Russel Norman on Electoral Finance Bill
It is worth remembering as one considers the Electoral Finance Bill that while Labour drafted it, the Greens have bene unashamed cheerleaders for it. Like Labour, at most they’ll just concede some minor tweaking may be needed.
Now in the latest post from Russel Norman he attacks National for attacking the Bill and calls on them to be constructive and help make this a beter bill.
Now this would almost be laughable if it were not so sad. Labour, Winston and the Greens negotiate in secret this incredibly flawed bill. They refuse to take up the many months of requests from National to be consulted on the bill. They refuse to allow multi-party discussions on the bill, and then in a tone of pious indignation they complain that National is not being constructive.
National was in fact planning to vote for the bill if it had been a workable bill that did what it promised it would do. But as it became apparent what a travesty the bill is, they did the principled thing and refused to support it.
The Greens should be ashamed for their role to date. Labour could not have introduced this bill without their support. They could have insisted on a multi-party approach to the legislation. More importantly they could have insisted on a public policy process instead of a secret one. But they sold their votes out for almost nothing.
Perhaps the Greens should listen to one of their Youth MPs, Jaz Morris. Here is his take on the Electoral Finance Bill:
The Labour party, the so-called workers’ party, has really become a power hungry club for sold-out Fabian socialists – instead of leading on the basis of democracy and freedom. The status quo surrounding election spending clearly has problems. But to go from this to a law of minimal public involvement and red tape seems a bit of a leap. If Labour really wanted the most democratic elections possible, firstly it would throw out the EFB and secondly it might deal with the exact problems it seeks to ‘solve.’
The EFB needs to be destroyed, not just because it is dangerously anti-democratic but because doing so sends Labour a clear message – back to the drawing board on policy, ethos and political aim.
Jaz is right. Labour should not be helped out and saved for having introduced such a draconian bill. They should have every party in Parliament turn around, whack them around the head a couple of times, and told to come back and do it properly.
The effective deadline of Christmas 2007 for changes to the Electoral Act should not be used by the Greens and others as an excuse to pass unto law a bill which is not only so badly flawed, but has also not been part of any public policy process in terms of its underlying principles.
If the Greens continue to push the Electoral Finance Bill down such a flawed path, simply because of their desire to have law changes done before Christmas, then they are doing the classic case of the ends justify the means.
Worst of all they are doing it to one of the cornerstones of our constitution.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:41 am
Russel Norman is a Communist like all the so called Greens and this is why he and his Party support the EFB Like all Communists the end game is to have the tax payer fund their election campaigns. The Communists cant get the funds themselves because their supporters are losers and tossers sucking off the taxpayer.
[DPF: Technically Russel is a former communist.]
August 27th, 2007 at 10:42 am
The Greens want it more than most. After all, the Brethren’s pamphlet was primarily aimed at them. ..and the Greens (especially Russell Norman) are traditional hard core leftists. All for freedom of political expression. …as long as they control what is said.
August 27th, 2007 at 11:23 am
A GREEN is complaining about the National party?
A GREEN is being a cynical hypocrite?
In breaking news, NIWA have declared that water is wet.
August 27th, 2007 at 11:24 am
So see Keith Locke for what he really is: an utter hypocrite – ‘fights’ for Zaoui, Panah and the people of Tibet but not the free speech of New Zealanders.
August 27th, 2007 at 11:31 am
OK, how does this sound:
Prime Minister Jim Bolger criticised the Alliance today for attacking the Employment Relations Bill and called on them to be constructive and help make this a beter bill.
I think Mr. Norman would have said at the time, and would still say today, the Employment Relations Act was so fundamentally flawed and destructive that no amount of ‘tweaking’ in Select Committee, or a five foot high stack of SOPs, could make it anything less than an abortion to be opposed root and branch. I certainly don’t recall the Greens ever taking a stance that the ERA was to be amended rather than repealed outright.
August 27th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Copied a few minutes ago from The Parliamentary Website:
“Making a Submission to a Parliamentary Select Committee
Electoral Finance Bill
Public submissions are now being invited on the Electoral Finance Bill.
The closing date for submissions is Friday, 7 September 2007.
The purpose of this bill is to strengthen the law governing electoral financing and broadcasting, in order to provide more transprarency and accountability, prevent undue influence of wealth, and promote participation in parliamentary democracy.”
No wonder the Bill has been such a botch-up when its purpose is to provide “transprarency” to our electoral system. It couldn’t stomach “Transparency” and went into “convolutions”? Band aids called for. So attack Key.
August 27th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
“the Employment Relations Act was so fundamentally flawed and destructive that no amount of ‘tweaking’ in Select Committee, or a five foot high stack of SOPs, could make it anything less than an abortion to be opposed root and branch.”
Don’t you mean the Employment Contracts Act Craig?
August 27th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
“Now in the latest post from Russel Norman he attacks National for attacking the Bill and calls on them to be constructive and help make this a beter bill.”
“attacks” is a bit of an inflammatory word to use David – no doubt intended to get your more rabid readers’ knickers in a twist.
[DPF: Good God PJM you now want to be my thesarus. Considering I used the word attack to both describe Norman vs National and National vs the ERB, it is hardly an imflammatory word as I used it for National also]
He actually suggests that National could be more positive by making public, its suggestions as to how we might go about curbing third-party spending (something which Key thinks is a laudable goal). How would National go about achieving this? Why does nobody know?
National could be taking this opportunity to engage in a constructive public debate on this issue. It could seek to form a cross-party consensus on the issue – but it has instead chosen the path of hysterical mud slinging and political opportunism.
[DPF: It is a shame indeed. But you are meant to gain the consensus before you introduce the law. The party to blame for the lack of consensus is Labour. They were offered it repeatedly. They were almost begged to do it. They spat in National's face and are now surprised that National isn't so keen to do what the Govt should have done. And it is not mud slinging to point out the effects of a billl and oppose it. Mud slinging usually relates to personal attacks on someone's character. So PJM is shown as a total hypocrite as he criticises mu use of the term "attack" but goes on to accuse National of mud slinging in a context it is clearly wrong in. And considering every major newspaper in the land seems to be against the bill, hardly hsyterical to point out why]
“The Greens should be ashamed for their role to date. Labour could not have introduced this bill without their support.”
That depends on where it ends up after the select committee David. The Greens actually pushed to have all parties represented on this bill’s select committee. This shows that they want an inclusive decision making process, and an outcome that everyone can stomach. But where was your acknowledgement of this David? So quick to condemn, so slow to praise.
[DPF: At http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/07/electoral_finance_bill_passes_first_reading.html I acknowledged all parties except Labour and NZ First supported this, which is a good thing. But having seven of the parties there doesn't mean they will gain agreement. And most of all what comes out will have almost no opportunity for public input]
August 27th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
roger nome As I have said previously the bloody pollies shouldnt even be deciding this matter. They are conflicted as all are members of political parties that have a directt interest in the outcome. Which part of good governance principles dont you and they understand.
They are players on the field so they cant also be the referee.The matter must be decided by the citizens by way of a binding referendum voting on up to 3 models established by a panel of 3 retired Hight Court Judges from submissions from the citizens and pollies.
I know its hard for Socialists and their supporters to comprehend the principles of good governance but I would expect the Right and even the Centre to understand. It aint that difficult.
August 27th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
“I know its hard for Socialists and their supporters to comprehend the principles of good governance but I would expect the Right and even the Centre to understand. It aint that difficult.”
GD – I’ve been a proponent of direct democracy for a long time now. So of course I agree that this issue should be out ot a referendum. However, I also acknowledge that we have to work within the system that we currently have, and unfortunately BCIR isn’t part of it.
“I know its hard for Socialists and their supporters to comprehend the principles of good governance but I would expect the Right and even the Centre to understand. It aint that difficult.”
In my experience direct democracy advocates are more often lefties than righties, so I’m not sure where that came from.
August 27th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
bahhh – corection:
“GD – I’ve been a proponent of direct democracy for a long time now. So of course I agree that this issue should be put to a binding referendum …..
August 27th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
So let me get this clear. Labour and some of their allies cooked up a bill in secret. They completely ballsed it up, which is embarrassing as all hell.
The current tactic is to ask John Key to give them some ideas, instead of pointing out that they ballsed it up. This is pure diversion – they want him to suggest something, which would then allow them to attack him for it, and shift the heat away from them. He would be mad to give them that opportunity.
If they want a cross-party consensus, then they should create a structure that allows that, along with the consultation approach with both parties and the public that would allow compromises to be made. Asking John to throw out some ideas in the absence of that structure is absurd. As was them attempting to design a bill like this in the absence of that structure.
I’m afraid that the only way forward for Labour here is to can the bill and start again with a proper structure. Expecting John to give them a free pass on it is just not going to work.
August 27th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
“If they want a cross-party consensus, then they should create a structure that allows that, along with the consultation approach with both parties and the public that would allow compromises to be made.”
I agree PaulL – Labour isn’t blameless in this. They should have sort a more inclusive drafting process. They should have, in the very least, invited the input of all parliamentary parties in drawing up this bill. It does involve altering New Zealand’s constitution after all.
But two wrongs don’t make a right Paul. This issue is too important to be used as cynical political point scoring opportunity by National. If they’re more interested in the good of the Nation, than scoring some political cheap shots, they’ll look to form a consensus on this issue. But it is National we’re talking about, so I’m not holding my breath.
August 27th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
So… it wasn’t important enough to take National up in the offer of contributing to multi-party discussions. It was small stuff, just a few chats with the poodles and all would be good.
But now that it looks like a mother-of-all-legislative-cockups and the MSM are hitting Labours bollocks out of the park with each passing editorial… now it looks too important for National to not get involved in?!?!
Have faith in you own abilities roger… try holding your breath.
August 27th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
“This issue is too important to be used as cynical political point scoring opportunity by National.”
BULLSHIT.
It’s only become an important issue because of the complete balls-up that was made of the EFB.
National have a right to score points of this one. One could even say they have a duty.
What is really important is that it shows us all the incompetence of the current government, their willingness to do anything to stay in power, their flagrant attempt at stealing my freedom of speech & their total lack of accountability to Nzers.
To me, those issues are more important than whether or not the EB will be able to issue more pamphlets at the next election.
Fuck them. Let them squirm. This bill deserves a burial, not a rebuild.
August 27th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
thanks for the comments roger So perhaps this is an opportunity for those of us who want citizens to have a real voice to use this as a platform for change.
IMHO the citizenry would welcome the chance to take back the power in matters where the pollies have a conflict of interest.
We should decide on any matter concerning voting or the funding of political parties. The pollies should be there to do our bidding. Alas over the past few decades the bastards have usurped our rights and taken it on themselves to decide these things.
We have allowed them to do so through apathey and sucumbng to their seduction.
Time for us to retake the reigns and take back control over them.
Vive le revolution
August 27th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
What gd said.
This does seem to be an issue on which the majority of people, regardless of their political hue, agree. As such it represents an unrivalled opportunity to “take back the reins”.
What’s needed is an apolitical vehicle through which supporters of any party, and the noncommitted, can combine to take back democracy.
So what form should such a vehicle take?
August 27th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Roger Nome:
Feh… quite right I was referring to the ECA, but don’t think that changes my point – which interestingly enough, you completely failed to address.
But I had to have a bit of a giggle at reading this: his issue is too important to be used as cynical political point scoring opportunity by National. I thought this was important enough to have a serious piece of legislation put up in the first place; Labour felt otherwise, as they’re entitled to do, and don’t expect me to feel much sympathy when they have to wear the political consequences for their actions. I seriously don’t think this bill can be ‘tweaked’ in the House.
August 27th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
BTW, Nome, I actually think electoral law is important enough that I’d be quite happy to see a clear message sent to any future Government that if you treat electoral law as a plaything of your short-term partisan interests you’ll pay for it.
August 27th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
” thought this was important enough to have a serious piece of legislation put up in the first place; Labour felt otherwise, as they’re entitled to do, and don’t expect me to feel much sympathy when they have to wear the political consequences for their actions.”
I agree Craig. However I’m not suggesting that National should think about Labour’s welfare . I want them to consider the negative impact that this bill could have the electoral process in the future, and the public’s confidence in it. Surely these things are more important than scoring some cheap, shot-term political points?
[DPF: The real danger to the future PJM is the damage to the conventions around the Electoral Act. Never before has a party trued to use it so brazenly for partisan gain. It's a bit like coups - once you have one, then the second one gets much easier. Now if you allow the Electoral Act to be used as some grand bauble of office that the winner of an election get to rewrite to try and screw over its enemies, then every future govt will try and do that. It will be the first item on the post election agenda. How do we skew the rules to favour us? The process and substance of what the Govt has done is so flawed, that unless they are reprimanded for it, then it will be open slather in the future. Letting this bill proceed is what will damage the electoral process and confidence in it. Referring all the issues to some sort fo public inquiry or citizen's jury would safeguard that confidence.]
August 27th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
gd: You make a very valid point on the conflict of interest issue.
As our servants, in the Service of the Crown, they are trying even more to advantaging themselves to our disadvantage by attempting to rewrite the rules of their engagement.
It is no different to employees wanting to write the rules of their employment and so suddenly we are alerted to their intentions.
When we look at the situation closely we have already lost. They have won.
Our servants allow us every 3 years or so to choose a new staff from a list of their own making. No CV, references or previous training required. No code of conduct required but a Privilege Committee exists fot them.
The conditions of their employment, pay, perks, entitlements, freebies, retirement, etcetera have been set by their appointed representatives.
We can’t sack them. They steal from us, so the upholders of the law look the other way, and this gives them time to write a new rule that vindicates this criminal behaviour.
However there is always a fly in the ointment, in this case Taito Philip Field so there’s a whole rigmarole involving Judges to view his misdemeanours.
The only way under our archaic system, of getting rid of them, is if the Governor-General uses his reserve powers and sacks the lot.
Where has this so called Democratic System of ours gone. It’s been hijacked?
August 27th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
Bin the EFB asap. Its too flawed to fix up unless we want ‘experts’ working forever on it at what cost? Start over and do it properly. If you arse up like this lot have in the real world then you’re on your arse aright!
Reasonable adult humans can admit mistakes, scrap them and be willing to start over. They can swallow their pride. Very obviously we aren’t dealing with reasonable adult people who care about NZ. This lot are loyal to Labour NOT NZ.
Sheesh, tis basically treason – let Labour practice goose-stepping as they get marched around the back of the bikeshed. NZ needs a Bikeshed Bill. All pollies gotta cycle to work so that a bikeshed can be legally justified.
August 27th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
gd: “Vive le revolution”. I agree
The EFB could well be called the Sedition Provoking Bill as
A seditious intention is an intention—
To incite the public or any persons or any class of persons to attempt to procure otherwise than by lawful means the alteration of any matter affecting the Constitution, laws, or Government of New Zealand – leads to public disorder
although
Not seditious is:
To point out errors or defects in the Government or Constitution of New Zealand, or in the administration of justice; or to incite the public or any persons or any class of persons to attempt to procure by lawful means the alteration of any matter affecting the Constitution, laws, or Government of New Zealand.
Needs must if the Devil drives
August 27th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
Damn right. The skunks who authored this outrage and deared to present it for review should be jailed for such an outright subversive attack on the democratic process.
…and the editor of the BOP Times should be fired for his grovelling endorsement of it. What a disgraceful example of a newpaper editior and journalist. Their role is to protect the public from this kind of thing, not slaver over such attacks on freedom choice and democracy like some Red Army propaganda officer. Even at such a turgid example of newspaper publishing as Wilson and Horton, Craig Nicholson stands out as one of the worst examples of a journalist ignorance.
August 27th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Jeezuz…. “dared” “journalistic ignorance”
August 27th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
“This issue is too important to be used as cynical political point scoring opportunity by National.”
Sorry Roger nome, I think replacing the govt is too important to suddenly get magnanimous over a monumental cock-up.
National played this one straight, offered to participate and to be non-partisan about it. Labour rebuffed. If they had come up with something vaguely saleable they might have gotten away with it, but unfortunately for them will now get what they deserve.
The offer to now consult is basically an offer to take it off the front pages, or even better, to put your own foot in your mouth so you can take a turn at being pilloried. There is no way that National can afford to pass up this opportunity – god knows that nobody passed up the opportunity when John Key made a minor mis-speak in his speech to the party conference.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
I had a very bad dream last night. I dreamt that Helen decided to hold a Royal Commission into Electoral law reform, and the EFB was put through the shredder. “So what?” you say. Then she gave the Royal Commission 10 years to gather evidence and report its findings, declared that the 2008 election would be postponed until the Royal Commission’s report had been considered by herself and H2, and appointed Winston Peters as Minister for the Prevention of Opposition Disorder. At that point I sat up bolt upright, almost giving my wife and the cat coronaries! It could never happen……could it?????
August 27th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
I hope this dreadful undemocratic piece of shit legislation sticks in the craw of all decent NZer’s and they have it on their minds (and remember who supported it) when walking into polling booths at the next election.
August 27th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
[DPF: Technically Russel is a former communist.]
So what! He’s only acquired a green thumb to go with the red flag. He’s a commie!!