it the electoral reform bill. the destruction of democracy bill might be closer to the truth
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Well said krazykiwi! Is there no end to the lengths that Dear Leader will go in order to cling to power? There really are insidious overtones to this piece of legislation. If only the MSM were to take off their collective blinkers, and expose this bill for the sham that it is!
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:40 pm
…. and the reason the Nats oppose this legislation is because they object to the process by which it has been created, not so much the legislation itself.
The Nats are only arguing against it because they weren’t consulted on how to destroy free speech LOL.
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Nice to see the wreckers & haters have found their tonsils today, after denying they had any yesterday.
Remember one other ‘Chinese’ rule: Have the police move any protestors when they disrupt a banquet
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:00 pm
How dare any of you criticise these practices ! There will be executions at dawn till you all obey !
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:04 pm
They’ve been banqueting on us for years Sell Ma soul to the commies Bitch. (Silly B for short). Kiwi’s are too dumb to protest after years of dripfeeding socialism starting in kindy.
But I do congratulate you on having The Perfect Handle.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=selma http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bouvier
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Now that post is some serious humour elixer for the political parasites that ail us!
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Perfect Man – great research there! Which of those “attributes” does our Selma possess, I wonder?
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:18 pm
kiwi_donkey. I don’t know that having Transparency International’s address would do much good because they say:
“Further, the Corruption Perceptions Index is a global research program contracted by the TI Secretariat to a German University independently of any country chapters, including TI NZ. Therefore we have no immediate control over the rankings ascribed annually to individual countries including NZ.”
I haven’t yet determined from the above whether the NZ Branch of NI has any input into the provisiom of evidence of corruption in NZ.
I gather, perhaps incorrectly, that the index ia arrived at by the number of successful prosecutions about corruption that are brought by Police. So cover-up allegations of corruption, then there are no prosecutions.
Therefore a clean sheet and move to the top of the Transparency Index. A somewhat “Hollow” procedure.
Perhaps the Taito Philip Field case will put paid to this?
The real question is how many case of corruption have been lodged with the Police and have never seen the light of day? Include in these, the allegation of perverting and preventing the course of justice, lodged against the Police Commissioner and some in his Office, on which The Hon Justice Goddard, Police Complaints closed the file in February of this year?
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Well I vote that if the bill is passed as many of us as possible set out to breach the various provisions. This will test the Commie Bastards (I no longer call them Socialists as they moved beyond that ) It will also get publicity and draw attention to the dark forces that know govern us. Of course the MSM will probably ignore any arrests and executions to avoid their own punishment.
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:00 pm
… and yet some people still take David Farrar seriously.
Come on Davey, you know very well that a (albeit flawed) bill aimed at preventing elections from being unduly influenced by big money is nothing like the system they have in China.
The one time I have every worried the NZ Government was emulating China was when I was arrested on the orders of Jenny Shipley in 1999 for peacefully protesting against the Chinese Government.
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Tane said “Come on Davey, you know very well that a (albeit flawed) bill aimed at preventing elections from being unduly influenced by big money is nothing like the system they have in China.”
When you talk about elections being influenced by big money Tane, are you referring to the Unions?
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Executions will continue till you REALLY love the chinese, and their rules???
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Selma,
Where do you find such words?
Wreckers and haters – on a par with cancerous and corrosive.
Tsk, Tsk – you could do better. Persuasive refutation perhaps?
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Selma
Wreckers and haters? Hmmm what a couple of doozies – on a par with cancerous and corrosive.
Tsk, tsk you could do better. Persuasive refutation perhaps?
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Tane…. big money? if big money is the root of undue electoral influence then look no further than the incumbent government. billions of dollars of taxpayer loot in the bank and the power to write laws (and dodge others) to legitimise the use of that money. standby for a torrent of Working For Families type advertising in the next 12 months as proof.
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Selma, Tane, Willie,
Your only defence of this Bill seems to be that somebody else isn’t perfect. Can’t you come up with something better than that? Like an argument?
Actually, it would be helpful if you could say whether you think the flaws DPF has pointed out really are problems, and if so, how you would fix them. Are you game?
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:38 pm
A joint Goverment agreement with Aussie on the control of Natural Health products to strengthen our Trade agreement.
A joint Goverment agreement on the issue of criticising Goverment policy to strengthen a proposed Trade agreement.
Winston thinks its too soft so he’s off to examine the rules in North Korea.
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:39 pm
“When you talk about elections being influenced by big money Tane, are you referring to the Unions?”
No, as the following chart demonstrates:
http://www.elections.org.nz/parties/donations_summary.html
Given the massive bias toward corporate funds, I’m sure unions would be more than happy to see strict limits on campaign donations. As the graph shows, organised labour could never throw as much money at politicans as the corporates do.
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:40 pm
What you all forget is that the same rules apply to those ‘campaigning’ for the relection of the government.
Virtually all of them are used in such oppressed nations such as the US.
Where political speech for those influencing voters is highly regulated.
But since when did the big bucks ever get anywhere.
ACT is flushed away countless millions, for 2 MPs
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Tane
Labour want it both way – again. Apparently the extra $800,000 of tax payers money stolen (and repaid) by Labour didn’t have any effect on the outcome of the election but apparently we can’t have uncontrolled spending because it effects the outcome of elections. Can you explain this or are you just the parrot of Labour spin you appear to be?
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Don’t hold your breath waiting for an answer KD – they will have to seek new instructions from the 9th Floor. Free-thinking is strongly discouraged!
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Further to my previous comment, it appears that in 2005 the mysterious ‘Waitemata Trust’, by itself, gave National more than 10 times the amount donated to the Labour Party by all unions combined.
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Tane
If Labour don’t think anon donations are a fine thing then why did they not make them illegal in the leg we are talking about?
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Tane
Further to my last comment: Judge Labour by their actions and not their words. You might be surprised at what is actually going on!
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Tane, back that up with some solid links or STFU, Union money is mostly laundered govt funding would be a similar comment from the blue perspective and equally as outrageous.
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Oh and while you are flailing around trying to prove that bullshit do not forget to include all the face to face campaigning of members, posters, flyers, newsletters and MASSIVE NATIONAL ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN that the unions managed for Klarke.
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Selma said-
“ACT is flushed away countless millions, for 2 MPs”
Really?
2005 Election Spending-
ACT 1,375,743.69
Green 834,616.31
Labour 4,633,162.98
National 3,797,428.77
NZ First 771,193.06
As usual Selma, the facts just don’t back up your argument.
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Bullshit smellma.
The unions are off the leash and funded by labour with our money.
God you lefties are an odious unprincipled bunch. You deserve the labour party.
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:14 pm
“Tane, back that up with some solid links or STFU, Union money is mostly laundered govt funding would be a similar comment from the blue perspective and equally as outrageous.”
It was in the link in the previous post, which I was referring to – do the maths yourself.
http://www.elections.org.nz/parties/donations_summary.html
And I don’t know why you lot are trying to get me to justify why Labour hasn’t banned anonymous donations etc. I’m not the Labour Party, hell I’m not even a member, so I’m not sure how I’m supposed to be responsible for their policy, which I’ve already described in this thread as ‘flawed’.
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Tane,
flawed – you and I agree on that.
But i think it’s more than flawed, a term which implies some kind of accident or unplanned outcome.
this legislation a deliberate attack democratic freedoms. NZ’ers across the spectrum of political views (except perpaps purist socialist or communist) should be very worried
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Great Post David, shame most of the mainstream media aren’t pushing the issue much.
Tane and other socialists- As for the issue of the rich “buying elections”, and this bill adressing the undue influence of wealth, it doesn’t. It creates two standards of free speech (similar of how Labour has created two types of law, one consisting of Prima Farcies and “validating” legislation for herself and her cronies, and another set of laws for the rest of us), one for the government (allowed to spend as nuch money as they want on kiwisaver adds and working for families adds to help re-elect Labour, and another standard for the rest of us, which involves being banned from spending more than $60 000 (or only $5 000 if a member of your group is under 18) after registering. Also, I’d like to see actual examples, not theories of the rich buring elections.
Also, note that the $60 000 limit isn’t inflation adjusted, so at 3% inflation per year, you will be allowed to spend only $54 000 (in todays money) in 2011, and $48 000 in 2014.
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Nicholas, are you suggesting the Government should not be allowed to communicate Government policies to the electorate, such as KiwiSaver and Working For Families? Certainly these ads should not be party political, but I see nothing wrong with the Government’s ads on these issues and others.
And no, krazykiwi, I don’t agree the laws as proposed are a major attack on democratic freedoms. And neither does the Bill of Rights. Only David Farrar and his lunatic fringe mates seem to think legitimate (if in this case imperfect) rules around election campaigning amount to some kind of Stalinist conspiracy. Perhaps that’s why the mainstream media “aren’t pushing the issue much.”
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Krazykiwi – flawed doesn’t begin to describe this legislation. Either it was drafted by incompetents, or there is an insidious undercurrent to it. Obviously, Burton and his advisors couldn’t come up with a ban on anonymous donations that would carry enough cross-party support for them to ram it through. So instead, Dunne & Peters have rolled over and allowed the government to propse a vile attack on freedom of speech that North Korea or communist China would be proud to call their own. Little wonder that NZ First and United Future are fast disappearing into the margin of error – their respective leaders, in supporting this Bill are akin to turkeys voting for an early Christmas!
August 2nd, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Tane- the reality about these adds is they promote policies assosciated with Labour, and paint them in a positive light. If I spent $60 001 next year showing exactly the same adds I would be breaking the law. I do actually believe the governemnt should be banned from communicating its policies to the electorate during the three months before an election, as three months isn’t that long, and it limits the ability of the government cato use such adds for electioneering.
The contradiction between the Bill of Rights and this is obvious. The bill of rights gives me a right to free speech. This bil bans it except in very narrow circumstances.
August 2nd, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Tane says “I don’t agree the laws as proposed are a major attack on democratic freedoms.”
The laws as proposed ban political parties from issuing press releases about political issues other than the election in an election year (e.g. a press release from the Greens opposing the Trans-Tasman Therapeutic Goods Agency).
They ban candidates from holding placards in protest marches in election year.
How is this not a major attack on democratic freedom?
August 2nd, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Tane, 20 Million to promote a gummint policy? On a red background? With Labour mentioned 3 times in the script? C’mon, wake up and smell the socialism – it’s a rort. And they are doing it with public money. I can’t remember authorising that.
RE: Election spending laws – you can’t be serious! If the shoe was on the other foot and it was the reds staring down this policy barrell, they would be up in arms! (litterally if this was China). I think your red undies are showing above the waistline. Best you sneak back under the bed, eh?
August 2nd, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Brownie, can you provide an example of this ad? The one I’ve seen was out of the leader’s fund, not out of Government advertising budgets.
And the Bill of Rights guarantees freedom of speech subject to reasonable limits in a democratic society. I’m not saying the proposed legislation is by any means perfect, but from what I’ve seen its restrictions are reasonable, and nothing like the sort of creeping Stalinism that’s being suggested on this board.
August 2nd, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Of course the MSM will probably ignore any arrests and executions to avoid their own punishment.
Yawn … yes, lots of arrests and lots of executions.
Quick, someone mention the slippery slope or the thin end of the wedge.
August 2nd, 2007 at 6:01 pm
If the governemnt advertising is not political, then lets change the rules to get the opposition to decide the advertisements the government puts out to communicate its policies, and get the opposition to choose whoich ones get promoted (so instead of Kiwisaver and working for families, we get adds informing people about this bill and the “validation” act, to retrospectively legalise labour’s theft of $800 000 for tis pledge card and other advertising. This means that all TV slots next year on Kiwisaver, National will get to have for free to put in TV adds about the validation act, and all slots for the governments election year budget we get adds informing people of this bill. Bet Labour won’t agree to that.
August 2nd, 2007 at 6:17 pm
gulp
August 2nd, 2007 at 6:32 pm
Then stop drinking the goldfish bowl Mr Idiot Gulp !!
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:00 pm
This bill violates the Bill of Rights in several ways. First it violates section 14, the right to freedom of expression, which says that “everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, recieve, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form”. The ways it violates this are obvious. Idiot Savant on No Right Turn argues that it doesn’t violate this section, because of section 5 which says that the rights guarenteed in the Bill of Rights may be subject to “reasonable limits prescribed by law as can justifiably be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”. there are several problems with this arguement, including the fact that section 14 includes the right to share those opinions “in any form” (i.e. in a form which involves spending $60 001 in 11 months), they must be “reasonable limits”, not draconian limits as set out in this bill, and they not only neeed to be justified, but “demonstrably justified” (i.e. if this bill is justified on the grounds of the rich buying elections, then there must be demonstrable cases of this happening). Secondly, because section 54 (2) prohibits bodies from spliting themselves up to avoid the $60 000 limit (i.e. a group spliting itself in ten, with each new group spending $60 000, and $600 000 spent in total) it violates freedom of association provided for in section 17 of the Bill of Rights. Third, it violates the Right to freedom of assembly in section 16 of the Bill of Rights, because the cost of hiring a venue for an meeting to disscuss the design of pamphlets to be distributed during a regulated period criticising the government must be included in the $60 000 limit (see section 100 (1) (b) (i) of the Bill). If the Bill does not violate the bill of Rights, then the bill of Rights is worthless.
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:05 pm
get the opposition to decide the advertisements the government puts out to communicate its policies
Nicholas, that is not a bad idea.
The opposition deciding WHICH policy to promote is less inspired, as policies like Kiwisaver and WFF have to be promoted, given that people to apply or opt out for these. However, getting the opposition to decide HOW new policy is promoted is an idea I really like. I bet it would lead to much better policy making.
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:15 pm
poor old dad4 nothing without children to love him
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:19 pm
Poor Tane hates corperate money, how dare rich people promote their ideas to the party of their choice. Tane you are a bloody noddy. If it wasn’t for the corperate’s you and most of your beloved unions would be irrelevant and most of your mates would be in the dole line.
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Hey Tane!
Cop a load of this!
http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/?q=node/4388
Is that enough of an example? =)
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:21 pm
How far down this road do you have to go before the evidence suggests that this is not just hard work and determination, but moving moving right on into into a stress related illness..
I would like to suggest a small sweepstake:-
See who can get closest to the actual date when H1 is unwell enough to be declared insane ??
No cancel that “she needs help!”
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Well written Nicholas O’Kane.
Have a read of the Attorney General’s ridiculous justification for how this doesn’t violate BORA – extensive use is made of Harper v Attorney General in Canada.
Unfortunately, in Harper the judgement of the Canadian supreme Court was that while there was a clear suppression of free speech, this was balanced by the need to have ‘fairness’ in an election campaign, and this was achieved by lavish State funding of political parties and draconian limits on political donations (no donations from Unions for example) – the reason for this is the Canadian fear that big US monied interests or pressure groups such as the NRA will use Canada as a political battleground for US politics. However, in the New Zealand bill there are none of the carefully constructed balances that exist in the Canadian case – all we have is the suppression of political expression. So the references to Harper in the AG’s justification that this bill doesn’t vioate BORA is total nonsense.
I really hope that, when lawyers provide submissions to the select committee on this bill, they really take the Attorney-General to task on this.
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Selma said – “ACT is flushed away countless millions, for 2 MPs”
Yeah perhaps if you can’t count past one.
And even if you were right, spending lots of money and only getting 2 MPs actually proves your point (that money = votes/elections) wrong.
Perhaps you should have spent more time planning that comment!
August 2nd, 2007 at 10:53 pm
Following numerous references to Mugabe I refer to the aptly coined Electoral [Mugabe] Finance Act.
Your thread is brilliant DPF.
This is exactly how Mugabe realises his infamous hold on power over New Zealand and Helen Clark holds her power over Zimbabwe .
Even though you refer to this as it is from NZ what you refer to is a fact of life in China[PRC] barring one small alteration being summary execution because it is a treasonable offence.
I now quote directly from the Electoral [Mugabe] Finance Act
Section 121 Power to Issue Search Warrants in respect to Illegal Practice
(1)A search warrant may be issued under section 198 of the Summary Proceedings Act in respect of an illegal practice that constitutes an offence under this Act that
[a]has been committed; or
[b]is suspected to have been committed:or
[c]is believed to be intended to be committed.
When will NZ MSM ,lawyers ,civil libertarians, average citizens, kiwi’s wake up this is incredulous when a search warrant is issued by anyone suspecting that someone intended to commit an offence!!!!
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:38 pm
There are a lot of things in China you can’t simply judge them by how they sound. Law is one of them and this could be a good thing in case the law itself is rediculous. Considering how many criticism on goverment can actually make difference in real life in New Zealand, the gap is not that huge as you may think.
A simple rule is: DONT TAKE ANYTHING FOR GRANTED.
August 3rd, 2007 at 7:20 am
All govt public information advertising should need to be approved by a select committee representing both govt and opposition. So, “don’t drink and drive” will be allowed, so will “your tax is now due” and “this is the 0800 number to call for your welfare benefit” … but “isn’t working for families wonderful!” would be stopped.
August 3rd, 2007 at 7:44 am
I see now that the Great Defender of the Public Service, Dr Prebble, now admits to knowing about Benson-Pope’s “concerns” two months ago. Read for yourselves
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4150740a10.html
The lies and cover-ups in this affair are straight from the Communist Chinese “government-for-life” manual!
August 3rd, 2007 at 7:50 am
Isn’t it ironic that those who blatantly broke the law and retrospectively validated their theft now chooses to criminalise anyone else that dares to publically speak out.
Castafiore- Critical point you raise, you can imagine a desperate Helen Clark compelling her friends in the force”Broad-ly speaking” to raid the Nats offices on suspicion of them “intending to committ an offence”. It looks like email theft will soon be legalised on suspicion of intent except it won’t be just emails it will be files and computers.
Next persons will probably be also faced with minimum 20 days solitary on suspicion of ‘intent’!!
An average kiwi participating in the democratic debate will be treated like a terrorist.
August 3rd, 2007 at 8:42 am
NZ is now under the watchful eye of “big sister”.
August 3rd, 2007 at 9:02 am
SeaMonkey, that ad on Whaleoil’s blog is out of the leader’s fund, not departmental advertising budgets. It is therefore allowed to show the party’s logo and discuss the party’s policies.
August 3rd, 2007 at 9:06 am
Yeah Tane – as made legitimate by that beautiful piece of legislative genius, the never to be forgotton “Retrospective Validation (turn lawbreaking into lawmaking) Act 2006.
Gotta love this country dontcha
August 3rd, 2007 at 9:09 am
Tane – is that the same “Leader’s Fund” from which she “borrowed” to purchase the last election?
August 3rd, 2007 at 9:16 am
BTW has Winston paid it back yet?
August 3rd, 2007 at 9:37 am
Not yet. He’s in North Vietnam taking advice on how to discourage immigration. Apparently they’re world leaders at this.
August 3rd, 2007 at 9:40 am
Inventory2: I wrote Mark Prebble 29 July 2007………
…………..”I have come across information, which in my view tends to show that Hugh Logan as a Senior Public Service employee (In the Service of the Crown) allegedly, by manipulating the truth disadvantaged a fellow employee. This in my view is in breach of the Crimes Act 1961 sections dealing with those in the Service of the Crown. It becomes a matter for the Police.
I raise a view now fully entrenched, that Public Servants serving in the Offices of Parliamentarians at times do not necessarily pass on all communications to their Member of Parliament. That could mean where there are matters related to alleged criminal offending that if this information is not passed onto the Ministers or Members of Parliament concerned, that the public servant in question is perverting and defeating the course of justice? The Minister in question if he does receive it and does nothing about it, is he/she in turn also perverting and defeating the course of justice?”
Having the courage of my convictions I laid a complaint with PC Broad thus:
“Hugh Logan, in the Service of the Crown has allegedly used his position to disadvantage Madeline Setchell also in the Service of the Crown”.
Political Party Leaders, The Governor-General along with the Media and others have all been emailed copies. The only response was from Transparency International NZ.
August 3rd, 2007 at 11:56 am
I don’t know what you’re all banging on about – the list looks perfectly reasonable to me.
August 3rd, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Prebble is a lap poodle of Dearly Beloved Leader. Asking him to inquire into the Setchell matter is like asking Rod Petreivic to inquire in the Bridgecorp collapse.
August 3rd, 2007 at 1:55 pm
gd said “Prebble is a lap poodle of Dearly Beloved Leader. Asking him to inquire into the Setchell matter is like asking Rod Petreivic to inquire in the Bridgecorp collapse.”
Agree with you there gd! However the Herald is reporting that Prebble will not stand aside from the inquiry
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10455595
He is however reported as having “said it was likely he would get someone from outside the State Services Commission (SSC) to look at its role in the affair as part of the inquiry.” How bloody condescending of him!! This has become an inquiry, in part, into his own competence. He should be suspended forthwith for misleading the public, and not allowed anywhere near this inquiry, otherwise it will be a complete and utter farce.
It’s really appropriate that we are debating this under a headline “Chinese Government Rules on Criticism” – there’s some fundamental rights and values on the line here!
August 3rd, 2007 at 2:25 pm
The suitability of Mark Prebble, in view of his forgetfulnes, participating in the Commission of Inquiry into the Hugh Logan incident, has been raised quite rightly by the National Party as it reveals a conflict of interest. There is no transparency. In my book, it is the reverse- corruption
However, why hasn’t National raised the question of this proposed Commission of Inquiry, where the terms of reference are drawn up by the Commissioner, who with his previous knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the event should be barred from having any part in the affair?
Any Commission of Inquiry conducted by the publi service is contaminated. In my view it is another alleged cover-up with the approval of Helen Clark and Parliamentarians etc
In view of the complaint re Hugh Logan lodged with the police, surely the matter should be left to them to investigate as they did with Philip Taito Field, a Servant of the Crown who advantaged himself to the disadvantage of others.
Helen Clark has copy of questions to The Public Service Commissioner along with some party leaders, media etc. However all Parliamentarians should soon have copy of the complaints laid with the Commissioner and the Public Service Commissioner
August 3rd, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Frank and Inventory2 For those who of us who are students of good governance in all its guises it becomes rather tiresome having to point out the bleeding obvious all the time. NZ has suffered from poor governance for several decades but under the Communists it has descended into a farce. They know the principles of good governance but they ignore these when they get in the way of staying in power. Prebble is conflicted in this matter. He cant conduct a meaningful inquiry. It should be up to a retired High Court Judge. This is why we have we keep the old dears around after they retire because there are very useful at this sort of thing. Say what you like but our RHCJs are far more likely to get to the truth than weasel Prebble. He has an interest in making sure the PS comes up smelling of roses otherwise it reflect badly on himself. Dear oh dear . Cant everyone see this.
August 3rd, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Tane, you seem quiet after Inventory2’s last post. Can’t help but imagine why.
August 3rd, 2007 at 3:09 pm
gd – yes it is so obvious it stands out like dogs bollox but those who disseminate what passes for news and opinion are more focussed on reporting the candidate vice chancellor of Massey University making meaningless sounds about John Key’s attitude to the Springbok Tour.
You just gotta love the priorities of some – its what makes this country great you know.
August 3rd, 2007 at 3:22 pm
gd said “He has an interest in making sure the PS comes up smelling of roses otherwise it reflect badly on himself. Dear oh dear . Cant everyone see this.”
Certainly not the lickspittles in the MSM it would seem gd. It’s almost as though they did a hatchet job on Benson-Pope to show that they were paying lip-service to those few of us who dare to oppose the current regime, but having done that, they don’t dare double-cross Dear Leader again for a while.
I agree totally with your assessment. If this inquiry is to be in any way, shape or form credible and prinicpled (not words that one would generally associate with the current Government, I admit!), Prebble cannot be allowed to play any role in it. So what that he is Logan’s employer. It is the Public Service that Prebble is very well paid to represent which is under inquiry, and he cannot be Judge, Jury and Defendant. Your suggestion of a RHCJ has merit, espicially if it is one appointed pre-1999 – if you get my drift!
August 3rd, 2007 at 3:26 pm
I thought “Chinese Government Rules on Criticism” is for New Zealand, how ever did I get them mixed up!!!!!
August 3rd, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Inventory2 So are you suggesting that members of the judicary appointed post 1999 are not shall we say (cough) quite as robust in their desire for truth and justice. You might say that but of course I couldnt possibly comment.
August 3rd, 2007 at 4:01 pm
By the way DPF is very quiet I guess he is holed up in the Langham getting ready for the Conference this weekend. no doubt he will have some inside news for us in due course. I just hope JK keeps his powder dry and doesnt give any hints to the Communists on policy Those bastards dont deserve any breaks. Keep the boot on their throats I say
August 3rd, 2007 at 4:16 pm
I find it hard to believe that Prebble forgot, and that if he did his memory was not jogged in time to tell the Prime Minister that Benson -Pope was telling porkies again.
It seems there isn’t much difference between his actions and those alleged against DEWAR the ex chief detective who having been told of the illegal actions of his subordinates investigated the matter himself declared them innocent without interviewing them and did not tell any senior officer of the allegations. If Prebble doesn’t resign the precedent has been set, then the remainder of the civil service will be seen to have a legitmate defence (amnesia)for any transgressions alleged against them
August 3rd, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Absolutely gd! I think one has to look carefully at pretty much anyone appointed to anything since 1999 – jobs for the boys/girls, and all that. Not that I’m suggesting that the Judiciary is in any way biased towards the aims and aspirations of the current regime, but in the pursuit of full and frank disclosure, why take the risk (cough, splutter)……
August 3rd, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Well done baxter An excellent analogy. Sort of reminds me of the lessons on good management learnt all those years ago from several top notch directors. No surprises.Never let your boss find out something from someone else that they should have found out from you.Seems we have several candidates here guilty as charged
August 3rd, 2007 at 5:39 pm
From Tane
“Nicholas, are you suggesting the Government should not be allowed to communicate Government policies to the electorate, such as KiwiSaver and Working For Families? Certainly these ads should not be party political, but I see nothing wrong with the Government’s ads on these issues and others.”
Tane,
What you and others seem to miss is that the government should be allowed to impart information, but it should not impose draconian limits of what can and cannot be said by different individuals in groups in response to those “infomercials”.
August 3rd, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Dr A R Jack, Police Commissioner Howard Broad’s Chief Legal Officer, wrote me on 1 November 2006:
“On 16 August you made a request under the Official information Act 1982 for all the material generated by your letter of 19 July 2006. As I explained above, your letter of 19 July 2006 triggered no action whatsoever by police other than my reply of 20 September 2006”. Which was:
“I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 19 July 2006.
As will you may aware Police have already commenced an investigation into issues relating to Philip Taito Field?”
Notice how carefully he couches his reply in order to avoid referring to the allegation that Philip Taito Field was guilty of an alleged Criminal Act as an MP and Minister in the Service of the Crown,
AS my complaint, that the Herald had reported was being considered by Police, “triggered no response whatsoever”, then who directed an investigation be undertaken? Why was an alleged cover-up suddenly resurrected?
Police won’t divulge this information even under requests under the Official Information Act 1982.
We are in a very sorry .state in this country allegedly riddled with corru
August 3rd, 2007 at 8:06 pm
“Police won’t divulge this information even under requests under the Official Information Act 1982.
We are in a very sorry .state in this country allegedly riddled with corru”
Frank??? Are Ya there mate? Have the secret police bashed ya door down?
August 3rd, 2007 at 8:11 pm
The PM Helen Clark is a corrupt Prime Minister and the police and SIS are liarbore lickspittle puppets !!!
God help NZ !
August 4th, 2007 at 11:06 am
slightlyrightly: Door still intact. Politicians, media, and police adopt an ostrich like attitude whilst doing their three monkeys act. Strangely they survive this strange convolution.
Laugh of the week is retired District Police Commander Mark Lammas criticism of politicians and Chester Borrows reminding him that they are all civil servants.
(but not reminding him that ‘All in the Service of the Crown are subject to the Crimes Act 1961). If they Know of alleged cases of corruption do they have a mandatory duty to take action? If they remain silent with this knowledge do they by their silence, become party to the Crime.
We have on the one hand the law makers and on the other the so called law enforcement officers