Let the cartoons begin …
The Guy Body cartoon in today’s Herald does the job nicely, along with the Editorial titled “Advocacy Free Speech Threatened” which indeed it is. Some extracts:
A nine-month restriction of free speech is unnecessary and probably untenable.
This bill would curb the free speech of any individual or group who wants to promote any social interest that might favour a party or candidate at the election.
The definition of political advertising has been broadened by the bill from the usual one, material that seeks to persuade people to support a candidate or party, to anything “taking a position with which one or more parties or one or more candidates is associated”. This is fraught with dangers.
But you know the worst thing about this vile legislation? Normally if a law is proposed that you think is appalling and you want to stop it, you’ll come out and say I’ll campaign against any party or MP which votes for this bill. And this is how it is meant to be – MPs should be accountable for their votes. So if for example Parliament voted to confiscate land from Maori tribes, one would want to be able to say any MP who votes for this confiscation will be targeted at the next election.
But the absolutely appalling thing about this law, is it will protect the MPs who vote for it, from being held accountable for their vote. Yes one will only be able to spend $60,000 targeting MPs who vote away your right to criticise, because duh that criticism will now be regulated and restricted.
Now just think about what sorts of laws could be passed in future if the Electoral Finance Bill is passed. A Muldoon type PM would love it. Not only are your critics restricted to each spending no more than $60,000 (on all issues), if they try and work together on a co-ordinated campaign then they can go to jail for colluding against the Government.
August 13th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Tells All! One Cartoon is worth 10,000 words equates to how many votes and in $ terms is worth?? So how does the Electoral Finance Bill cope with this?
August 13th, 2007 at 11:02 am
Sorry, but its that meant to be Putin she is turning into?
August 13th, 2007 at 11:03 am
Sorry, but is that meant to be Putin she is turning into?
[DPF: Yes I think it is. ]
August 13th, 2007 at 11:04 am
Oh it’sPutin now, the hysterical over-reaction to this bill is getting laughable.
Mugabe next?
“one will only be able to spend $60,000 targeting MPs who vote away your right to criticise”
Lets get serious for a minute here Mr Farrar and put away the faux outrage.
1. Do you agree with any limit to 3rd party spending?
2. If so how much?
[DPF: Oh dear Sonic is the last defender of the EFB. Even Helen is starting to distance herself from it. And yes I do support there being a limit. How much it is depends on how long the limit applies for, and how wide the definition of election advertising is]
August 13th, 2007 at 11:08 am
kathryn ryan is saying Clark is now saying the act has cast its net too wide. No source unfortunately
August 13th, 2007 at 11:10 am
I will answer that one myself.
1.There should be one rule for all groups, if unions are exempt there is an unfairness.
2. There should be no limits on how people or peoples spend their own money, period.
The government takes a significant chunk of every dollar earned in this country, to come out and determine how money can be spent is Stalinist.
oh and I thought the pic was of Monty Burns!
Surely the queer sister would have been more apt if we are following a simpsons theme?
August 13th, 2007 at 11:17 am
Sonic- I think DPF’s covered that very question in a series of earlier posts.
August 13th, 2007 at 11:18 am
On another Thread :August 13th, 2007 at 10:35 am
We have to be grateful to Nicki Hager for imparting a new meaning to the word “Hollow”. It used to imply emptiness, etc. but the new slant defines all the qualities we don’t want to see in our present politicians – lack of integrity, honesty, responsibility, accountability, etcetera.
You want proof of this? How did the the Electoral Finance Bill get before a Select Committee?
Helen just told us. ‘There are some imperfections in the Bill but that is for the select committee to iron out. The Reason for the Bill was to stop a repetition of the previous actions of the Exclusive Brethren’?
Remember Colonialism is responsible for child abuse according to some?
August 13th, 2007 at 11:22 am
The only one “Faux” here is you Sonic.
G
August 13th, 2007 at 11:25 am
“There should be no limits on how people or peoples spend their own money, period.”
Hmm, should I hire a murderer or go buy some heroin? Questions, questions.
August 13th, 2007 at 11:28 am
Either would be fine, as long you use them on yourself, and preferably to excess.
G
August 13th, 2007 at 11:32 am
Yes Sonic (defender if the indefensible)- Mugabe is next – this government is proving that it is so desperate to retain power that they will do anything to achieve that objective.
The electoral Finance Bill is nothing more than a corruption of free speech and democracy. The test is “what Labour’s reaction would be is it were National in Government Proposing this exact same Bill (except of course Unions would also be captured with the $60,000 limit)
The screams of outrage would be heard by the 4,000,000 New Zealanders who had decided to become refugees in Australia.
I am pleased to see this Bill is getting some significant traction in the MSM. Except for the most diehard labour lickspittle, this Bill is being almost universally condemned. Even Clark is trying to slowly distance herself from it and has given up defending it.
August 13th, 2007 at 11:33 am
Sonic spews “Hmm, should I hire a murderer or go buy some heroin?”
You should be in a nuthouse chronic – as you are clearly mental !!
August 13th, 2007 at 11:50 am
DPF: Now that the Prime Minister has announced that the Bill will not go forward in its current form, do people wanting to make submissions base them on the Bill as drafted or on something else, currently just in the Prime Minister’s mind?
August 13th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Sonic you really are a goose, we go from discussing an electoral finance bill to you needing the govt to manage your cash to stop you buying smack or a hit.
Clearly you need labour to govern forever if you cannot be trusted with your after tax cash
August 13th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Sat down with the Bill and a highlighter for a couple of hours in an attempt to sort out some arguments to include in a submission.
I know that a lot of legislation takes tortuous paths of cross references to other clauses in terms of exceptions, inclusions and exclusions but boy oh boy. But whoever was the devious bastard that worded this one has outdone all who have gone before and produced a document that is barely intelligible.
I have already submitted on the Regulatory Responsibility Bill that ignorance must soon become a defence due to the volume and complexity of legislation on the books and that was before I read the Electoral Finance Bill. No “ordinary” citizen could reasonably be expected to be able to interpret and comply with this piece of sh*t.
If it is intentional, there is a case for taking the author out and shooting him/her. If it is not intentional it is incompetent and there is a case for taking the author out and shooting him/her.
Either way it is an abominable situation when the PM merrily explains that there may well be flaws but select committee is the place to fix those – but it is a pigs ear so will never become good law.
Interestingly she also told Holmes that she was quite keen to stop anonymous donations and that the poor labour party could not go round writing cheques of unlimited value unlike other right wing parties whose support base is among the wealthier parts of society.
Oh and the polls only reflect that National have cannibalised the support of other centre right parties and Labour is polling about the level that they did a year out from the last election. Diane Foreman is also delusional. It was one hell of an interview for its mind-blowing dismissal of anything that could be considered remotely negative for the LP.
If that is the level of denial on the 9th floor and it continues to be articulated then the electoral effect may well be a striking apathy among the left’s support.
August 13th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Today the Electoral Finance Bill. Tomorrow this…
http://www.themidnightsun.org/?p=445#more-445
August 13th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
It was you that made the ridiculous statement Mr Barnsley Bill. I’m sure if I said something as laughable you would call me on it.
Don’t be a cry baby.
x
S
August 13th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
You really have to feel for a party that has Chronic McDenialmonkey the imported socialist as its chief appologist.
August 13th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Sonic, you are truly pathetic in all ways as you are a subspecies of the Labour Farty Party’s widespread corruption !!
Sonic , how long is your nose ( to the nearest metre will do ) ?
August 13th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Your statement that ‘A Muldoon Type PM would love it’ should refer to the present. We HAVE a Muldoon type PM and her party has put it forward.
August 13th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Please Gary respect for the dead, as Sir Robert was not at all like this mental Prime Minister who thinks she is the Queen of the South Pacific .
National could sure do with a Muldoon to hammer the king hit blow to Miss Klark so humpty dumpty can never put her back again .
August 13th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Glad to see Murray is keepinin his New year resolution to go through 365 days of continuous blogging and commentating while never producing anything more substantial than childish name-calling.
I hope the charity sponsoring him is grateful for all he is going through. There he is bursting with insight and weighty points, but he keeps churning out the drivel.
August 13th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
F##K off back to nimbyland sonic !!
August 13th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Sonic : are you really a hedgehog? Might explain why you are such a prick
August 13th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Interesting though – Clark said on Breakfast last week that SHE didn’t have to consult focus groups to decide where she stood on issues (yeah, right!), but the moment that the MSM twigs to there being something insidious about the EFB, she does a complete about-face, and starts to back away from it. Make no mistake, Clark rules her caucus & Cabinet with an iron fist, and the mere suggestion that Burton could have brought this Bill to the House (and it is a government Bill!) without her approval of both its intent and content is ridiculous. She can’t have it both ways – either she requires the Bill to be pulled or majorly altered by the Select Committee – or she stands or falls (hopefully the latter!!) by its progress.
August 13th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
“Clark rules her caucus & Cabinet with an iron fist ”
A bigger & stronger fist is needed to smash the regime !! Whack !!
August 13th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Yet again, a government minister tries to hospital pass bad legislation to a select committee. This time it’s the PM herself.
Select Committees don’t do wholesale re-writes of legislation. They are supposed to improve legislation so as to achieve its intended purpose. A major purpose of the Bill is to effectively outlaw third party spending to make it impossible for non-political parties to participate in election debates. Another major purpose of the Bill is to restrict political party campaigning by limiting their expenditure to eleven months, rather than three.
No amount of tinkering by the select committee can fix what is a majorly flawed bill with flawed purposes.
August 13th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Ohh that’s priceless!!
“There he is bursting with insight and weighty points, but he keeps churning out the drivel.”
Bear with me while I try and control my mirth.
Sonic, you have surely missed your calling. I don’t know whose time you’re flogging at the moment but it seems to me you’d be better suited as a clown in a circus. I can imagine you as the one in the bright redsuit that falls on his arse all the time for the entertainment of all and sundry.
You yourself have never produced anything more substantial than smart arse remarks and snide put downs and well you know it.
Go on, admit it. Its the only reason you come here.
G
August 13th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
I asked a serious point and got jumped on by the giggle brothers Grant. Why, in your view, is it fine for them to say any old nonsense but terribly wrong for me to reply?
Oh thats right, dad4j and Murray are on your side, I forgot.
August 13th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
I agree Grant preferably a clown in a circus that I own, as my good friend strongman will stuff the sonic thingy in a large cannon and I will strike the fuse .
Tickets to the event are already sold out – lol
August 13th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Sonic
August 13th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Hmm that didn’t work
August 13th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
1. Do you agree with any limit to 3rd party spending?
2. If so how much?
Any chance of any of you answering any of these questions, or shall we just go on AGJ’s “This page cannot be displayed” hilarity?
August 13th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
“Hmm, should I hire a murderer or go buy some heroin? Questions, questions.”
Don’t do it sonic.
We all can see you have a depressive disorder, but hiring someone to kill yourself or looking to OD is not the answer. Get help, call lifeline.
Overcome your depression by making some positive life changes. Be more charitable and let people speak freely and be open to new ideas. Once you make positive steps you will come to realise that it is only the projection of your own depression that is causing you to support the repressing of free speech.
August 13th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Sonic 2
August 13th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
I’m with sonic on this one – the hype is hysterical. After all most governments seem to just pass laws that ill either be ignored or already apply. eg smacking and the copyright laws will just be ignored.
Everyone already feeds their babies in public – oh lets make it law!
Now they’re just passing a law that we’ve known about for decades – there’s no free speech unless you are a government or MSM sycophant. Get over it.
August 13th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Darn..Oh well fuck it
August 13th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
The hype is hysterical and the country must go to an early election to sort the matter for once and all asap?
Why wait ?
August 13th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
1. Yes
2. The combined turnover of the NZ government and the NZ mainstream media.
August 13th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
I asked a serious point and got jumped on by the giggle brothers Grant. Why, in your view, is it fine for them to say any old nonsense but terribly wrong for me to reply?
No sonic you asked a serious question and got a serious answer from Barnsley Bill – an answer which you “giggled” was akin to hiring a hitman or buying smack. You are the author of your own misfortune and your projection of your own faillings on to others as a coping mechanism is not healthy.
August 13th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
You put yourself in the inexplicable ludicrous corner sonic , not us !!
Oh that felt good .
August 13th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Porcupine and Sonic may regard the hype as “hysterical”, but they seem to just about on their own.
In Parliament last week, Cullen refused to engage on the shortcomings of the Bill, preferring to say any problems can be fixed in Select Committee. Pretty much an admission that the Bill is flawed. Nat Rad is reporting that Clark is distancing herself from it. Jeanette Fitzsimmons is uncomfortable with it. Nicky Hagar’s lawyer has criticised it. Just about every editor of a major newspaper has criticised it.
August 13th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
I don’t believe there should be any limit at all on third party advertising. People/groups/companies should be totally free to express their views in any way they see fit.
Certainly the idea of dictating a spending limit as low as $60,000 on everyone BUT the Unions is unbelievably draconian and abbhorent, and just shows the arrogance of this Labour-led Government that they have even come up with such an idea.
August 13th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Is Nicky Hagar’s lawyer called Lickspittle Hollowhead who works for
Woodworm Legal Larvae ltd ( LLL) in Wellington ?
August 13th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
I have every confidence in our politicians and public servants to sort this bill out in committee and to deliver the NZ public a well thought out modern and world leading electoral reform atatute.
August 13th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Firstly sonic, your question may have been serious but the rest of the comment that surrounded it was your usual smarmy sarcasm. Little wonder you were once again not taken seriously.
Secondly, I dont know D4J and Murray from Adam, but from their comments I’d say they probably have the same political leanings that I do. Happy to admit it. Also happy to admit that I’d rather spend time having a few beers with them than with someone who think’s that he’s Oscar Wilde reincarnated.
Answers
1/ No
2/ See above
G
August 13th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
“you got a serious answer from Barnsley Bill”
“Surely the queer sister would have been more apt if we are following a simpsons theme?”
?
August 13th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
You go for a beer with whom you wish Grant, honestly I was not trying to pick you up here or anything.
So back on topic, you beleive there should be no limits at all on election spending?
None at all?
August 13th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Can Nicky Hagar’s lawyer ask Mr Palmer and his many feminazi fingers that work at the Law Commission to speak about this serious issue ?
August 13th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Porcupine said “I have every confidence in our politicians and public servants to sort this bill out in committee and to deliver the NZ public a well thought out modern and world leading electoral reform atatute.”
Tongue stuck in cheek again Porcupine?
August 13th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Dont try and be smart sonic:
“So back on topic, you beleive there should be no limits at all on election spending?”
Your original question was:
‘Do you agree with any limit to 3rd party spending?”
My answer was for the original and it still stands. Perhaps you should be concentrating on your work.
G
August 13th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
If sonic is working then who the hell pays such a git ?
August 13th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
so how about you sonic,
what real and experienced problems are going to be solved by limiting people’s ability to express their views in whatever way they choose?
August 13th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
….. thats a really long pause….NNNNOOOOTTTT
Firmly embedded Inventory2.
August 13th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Sadly we assume we’re living in a democracy of which free speech is a cornerstone.
In practice we exercise a manupilated democratic right at the polls once every three years. That right is to choose the dictator who will rule us for the next term.
The very fact the Labour advance such preposterious legislation is ironically a indirect admission that they believe that such limited a democract entitlement still represents a threat to their grip on power.
August 13th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
DavidW – getting rid of more national voters overseas?
August 13th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
“Dont try and be smart sonic”
Don’t have to try, it just comes naturally!
If there is no limit on 3rd party spending there is no limit on election spending, parties can set up fake groups and ignore electoral spending limits.
I would have thought that was obvious, clearly not.
“Perhaps you should be concentrating on your work.”
Perhaps, how about you, those cheeseburgers wont cook themselves you know!
August 13th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
sonic – Have you even read the Bill?
August 13th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Sonic your above post is exactly why I sent some-one from HR of a major NZ company looking to employ a certain recruiting consultancy here to see how said consultancy’s employees spend their time. Suffice to say they neither ordered a hit , nor did they buy any smack. They simply took their money elsewhere.
August 13th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
I’m self employed Sonic.
“those cheeseburgers wont cook themselves you know!”
You offering to cook ‘em for me??
G
August 13th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Get some psychiatric help sonic, as you have gone from a murderous smack freak to a cooker of cheeseburger’s or are you a P cook ?
August 13th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Recruitment companeis Bok? any reason you mentioined them? trying a bit of intimidation are we?
This is I’m afraid typical of too many of the commentators here, you raise a simple point and the bag of tricks in “Insult, swear and threaten”
With a few honourable exceptions some of you should read what you write and take a long hard look at yourselves. You are no advert for your cause.
Oh and Bok, bring it on mate.
August 13th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
“I’m self employed Sonic.”
You know I could have predicted that, you don’t sound like the type anyone would want as a collegue.
Any chance of getting back on topic?
August 13th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Good idea sonic , what does the Law Commision recommend on the matter in hand ?
August 13th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Oh and Bok
“Sonic your above post is exactly why I sent some-one from HR of a major NZ company looking to employ a certain recruiting consultancy here to see how said consultancy’s employees”
Is English your second or third language Mr “I’ll tell your boss on you” Bok?
August 13th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
sonic
who has set up fake groups that have wreaked electoral havoc in NZ in the past 50 years sufficient to warrant legislation to prevent it happening again?
What were the “fake groups called?
Incidentally if there are no limits there is no need for setting up anything. QED
August 13th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Sonic take some of your own medicine. You have yet to give a valid reason why our free speech should be limited in this way or even why there should be a cap on electoral spending by parties or 3rd parties
August 13th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
No intimidation sonic. Intimidation is when you threaten some-one before hand that if they do do something you want, you would do something they don’t like. No you silly little scot, what I did was to tell you retrospectively why I thought it prudent, to highlight certain behavior to an acquaintance. Did I ask you to take a different stance?
And Sonic, mate with your record of fronting up and following up on your threats, ….Mate?!
And you must be even sillier than first appear. No less than 4 people answered your question and yet you whine..”answer me, answer me..”!
As I said it instills a great deal of confidence.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
It is my third language sonic. How many do you speak?
August 13th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
“you raise a simple point and the bag of tricks in “Insult, swear and threaten””
No sonic, that should read :
” I come onto a blogsite that espouses a largely right wing point of view that I really dont agree with, make smart arse comments that annoy the other posters, generally act like a prat, and when they give me the slapping I richly deserve I get all upset”
If you dont like it here, why bother turning up??
Surely there must be other things you could be doing?
G
August 13th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Free speech for all. Just say no to censorship. Let the people decide.
Or
Trust Labour.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
sonic
Given your previous railings against anonymous donations I would have thought you would be expressing outrage that they are not banned in this Bill.
Why aren’t you out there calling this Bill a crock of shit like every other person who has made the effort to establish what it really says?
August 13th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
If enough individuals and groups ignore the law if it passes in its current form then the Gumint will be powerless. So what are they going to do Lock every individual up? Not enough cells. No the way to fix these bastards is to complain to the United Nations. Even a threat to complain will send the PM into a frenzy.The last thing she wants to do is taint her image and lose the next job opportunity.
Remember NZ files under the radar most of the time. A nice big juicy rally at the Beehive with Mums and Dads holding banners protesting for freedom of speech is going to get international coverage of the type she doesnt want or need right now.
Time for the Wellington bollger sto organise rentamob.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
No wonder you hide behind anonymity sonic – as you are full of fear and please do get some urgent psychiatric help ?
I hope you havn’t been bitten by a snake ?
August 13th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Wow, Sonic’s taking a beating, a lashing. And still he keep coming back for more. He’s a machine!
I too would like to hear Sonic describe how democracy is advanced by the banning of free speech.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Talking about the United Nations , has the Minister of Courts Rick Barker done anything about the UN directive to reply to allegations of unlawful gender discrimination in Family court ?
Time to go Labour as you are a disgrace to the WORLD !
August 13th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
“I thought it prudent, to highlight certain behavior to an acquaintance”
I see, ah well it looks like you “highlighted behaviour” of the wrong person Bok, better tell your chum you were feeding him b*llshit eh? I don’t now, and never have, worked in recruitment, you have to meet so many dull people.
Tell you what want to give me the name of your concerned friend and I’ll pass on your apologies?
Poor Bok.
Threats Bok, I tend to deal in arguments not threats, I dont make threats, childish behaviour don’t you think?
Oh sorry, I forgot, you dont.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Aw c’mon sonic
We are “bringing it on” and would really, really like to hear an honest opinion on these matters of some substance. please!!
August 13th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Isn’t it clear that s few of the provisions in this bill are starting positions? Don’t you people realise that under an MMP system with a tenuous grasp on power – proven only recently – a ruling party has to have something to negotiate away?
August 13th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Sorry David dealing with chaff.
If there is no limit on 3rd party spending there is no limit on election spending, parties can set up fake groups and ignore electoral spending limits.
Still none of you have touched on that
August 13th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Do you think think only the National Party would do that Sonic?
G
August 13th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Anyone could do it Grant thats the problem. This bill may not be prefect but some control has to be taken over third parties.
Lets say a foreign group decided to bankroll a set of adverts attacking National for being warmongers say, billboards appear everywhere, leaflets through every door. Would that also not be an attempt to get round electoral law?
[DPF: You mean like the foreign billionaire who gave $500,000 to Labour so they could do just that?]
August 13th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
“If there is no limit on 3rd party spending there is no limit on election spending, parties can set up fake groups and ignore electoral spending limits.”
And trying to stop this is important enough for me to sacrifice my right to free speech?!? Ha ha ha.
Power breeds corruption. There is none more powerful than a third-term government hell-bent on getting re-elected. The legislation has nothing to do with fairness and limitation of electoral influence. It’s just a desperate get-reelected-at-all-costs death rattle.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
“If there is no limit on 3rd party spending there is no limit on election spending, parties can set up fake groups and ignore electoral spending limits.”
I don’t have a problem with that. There shouldn’t be any legislated limits on electoral spending anyway, whether it be by Political parties or by lobby groups.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Instead of a new law, why don’t we just enforce the perfectly good one we’ve got?
If the Brethren had disclosed that they were behind the pamphlets at the last election as they were supposed to, everyone who didn’t discount them already would have. End of problem.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Haha – I like the cartoon – somewhat inaccurate impression however.
All the government should be doing is banning anonymous donations over $500. Any donations received anon will have to be handed over the Electoral Commission.
One point though – Those who seem to be arguing loudest for free speech, are not interested in equal speech. For many political campaigners and groups, $60,000 is far above what they can afford to spend.
And $60,000 is a lot of money – isn’t it highly likely that the same people who worried about alleged “overtaxation” would be concerned about such a big outlay – unless obviously they were expecting something in return…
August 13th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
yeah sonic but – has it ever happened and what was the effect? or is this an attempt to legislate away shadows? We can all come up with what-if’s but we don’t rush around making laws to prevent our fantasies from coming true.
Charlie Tan – you are obviously a recent arrival. The Select Committee is not (repeat NOT) a place where bad laws are made good. It is the place where good laws are made better and undesired consequences are identified and corrected. What some of us are arguing is that both the concept and the execution are flawed in this case. The process is being corrupted here and it makes me extremely uncomfortable.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Dave as you see in the last 100 odd years of elections here, 3rd party spending has been rive. Every election year billions of dollars are pored into defeating the government. Why, without this legislation people like the EB will, have the Labour government kicked out, like they did last year, simply by spending millions.
And dont mention the election before that!!! My all those nasty Americans with all their loot, getting Labour again kicked out.
Let’s be “Frank” sonic you are talking nonsense.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Re: Dave
You don’t have a problem with the election being swung to the highest bidder – and whatever those people donating the money wish their influence to have?
August 13th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Parrot – Bulldust
Anyone – if they have something worthwhile saying – should have no problems raising $60K + to say it. If they can’t it is probably not worth saying.
Call it a low level noise filter if you like that getting the message out does cost.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Get back in your socialist policy parrot cage you nutbar !
August 13th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
What more humour sonic?
I’m with KK . My right to say what I like, when I like is to precious to be pruned by a party that is only interested in holding on to power.
If this whole 3rd party thing is so democracy threatening, why wasnt this legislation pushed through before 2002, or 2005? Answer: there wasn’t the need for it then and there isn’t a need now
Sonic, what were the EB’s charged with again?? What punishment did they receive? How much did their input help the Nats win by?
I also have plenty of colleagues.
G
August 13th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Policy Parrot “And $60,000 is a lot of money – isn’t it highly likely that the same people who worried about alleged “overtaxation” would be concerned about such a big outlay – unless obviously they were expecting something in return…”
C’mon, are you serious? $60,000 is sod all when it comes to media spending. You’d struggle to even buy a national newspaper campaign for a Single Day with that amount of money. And forget about anything on television.
“You don’t have a problem with the election being swung to the highest bidder – and whatever those people donating the money wish their influence to have?”
No. And as others have pointed out, spending big doesn’t guarantee election or policy success, but people should have that option and freedom.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
I oppose this law simply because state funding for parties is not on the table. Get rid of all party donations (except for parties not in parliament, which can spend limited private donations) And give those in parliament a weighted amount of state funds.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
“If some group can’t raise $60k then it is probably not worth saying.”
So DaveW, I assume that contempt for the opinions low income earners is across the board?
I ask all of you, ask these the type of people [DavidW] that we running govt?
I think not…
August 13th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Sonic says:
“Anyone could do it Grant thats the problem. This bill may not be prefect but some control has to be taken over third parties. Lets say a foreign group decided to bankroll a set of adverts attacking National for being warmongers say, billboards appear everywhere, leaflets through every door. Would that also not be an attempt to get round electoral law?”
I think that if a foreign group did that, National would win the election hands down because kiwis wouldn’t take kindly to such a foreign campaign. The issue is transparency and disclosure. There should be full and total disclosure of political activity and who is paying for it, BUT YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO AND SPEND WHAT YOU LIKE! This bill does the opposite and has been written by Labour to favour Labour.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Damn it – I think I’m going to have to cancel the skywriting I have ordered for over Tahunanui Beach next January saying “time for a climate change” Cost will be over the limit. And I’m not registered as a third party either. Oh sh*t
August 13th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
“Oh yeah – and hell while we are at it – why not give more votes to those who have a higher income – fuck they pay more taxes etc.”
There goes your democracy.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
This legislation is designed by megalomaniacs for megalomaniacs. It ‘fixes’ a problem that only exists because Labour’s vice-like grip on power looks less certain. I really like the idea of H1 getting lots of bad bad international press on this one.
While NZ slips down OECD rankings, crime soars and the health system has cancer our government is hold up in the corner loading the dice.
Go figure!
August 13th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
I think the position that there should be no limits is consistant, wrong in my view but consistant. However if you agree there should be limits on spending you have to address third parties, otherwise you leave a hold big enough to drive a coach and horses through, as Don Brash and the Brethren proved last time.
As for the laugable failure of that, it was an attempt to get round the limits and that has to be addressed to stop it occuring again.
I’m happy to discuss the detail, however the principle is applied in every other democracy I know.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Trying to interpret your post Parrot, time for a cuppa and lie down I think. Your fingers are moving faster than your brain.
No disrespect to anyone but the fact is that it does cost to get the message out. This means that the proponents need to convince at least a reasonable number that an idea is worthy of support in order to widen the net. Take Greenpeace as an example. Started off purely voluntary, marches, demonstrations, placards, grew to direct action, grew to quite large sale funded protest movement. It costs to run the Rainbow Warrior, it costs to pay the full time staff who prepare and issue press releases and to take out advertising features.
The idea is obviously important enough or is that concept too much somehow for you to understand.
Following that idea through, a campaign funded by popular support stands a much much better chance of resonating with the wider electorate than a one-trick pony campaign funded by some wealthy person a-la-EBs
August 13th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
“I’m happy to discuss the detail, however the principle is applied in every other democracy I know.”
Should it apply to unions? Their influence on voters has been of inestimable value to Labour over the years. And yet a few earnest, if misguided, EBs step up to the plate once and become recipients of vitriol like we’ve never seen. I’m sure if they were proposing to support Labour we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
August 13th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
But what did the coach and horses achieve last time?? Sweet FA. So why legislate so severely?
Burton’s Law not only holds up that particular Cobb and Co coach it also sends every other horse in the country to the knackers yard, (except of course any nag with “union ” in its name.
G
August 13th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
This is a debate of 2 evils:
Sonic says: “If there is no limit on 3rd party spending there is no limit on election spending, parties can set up fake groups and ignore electoral spending limits.” And that these fake groups will provide fake facts and distort the election.
However that is the lesser of the evils compared to where there is a limit on 3rd party spending with the state can censor and criminalise legitimate dissent. State mandated censorship & suppression is wrong and in all respects a greater danger to free speech and democracy.
August 13th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Grant, if someone broke into your house, but got disturbed and had to flee before robbing you, would you regard getting new locks as awaste of time?
August 13th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
“Grant, if someone broke into your house, but got disturbed and had to flee before robbing you, would you regard getting new locks as awaste of time?”
He wouldn’t be able to report the break-in as Law and Order would almost certainly be a campaign issue and he’s not be registered to share his views. In fact he could face arrest.
August 13th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
A better analogy would be – if someone broke into your house and the dog bit them on the arse would you shoot the dog and get a different one?
August 13th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Only if he spent $60k reporting it Krazy Kiwi. The only way I could see that happen is if used Whaleoil’s wireless connection!
August 13th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Course I wouldnt you idiot. But your question is of only the most tangental relevance to the topic and well you know it.
If there had previously been a break in surely someone would have been charged??
You obviously refer to the EBs, and I ask again what were they charged with ?
No Sonic, you can ask all the rhetorical questions you like, but I, and many many other Kiwis, know that this is the Labour Party’s answer to being down in the polls. It is nothing more than a blatant attempt to stack the next election to ensure victory.
I also know that if the Nats proposed this same bill, exactly as it has been drafted by Labour, then you and all the other leftists would be beside yourselves screaming blue murder. Why I’m on this side of the fence is I know that if the above were to ever happen, then most of the righty types on this site would still criticise it and the Nats. You and your fellow shrills just cant seem to do that, and hence the vitriol you all receive.
Earlier you wrote “take a long hard look at yourselves. You are no advert for your cause.” I suggest you do exactly that and then go and find a cause worth defending.
G
August 13th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Grant I’m talking about what actually happened at the last election when a group tried to subvert our political process by running a parallel campaign. The fact the press exposed them is great news, but that does not mean we should not take steps to ensure that does not happen again.
Oh and Grant, I dont know who you are trying to kid with your “your side is far more partisan hat ours, we are all resonable people while you are just idealogues nonsense”
Cos it wont fool anyone who read these comments for very long thats for sure.
August 13th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Sonic said “Grant I’m talking about what actually happened at the last election when a group tried to subvert our political process by running a parallel campaign. The fact the press exposed them is great news, but that does not mean we should not take steps to ensure that does not happen again.”
Did you mean the Council of Trade Unions?
August 13th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Aaah I’ve finally twigged sonic Do you mean false groups like the Jim Anderton Party? I see now what you are afraid of happening again. Perhaps that is worth some legislation but hell – you don’t have to bring in the death penalty for shoplifting.
August 13th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Most people who read this blog by now will have learned of the details of the Bill, and how it bans people from spending more than $60 000 (and remember the important $5 000 limit if your group contains 1 foreigner or person under 18, which applies to many organisations) criticizing the Government in one year. The issue is how to stop the Bill.
Making submissions to the Select committee will be a way to show your opposition to the Bill, and could delay the Bill (if the committee needs to look at a lot of submissions it will stay with the committee for longer), and appearing in person before the committee to make an oral submission (you should request this in your written submission) will further help delay the Bill. But experience with the anti-smacking Bill and civil unions Bill, shows that labour still pushes Bills through even if there are lots of submissions against them. .
What is needed is a lobby group to fight the Bill. The way to stop the Bill is to mobilise public opinion and create such a big public outcry against the Bill that labour will b e forced to drop it, in order to avoid loosing lots of votes. If you are against the Bill and labour it will be a win-win situation. If we stop the Bill it will be a victory for free speech. If Labour goes ahead with it and gets voted out as a result, it will be pleasing to all those who don’t like Labour.
The tactics should be to do advertising to inform people of the effects of the Bill, before it is too late, through leaflets in peoples letterboxes, newspaper adds e.t.c (and this will be expensive so fundraising will be important). Also protest marches could be organised before the second and final readings (which will probably take place early next year).
Remember that it is important to stop this Bill, as next time Labour does something we don’t like it will be illegal for us to spend more than $60 000 opposing it. If you are interested in being part of such a group, please post a comment below indicating such support. If everyone does nothing, nothing happens. Do something to defend free speech
August 13th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
*************************************************************
sonic Says:
August 13th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Grant I’m talking about what actually happened at the last election when a group tried to subvert our political process by running a parallel campaign. The fact the press exposed them is great news, but that does not mean we should not take steps to ensure that does not happen again.
*************************************************************
Sonic, Why is it that you feel that the EB should not be allowed to make a point with regard to their viewpoint?
The fact that they made the point in such a way that the National Party was the beneficiary is besides the point. This bill makes such participation in our democratic process more difficult, no matter who you support (or don’t support for that matter).
August 13th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Whatever you say Sonic. Back to work
G
August 13th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
“The fact that they made the point in such a way that the National Party was the beneficiary is besides the point”
Well I’m sure you would like it to be, Don Brash called it a “parallel campaign” and National party staff helped the EB avoid getting their million dollars counted against the Nats total allowance.
Do you guys think we all are suffering from memory loss?
August 13th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Yes sonic, that is correct, but the EB approached the National Party, not the other way around.
August 13th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
and there was me thinking that the people who broke into our house and stole the election were the labour party with their $800,000 smash and grab.
silly me, thank you for correcting me there sonic.
So labour steals an election, retrospectively validates the theft and then introduces a law expressly designed to prevent anyone successfully electioneering against them – the sole purpose of setting a derisory funding cap, and adds draconian powers to enter, seize etc.
nope, nothing to see here, move along.
August 13th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Is it because your beloved National Party will have to list rightwing donors to your party?
When it gets down to the nitty gritty just what new policies does National have to offer kiwis? Apart from tax cuts and making new workers servants for three months?
August 13th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Peter Petterson,
Hello, wake up. This bill does nothing like that, anon donations are A-OK. What this bill does is bans the Insurance Council from raising any qualms should government decide to close 20 fire stations or Plunket from complaining if helpline funding is canned.
August 13th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
If Labour is corrupt, what does that make National? Have you read Nicky Hager’s book,” The Hollow Men”? Everything fell into place after reading half the book.
National has nothing to offer Kiwis, just the usual over-privileged little prigs who haven’t done a real days work in their lives.
Forget the opinion polls my poor little misguided fools- Labour is running at what it won the election with. National has cannibalised the other parties potential vote.
The only poll worth much is on election day. John is not the key to office!
August 13th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
As opposed to the Labour Benches, who are populated with true, blue collar heroes?
Funny, I thought they were predominantly Academics, teachers, and political studies grads.
August 13th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
Remember when Muldoon was in power (those who are old enough) just how far down the road towards a dictatorship this nation travelled without most people recognising that it was happening? Something similar is happening today but Helen’s technique is a little different, Muldoon did it with his personality and little legislation, Clarke’s main tool is legislation.
Power corrupts.
August 13th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
“the EB approached the National Party, not the other way around.”
And thats a defence?
Honest officer the drug dealer approached me not the other way round.
August 13th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Sonic, it wasn’t illegal. What exactly was your problem with what the EB’s did? Spend their own money opposing the govt. Well shit, we can’t allow people to have opinions of their own can we. No, instead we need a newspaper to filter them, cause we can trust the editorial staff there.
If this legislation goes through, I’m starting a newspaper. It will be loss making unfortunately, since it will distribute newspapers a bit below cost. But it will have a very interesting editorial viewpoint. I think it will have page 3 girls (and page 4 boys, may as well be fair about it) as well so that everyone will want a copy. I believe that would be perfectly legit?
August 13th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
I’ve got it!
All you have to do is make everyone in New Zealand a candidate! Then it doesn’t apply.
Or just ignore it – en masse.
“Fascists in Helengrad, born to be bad,
encourage the dope and put up the fags
… “
August 13th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
“Fascists in Helengrad, born to be bad,
encourage the dope and put up the fags,
Get the bossess, and the bankers,
and especially all those fucking rich wankers,
just do everything, stick ya nose in,
tear their guts out, give us more gin,
stick a sticker on ya car, get the young thieves,
maori in waitara, big black and tats,
shut up now please.”
written just after election ’99 and still valid
August 13th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
I have still yet to see any justification for changing the existing electoral law. The law’s fine, it’s the enforcement that’s woefully deficient. The EB should have been charged for distributing the leaflets without disclosure. Labour should have been charged for stealing tax payers funds. Heather Simpson should have been charged with fraud for authorising expenditure of public funds for political party purposes. The last election was a criminal debacle.
None of this happened…why? I don’t know…ask all the other Labour ministers who’ve avoided prosecution despite prime facie cases.
The only thing wrong here is that Helen controls the Police (ask Broad) and wrecked the independence of the public service (ask Setchell or Brady), be it the SSC, the office of the Auditor General, or the Police.
The biggest threat to democracy in NZ is not the EB, it’s the Labour Government and their corruption of the civil sector and justice system. No electoral finance bill will fix that.
Sonic – you can blather on all you like…I really hope my taxes aren’t funding your lifestyle, which clearly involves little productive work that contributes anything meaningful to society.
The bottom line is that no government in NZ history has dismantled or compromised the fundamentals that underpin true democracy in the history of this small nation like the Labour government of Helen Clark. See Privvy Council, Foreshore and Seabed act, retrospective legislation on electoral spending and now electoral finance bill.
We will look back in 20 years and cringe at the tyranny of this regime. It’ll take at least that long, and politicians of real purpose and courage (none of the current bunch) to rectify the terrible damage that has been wrecked on our fledgling democracy during Helen’s horrific reign.
August 13th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
Porcupine “I have every confidence in our politicians and public servants to sort this bill out in committee and to deliver the NZ public a well thought out modern and world leading electoral reform atatute.”
Bwwaaaaaaaaaaahhaaaaa!!! You’re joking right!
August 13th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
Come on, Porcine one! These are the same pollies and pub servers who made a chronic mess of the smacking bill. I shall maybe give you the benefit of the doubt on this. Methinks thou art just being contrary for the sake of giving Sonic Boom some company in his misguided rantings!
August 14th, 2007 at 7:29 am
what John said.
Quite right:
Labour actually IS attacking the fundamental institutions of democracy. Some examples:
property rights – Seabed and Foreshore, Carbon levies from Foresters, extend RMA, expropriate telecom property, stuff Auckland Airport – check
rule of law – remove Privy Council, establish Supreme Court of Labour activist Judges, ensure that no Government politician is prosecuted even when prima facie cases exist (unlike opposition MPS) – check
institutions of government – intimidate public sector, establish cronies in all key roles, punish criticism, steal election, retrospectively legislate to validate theft – check
attack traditional social institutions – families, personal responsibility, religion (except the “peaceful” one) social mores – check
I guess our Venezuealan embassy will be opening soon, many good pointers on how to implement “popular democracy” that we have to offer them. We won’t be needing their assistance on Press freedom alas, as our media has been well trained.
August 14th, 2007 at 9:03 am
*********************************************
“the EB approached the National Party, not the other way around.”
And thats a defence?
Honest officer the drug dealer approached me not the other way round.
*********************************************
YES SONIC, that IS a defence. Whatever you think of the exclusive bretheren, and I am no fan of them, what they did was legal and a defensible human right in this democracy.
Comparing this to the actions of a Drug Dealer is facetious at best. We all know that it is illegal to buy drugs and we accept this for the common good and common morality. What I and many others cannot accept is if this bill is passed it will be illegal under certain circumstances to express a valid political viewpoint.
That you, Sonic, and others see a level of morality in this suggested legislation can only suggest that it is you who is seeing the drug dealer you mentioned earlier.
It appears to be a typical lefty ploy to shoot the messanger if you don’t agree with the message.
August 14th, 2007 at 9:51 am
Dazzaman you missed:
“Porcupine Says:
August 13th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
….. thats a really long pause….NNNNOOOOTTTT
Firmly embedded Inventory2.”