Incinerate the Electoral Finance Bill
People should listen to this interview on National Radio Nine to Noon with Steven Price. Steven isn’t a dirty rightie like me. Steven is a respected media law commentator, a spokesperson of the Coalition for Open Government and Nicky Hager’s lawyer. I say this just to make the point that the language used to describe the bill comes from someone who thought he would be the chief supporter of the bill.
Steven starts by saying:
Let’s rip the flesh off this Electoral Finance Bill and incinerate it
Then on the 3rd party restrictions:
They’re also shut down an awful lot of political speech, almost everybody’s political speech
Kathryn Ryan upon learning that these restrictions will not just be the traditional 90 days but all of election year commented:
That’s crazy
Steven goes on to explain the definition of election advertising is so wide
It captures almost all political discourse in that year
Submissions on this draconian bill can now be made, and close on 7 September.
If ever there was a bill you should do a submission on, it is this. It will affect the rights of almost all NZers to have their say on political issues. Do not assume that the MPs will magically fix it.
Under this bill it will be illegal to upload a video to You Tube attacking the Government unless you sign a statutory declaration.
It will be illegal to promote an online petition against a Government policy without a statutory declaration or registering.
Have you say, while you still can. Details of how to submit are here.
I will provide some ideas and suggestions for people to help with their submissions closer to the deadline. So don’t worry if you are not an expert on the bill. But please take the time to make a submission.
August 8th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
This bill heralds the end of free speech in NZ.
This is an attempt at destroying the democracy and is tantamount to treason.
August 8th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Nice refferal to the current government as a “regiem”
August 8th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Can someone please give me a link to the Bill if one is available for download.
HHHMMM security code to post this was VOTE (subliminal suggestion David?
August 8th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
7 Sept is a disgrace as well.
August 8th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Good on you David for keeping on at this abomination. I’ll be making a submission but quite frankly have little faith in the process given how submissions against a bill (eg Repeal S59) can be overwhelming and the socialists will just ram it on through regardless. Submissions against just piss them off even more I reckon. But we must do what we can because its all we can legally do. If it goes through like it is than the public has the right, in my opinion, to go illegal means to force it out because the law has become a farce.
August 8th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
The bill certainly won’t make it through the select committe process unchanged –
The things I expect to see changed are:
1) Spending restriction period shortened.
2) Registration process done away with for people who spend less than $20,000). It’s a rediculous idea, for someone spending a couple of hundred dollars on some pamphlets and a demonstration to register with the authorities.
3)
[DPF: Two changes I would support. Also may want to consider the issue of statutory declarations for anyone spending even $50. That is far too bureaucratic and one should just rely on common sense picking up significant amounts of advertising by non registered third parties]
August 8th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
No wonder they scrapped the Sedition Act?
August 8th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Yes please, David. I will look forward to your help with making a submission. Never having completed one, but absolutely incensed by this bill, there is a first time for everything.
August 8th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
2) Registration process done away with for people who spend less than $20,000). It’s a rediculous idea, for someone spending a couple of hundred dollars on some pamphlets and a demonstration to register with the authorities.
August 8th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Oops – that was supposed to be:
2) Registration process done away with for people who spend less than $20,000). It’s a rediculous idea, for someone spending a couple of hundred dollars on some pamphlets and a demonstration to register with the authorities.
No – the limit needs to be much lower, so that the Civil Service can compile their “Do Not Hire” list.
August 8th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
by the by If anyone has contacts overseas maybe a good idea to alert them especially if they can disseminate via blogs or other means Often stuff here flies under the radar unless it gets to the right and I do mean RIGHT sources For my part I am alerting Aust UK US Canada colleagues who are involved in governance to get to their networks. Name and shame the Socialists Also anyone got contacts at the UN that bullshit palace on Human Rights. Might be worth hearing what those aresholes make of free speech Helengrad style
August 8th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
DPF – there are more important things, than this bill, to be getting on with. As an example “Independent MP Gordon Copeland stated today that he has received a suggestion” (that’s right, a suggestion!!) [that New Zealand should have an annual Children’s Day with a strong emphasis on child protection.]
Mr Copeland continued, “I feel this idea should be progressed.”
He’s not one to muck around. He’s a bloody marvel – here’s hoping he hits the threshold.
August 8th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
John Key did a brilliant speech in General Debate today referring directly to this bill calling it the Mugabe style bill.
He is a winner, clearly enjoying the cut and thrust of debate and the pathetic hollow attempts by Labour to try to find a weakness. Its actually backfired on Labour nicely because here this !!!!
Cullen TOTALLY POPPED A VEIN, he completely lost it, it was incredible and you could see by the worried looks of Darren Hughs and Mark Burton behind him. I have never seen Cullen look so unprofessional and undignified- He was properly shaking and his voice went quite squeaky!!!
Goodbye Cullen !!
And again Brownlee did a great silencing Point of Order on Cullen and stumped him again.
August 8th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
My highlight was the riposte to the various patsy questions allowing ministers to qute John Key from 2003. I don’t know who it was but a member referred to a statement made by Helen Clark professing her belief that her phone calls were being monitered by the CIA.
August 8th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
What Joely Doe said.
I hope and pray that there are many ‘first timers’ like us that find this bill so reprehensible that they are driven to make a submission against it.
This is an issue for any citizen who cares about living in a democracy, regardless of their political leaning.
Time to stand up and be counted.
August 8th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Breaking news from the Peoples republic of Aotearoa: A lecturer has been fired for stating his opinion, only voters who register with the politburo will be allowed to make political statements and another baby…..
August 8th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
This bill extends a very cunning strategy of Liabor. The bill with its outrageous provisions goes to a select committee with the aid of their lapdogs. It gets reported back to the house with some amendments to the more outrageous clauses and some pre-promised concessions to the lapdogs.The Public are then unable to make submissions on the amended clauses which still heavily favour Liabor and the bill goes through all stages with the aid of the lapdogs….Brilliant but then they have outstrategised National for decades.
August 8th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Finding the bill itself is not real easy, here’s a link I found http://www.knowledge-basket.co.nz/gpprint/docs/bills/20071301.txt
August 8th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Good onya, Nigel. Yep, the Bill is a bugger to find. The easiest way for me was to use DPF’s link from the Shutting Down Dissent post. You’d think there’s a link from the official select committee page. But nup, just a list of bookstores where you can buy it.
August 8th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Ok, I object to the section potentially implying that individual discourse permitted on the internet is blogs only.
Here is the sub-clause relating to the internet & election advertising ( it’s in the exceptions to what is considered an advertisement ).
Clause 5 (2)(g) “the publication by an individual, on a non-commercial basis, on the Internet of his or her personal political views (being the kind of publication commonly known as a blog). )”
You’d need a lawyer to state whether the comment “being the kind” actually restricts this section to only blogs or is being used as an example of personal expression on the internet.
The entire Clause 5 appears poorly thought out & excessive in the extreme.
This Clause doesn’t look real nice either
44 Contributors to be identified, if known
(1) This section applies where a third party donation comprises in whole or in part funds contributed by 1 or more other persons (contributors) that the contributors require or expect (whether under a trust, agreement, or
understanding) to be applied as a donation.
I’m sure it’s designed to catch the Bretheren ( law of unintended consequences anyone ), but proving an “understanding” in this context would seem difficult in the extreme & generally seems to be casting the net awefully wide.
August 8th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
whenever i want to see a bill i go to the parliament web site.
this one can be found there too – go to
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Legislation/Bills/b/a/c/00DBHOH_BILL8029_1-Electoral-Finance-Bill.htm
there is also info about how to make submissions, including online submissions – which is a new development! the online option should make it easier for many submitters.
August 8th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Will we still be legally allowed to publish our select committee submissions next year, or will that also be illegal under this bill?
[DPF: Unless it is on your blog, publication of your submission will be illegal unless you file a statutory declaration that you will spend less than $5,000 a year on publishing your views]
August 8th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
“If ever there was a bill you should do a submission on, it is this. It will affect the rights of almost all NZers to have their say on political issues. Do not assume that the MPs will magically fix it.”
Not that the Select Committee will listen though. And do not assume that Peter Dunne and Winston peters will vote against it; they couldn’t wait to shout ‘aye’ at 1st reading. Arseholes.
The bill is here:
http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/0ECFD8F9-37F8-4551-9BCE-627245B8302F/59478/DBHOH_BILL_8028_5255.pdf
August 8th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
There’s a bit of selective quoting going on here, David. First, you might recall that I said the biggest abomination was the absence of control of secret trusts. Odd that your correspondents don’t get so worked up about that. The bits of the bill that require third parties to reveal their big donors, including the real people behind secret trusts, are pretty good, I think. They should apply to the parties, too.
Second, you omitted to mention the (several) times I emphasised that reasonable controls on third parties’ electoral speech are a good idea, since people with more money inevitably get more speech and it’s not great for democracy if they can use that money to swing elections. The problem with this bill is that it goes way too far in trying to control third party speech. But let’s get real. This is not the death of free speech in NZ. The definition of “electoral advertisement” will be pared back; exceptions will be added. The width of its provisions is a mistake, not a plot. Officials were trying, I think sensibly, to make sure the bill covered new technology ads, and closed off the possibility that people would exploit loopholes, which of course they would. As a result, they overreached, but I’m sure that will be corrected so that the bill better reflects their real intentions.
Third, I wish you’d quoted me saying that it’s silly to call this a bill aimed at the government’s critics, as many people seem to be doing. It affects those supporting the government (and in fact the governing party too) just as much. The nonsense of the “shut down the critics” line is demonstrated by the Nats themselves, who note that it might affect unions’ campaigns.
Finally, bear in mind that the courts would bend over backwards to interpret any bill that comes out to preserve speech rights as much as possible, and that might be quite a long way.
None of this is an excuse for a bill that needs a lot of work. But let’s not get too carried away.
[DPF: Steven of course I selectively quoted. That is what blogs are for! I linked to the whole interview for those who want it all in context. The blaming it on officials doesn't wash with me. The Minister and his or her colleagues read the bill and signed off on it. It only took me 5 minutes of reading it to work out how bad it was. No Minister has yet acknowledged that the bill goes too far. Until they do I regard it as highly dangerous to place blidn faith in the reasonableness of the Government.
I have stated many times myself I have no problems with there being a limit on third party activities. But I have a real problem with that limit applying all year, with the level of that limit, with the definition of what is covered and with the bureaucratic nightmare they have created to enforce it]
August 8th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Thanks for the measured reality check Steven!
August 8th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Thanks Nigel, Honey Badger & Gooner, I seemed to end up in an endless loop to nowhere on the parliament.govt.nz website. Probably intentional.
August 8th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
It still amazes me that this government, when faced with criticism, does not directly address the criticism. It’s response is to denegrate the messenger and put into place legislation to ensure that they cannot repeat the criticism to the same extent.
We cannot let this happen. I look forward to DPF’s expertese and assistance in making a submission on this issue.
August 8th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
Post no#156,934 on the subject. Godd to see Farrar is so terrified of level playing field in election. National’s big business owners must be straining at the leash to buy their way to power.
[DPF: And every post I make, the more publicity it gets, the more stories in mainstream media, and the less chance it will survive unamended. Noone who has actually read the bill can possibly support it]
August 8th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
toms
You are a perfect socialist. Please don’t forget it was Labour who stole $800,000+ to win the last election, then when caught denied it, denigrated the accusers then delayed it and finally the grand act of “A new standard of openness and accountability” retrospectively validated their actions for the last 14 years.
Level playing field…. yes that’s the one that Labour legislated against, well almost. They legislated that no spirit levels could be used on the playing field they had chosen and then declared a new standard of spirit level – a pretty red one with a Labour party logo on it.
I know I know, it was in the public’s best interest – move on!
August 8th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
The proletariate got where it is today because of free speech chairman toms. Now run along and play stalinist purges on the playstation little chap.
August 8th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Stephen Price in my view misses the point in that the Electoral Finance Act is the final proposed Act that will bring down the curtain on a disgraceful chapter in New Zealand’s political history.
The last election was gerrymandered by nearly all the players involved with the exception of the Auditor-General and the Solicitor-General. I have never understood why Stephen Joyce, National Party who raised the allegations about the Leader’s Funds misuse, wasn’t jumping up and down while everyone involved in the complaint were dragging their feet.
Then we had the gerrymandering Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill which legalised an unlawful preocedure.
Followed by the present proposed Electoral Finance Bill, supposedly justified by Helen Clark because of the Exclusive Brethren’s large expenditure, not I understand illegal, but underhand. (Remember the Pledge card etc. wasn’t authorised, but directed to be paid by Heather Simpson out of Parliamentary Services). A real can of worms?
Lets get some Transparency into the process and have a corruption free 2008 election?
August 8th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
Will the National Party sponsor an amendment to the bill to ban anonymous donations over $10,000? This will almost certainly have the support of the Greens, and maybe even Labour. I seem to recall National indicating support for this in past (as did Helen Clark for that matter).
The most puzzling aspect of the Electoral Finance Bill is not its over the top restrictions on third parties (bad though that is) but its notable failure to address the large anonymous donations received by both National and Labout last election.
August 8th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Price also fails to acknowledge the stupidity of this bill THAT OUR PARLIAMENT PASSED AT ITS FIRST READING.
Perhaps I was too quick off the mark above suggesting the select committee would not change much. But the parliamentarians hardly instill us with confidence considering how bad the dog microchipping law was along with Sue Bradford’s anti smacking bill and now this. The quality of lawmaking in this country is disgraceful, evidenced quite clearly by this bill.
All the more reason why Act’s Regulatory Responsibility Bill MUST PASS. Sorry to blog whore DPF, but if any of you have not made a submission on Act’s bill you can do it online here:
http://www.clerk.parliament.govt.nz.clients.intergen.net.nz/OnlineSubmission/Submission.aspx?id={7E071621-44A6-48B2-85DC-780CC17E3EB6}
You simply need to say “I support this Bill”.
August 8th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Oops, a bit long. Go here for the link:
http://nominister.blogspot.com/2007/07/regulatory-responsibility-bill.html
August 9th, 2007 at 9:36 am
Does this bill shut down or limit talk-back radio in an Election year? If so, it would appear none of them have worked that out yet.
[DPF: No broadcasters are generally exempt]
August 9th, 2007 at 10:32 am
Gooner said:
Price also fails to acknowledge the stupidity of this bill THAT OUR PARLIAMENT PASSED AT ITS FIRST READING.
Plenty of flawed bills get passed at their first reading, so they can be properly scrutinised by a select committee. Often that’s where problems are picked up. If it gets to a second reading in this form, that’s when I’ll get worried.
August 9th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Thanks Sofia – I feel a new talkback radio station coming, devoted to exposing the lying corrupt labour led government and their cronies.