The Bill of Wrongs
The Listener joins the chorus against the Electoral Finance Bill:
The new electoral spending proposals are anti-democratic.
When Justice Minister Mark Burton told Parliament that the government was “seeking to encourage full and open expression from a diverse range of interests in the run-up to a general election”, he must have known that he could hardly have been introducing a bill less likely to achieve that.
As drafted, the bill casts its net so widely that potentially something as innocuous as writing a personal letter saying “Don’t vote for so-and-so” would bring the writer under its auspices. It would be laughable if it were not so alarming.
If the bill is passed in this shoddy form, it would very likely result in hundreds and possibly thousands of New Zealanders inadvertently committing breaches of the law from January 1 next year. And it would be for no other reason than trying to do exactly what Burton, and most New Zealanders, would say is desirable, namely, having “full and open expression from a diverse range of interests in the run-up to a general election”.
The most grievous part of the proposals is the restrictions and impositions placed on “third parties”. Again, the government probably had in mind the Exclusive Brethren, but every group from Women’s Refuge to Federated Farmers would be affected. By the bill’s own definition, “election advertising” includes encouraging someone to vote or not to vote for one or more parties, and is also defined as “taking a position on a proposition with which one or more candidates, or one or more parties, is associated”.
So, other than political parties, no individual or group is allowed to spend more than $60,000, which is about the cost of one full-page ad in three metropolitan newspapers on a single day, in the entire calendar year up until the election, commenting on any subject on which any party has a policy. And the group will first have to register with the Electoral Commission. That is not fostering full and open expression. Rather, it gives the government a largely unfettered run in election year. It is an embarrassment that the bill in its present form has been put before Parliament.
But even that is not the end of it. If a group that is not an incorporated society happens to have even a single member who is not a registered voter – for example, because they might be only 17 – then that group is not allowed to become a registered third party and can spend no more than $5000 in election year.
And even those likely to spend less than $5000 are still caught in the net. As the Coalition for Open Government has pointed out, a student who writes in chalk on a footpath “Keep NZ GE Free” will have to sign a statutory declaration that their election expenses will not amount to more than $5000 and they will have to write alongside their slogan their full name and residential address. This restrictive and ridiculous bill will curb the vigorous and spontaneous debate that is desirable in a democracy in an election year.
The Electoral Finance Bill gives the strong impression that there has been a quantum shift in thinking about participation in public debate. Suddenly, it is as though any forms of communication to do with politics after January 1 – unless it is by the media, bloggers or the government itself (and possibly even some government communications will be caught) – are dangerous and need to be monitored and restricted. The proposition is absurd. There is no evidence to support it. It is not the public’s excess that needs curbing in this draconian proposal, it is the government’s.
Public submissions on this bill are now being sought. People should have their say. If they don’t, after January 1 they may find they cannot say much at all.
August 20th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
first
August 20th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
The previous comment was my humour from the previous posting.
Mt real comment is “so who is supporting the Electoral Finance Reform Bill”.
Labour at seeing how unpopular it is are now trying to distance themsleves from it, and I have yet to see an editoral / comment in any paper that supports this corruption of our democracy.
Were Labour really this stupid / desperate to even propose it in the first place? What shocked me the most is that it has taken nearly a month before the MSM realised what a peice of corrupt junk it really was.
The fun will start when the minor parties start to withdraw their support once it reaches select committee. Could any minor party risk the backlash in supporting this anti-democratic peice of legislation?
(Note the only supporters/ defenders I have come across are ignorant Labour lickspittle such as Selma, Sonic and Jordan)
August 20th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
“ignorant Labour lickspittle”
I think that should be “Lickspittals”
It’s a well known rule of the internet that any posts calling others ignorant will contain at least one glaring mistake.
August 20th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Bloggers are only slipping through the net because they can’t work out how to shut the bastards down.
As has been demonstrated.
August 20th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
“. . . a student who writes in chalk on a footpath “Keep NZ GE Free” will have to sign a statutory declaration that their election expenses will not amount to more than $5000 and they will have to write alongside their slogan their full name and residential address.”
And having given their name and address their expenses could suddenly amount to $5000 or more, depending on how pissed off the judge may be, or what his politics are.
Who is responsible for such crap being drafted – Labour, or the officials who apparently haven’t told them this crap is unworkable.
Also, I wonder, is freedom of speech a taonga protected by the Treaty?
August 20th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
My submission on the bill:
Kill the Bill.
_Kill the Bill.
__Kill the Bill.
___Kill the Bill.
____Kill the Bill.
_____Kill the Bill.
______Kill the Bill.
August 20th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
No, it will be sorted out in select committee …
Actually, that’s a really good idea. Let’s write the next budget in select committee too! And why wasn’t the therapeutic medicines bill sorted out in select committee? I would give more examples, but I can’t think of any other legislation Labour is trying to pass at the moment.
August 20th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Big thanks to DPF, who kept pushing this day in day out until the media picked it up. Realising that many others also did the same, but that kiwiblog has the readership to make an impact.
My concern is whether we can get it killed before select committee, rather than amended in select committee. I am very concerned at the mess that will result in election year if it gets a half-arsed fix, rather than getting fully rethought.
August 20th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
You know something is rotten when even granny listener is making noises about it.
How does Labour get out of this with any dignity? (forget credibility, thats long gone)
I don’t see any politically expediant way for them to get out of this. Looks like they have limited choices:
Be honest to the people, say that although the intention was for the best, we got it wrong. Drop the bill. Take the fallout on the chin.
Save face, keep the bill and get it passed by offering inducements to the minors. Keep a straight face while you tell the people that it is the best thing for democracy. Lose the election and never get back in, because of the crappy legislation you wrote while in Government.
August 20th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Monty said “The fun will start when the minor parties start to withdraw their support once it reaches select committee. Could any minor party risk the backlash in supporting this anti-democratic peice of legislation?”
IMHO it’s already too late for the parties who supported the first reading of the EFB. The last One News-Colmar Brunton poll had the Greens at 5%, NZ First at 3% & United Future at 1%. Who were the minor parties who suppoted the EFB at the first reading? The Greens, NZF & UF. Kind of says it all, doesn’t it! It’s too late for these parties to protest that they were only sending the Bill to select committee for meaningful changes (the Clark Mantra) – their collective DNA is on the Bill now for eternity, and they will be convicted in the best traditions of CSI in 2008.
August 20th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
The only people supporting this treasonous piece of legislation are that fat fuck Trotter and the kiwiblog trolls sonic, selma and roger nome.
We now have almost the entire MSM and the public against it.
Give it up.
August 20th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
I find your comment offensive Bill!
On behalf of fat fuckers everywhere we object to being linked with commie piece of trash.
August 20th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
I see Billy boy took his outrage pills this morning.
It’s a wonder you dont all drop dead of heart attacks with all that raging!
Just to clear up my view, I do think legislation is needed to stop 3rd parties trying to buy an election. I would like to see more clarity on who it should and shold not effect, and of course I’d like anonymous donations banned.
The hysteria from some of view over the subject would be funny, if it was not so dreary. Your default mode is screaming about Zinbabwe, Cuba and the death of democracy every time the government does anything.
It’s getting rather old chaps.
August 20th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
CraigM said “Be honest to the people, say that although the intention was for the best, we got it wrong. Drop the bill. Take the fallout on the chin.”
Be honest? This government? CraigM, you must be kidding. You’ll remember some of our conversations over 20Free ECE – honesty was needed there too – 20 Highly Subsidised hours ECE would have been acceptable to the masses, but no, that would mean backing down and saying “Sorry, we tried, we couldn’t quite do Free but this is the next best thing”. But they can’t do it – just like Fonzie in the old Happy Days shows (showing my age here!) – couldn’t say “I’m sorry” or “I was wrong” – the words stuck in his throat! Let them stick to their dogma – they’ve dug their hole; let’s enjoy watching them try to crawl out of it!!
August 20th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Do all academics refer to others (outsiders?) as “chaps”? seriously.
and you find ‘us’ “dreary” !
Sonic old bean, this atrocity is an attack on democracy and should be criticised at every opportunity.
We are raising a ground-swell of opposition and we will not be silenced !!!
Will we chaps?….chaps?..where are you chaps?….I say, how rude.
August 20th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Sonic said “Just to clear up my view, I do think legislation is needed to stop 3rd parties trying to buy an election. I would like to see more clarity on who it should and shold not effect, and of course I’d like anonymous donations banned.”
You didn’t answer my question last week Sonic, old bean. when you say “stop 3rd parties trying to buy an election”, I presume you mean 3rd parties like the Council of Trade Unions, the EPMU, the Service & Food Workers’ Union, the PPTA, the NZEI – right?
August 20th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Inventroy2 – my tongue is so firmly planted in my cheek that it may require surgery to remove it.
I really will find it ironic if it is a bill on electoral reform that leads us to an early election, as the minors run for the hills.
August 20th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
BB
I would be all for the EFB If it banned Anon donations and restricted the registration process to parties spending say over $10,000. Having said this, I still think that this bill is better than the current state of affairs. At the moment the right to political freedom of speech in this country is no more than a contest of who has the biggest budget. So it’s a nigh on meaningless right to have for the 95% of New Zealanders who have their voices drowned out by special interest groups with deep pockets come election time. So contrary to what the cynical spin masters will have us believe this Bill will actually make our right to freedom of speech more meaningful, not less.
The fact that this Bill is being ubiquitously condemned in the MSM says only one thing – they will lose advertising revenue from its introduction.
August 20th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
CraigM said “Inventroy2 – my tongue is so firmly planted in my cheek that it may require surgery to remove it.”
Hope you have medical insurance Craig – you’ll wait a while at your local DHB otherwise!
August 20th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Sonic says : I do think
You’re fucking joking aren’t you? There is a difference between thinking and talking bollocks.
August 20th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
I don’t think anyone should have to register, or to make a statutory declaration to have their say.
The rules as they stand say that advocacy ads need to have the name and address of the person authorising the advertising. That, in my opinion, is enough.
I personally do not support limits on spending for anyone – political parties and 3rd parties alike – but I know most of the commentators do. And I’d also drop the money taken from the taxpayer for broadcast advertising – parties should fund their own campaign.
August 20th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Roger you are a fool of the highest order. Your weasel words about trying to safguard democracy make me sick. The single largest spenders during 2005 were labour and their supporters. Those supporters being of course red branded “info” campaigns undertaken by our completely compromised civil service and govt departments as well as the union movement.
You fucking people with your eat the rich attitude are a blight on our country and it is time people woke up to the not so slow erosion of our way of life.
August 20th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
rn – your last post…was a steaming pile of bovine excrement.
That is draft three of my post, after toning down the other two.
You go register yourself rn, personally I’d like the government, any government ,to get the hell out of my personal affairs.
You have such a low opinion of 95% of the population, I’m not surprised that you want to control what opinions/views they hear. You obviously think it’s too much for us to take in.
Roger, you could throw billions of dollars of advertising at me to try and make me see the world the way you do and it wouldn’t work. What chance does any special interest group have, with a mere million or so to spend.
August 20th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
” presume you mean 3rd parties like the Council of Trade Unions, the EPMU, the Service & Food Workers’ Union, the PPTA, the NZEI – right?”
Thats the thing abour assuming, although in this case is’s only “made an ass” out of one of us. The Labour party is supported by the unions, hardly news and hardly a surprise. Unions are democratic bodies that publish public accounts. I’m afraid Mr Inventory there is nothing to see here and little to answer.
“The single largest spenders during 2005 were labour and their supporters”
Figure? references? links?
August 20th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
BB:
“The single largest spenders during 2005 were labour and their supporters.”
This is absolute tripe – and you don’t offer a shred of proof support this lie of course. Let me guess, you haven’t read the hollow men?
and CraigM: If money doesn’t matter then why do so many astute business people put hundreds of thousands of dollars into these political campaigns? Are you trying to tell us that they’re stupid? I suggest that these business people know the value of a dollar. That’s how they got where they are after all.
August 20th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
roger nome said “At the moment the right to political freedom of speech in this country is no more than a contest of who has the biggest budget. So it’s a nigh on meaningless right to have for the 95% of New Zealanders who have their voices drowned out by special interest groups with deep pockets come election time.”
Very good rn – so who has the biggest budget? Can’t guess? I’ll give you a hint…..think advertising campaigns for Working for Families, for KiwiSaver, for 20Free ECE. This insidious piece of legislation will indeed drown out the voices of 95% of the population in favour of the outfit with the deepest pockets of all – the government – who, of course, is spending your money and mine, with absolute impunity! And 5% is about all the support they will have left if this draconian Bill is rammed through the House!
August 20th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
“Very good rn – so who has the biggest budget? Can’t guess? I’ll give you a hint…..think advertising campaigns for Working for Families, for KiwiSaver, for 20Free ECE.”
These pieces of legislation need advertising so that they reach the people they’re intended for. What good would they be otherwise? All this legislation will change is the ability of super-rich interest groups to influence our democracy with their wealth. Not a bad thing if you ask me.
August 20th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Grima Wormtongue aka Sonic said: “It’s getting rather old chaps.”
Don’t feel you have to put yourself through it then, we won’t miss you if it all gets too much.
G
August 20th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
The government advertising campaigns go far beyond information – they have a lurid red and a Labour logo all over them. The WFF ads before the last election ($10M worth) even had “You’re better off with Labour” featured prominently.
So yes, the Labour government have the deepest pockets, and if anyone should be limited it’s them!
August 20th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
And when this attack on democracy is done and dusted the next target should be the amount the Gumint and thats ANY Gumint gets to spend on so called communications that in reality is propoganda.
Sonic and Roger et al You provide such entertainment trying to deny the undeniable on this matter Aunty H would be so proud of her little troops.
I mean if this was a run it up the flag pole and see who salutes then it really shows how out of touch a 3rd term Gumint can get.
August 20th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
“The government advertising campaigns go far beyond information – they have a lurid red and a Labour logo all over them. The WFF ads before the last election ($10M worth) even had “You’re better off with Labour” featured prominently.”
evidence please …..
August 20th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Bluebelle – the WFF ads did not have “you’re better of with Labour” featured. I believe you are confusing the WFF ads with advertising paid for out of Labour’s Parliamentary Leader’s Fund, which came out at around the same time.
August 20th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Thanks GE. I suspected as much.
August 20th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
But we do need to recognise that the $800,000 spent on the pledge card was:
1. Taken illegally from the taxpayer and was:
2. Spent on party advertising and was:
3. enough to make Labour exceed its spending cap and was:
4. obfuscated and lied about by LP heirarchy and was:
5 repaid only after a public outcry and was:
6 declared to be illegal but not pursued by police and was:
7 technically made legitimate by the passage of very dodgy retrospective legislation and:
8 Exceeded by a considerable margin the final amount the EBs were recorded as having spent on:
9 A pamphlet which by most analyses appears to have accurately analysed the Green policy on a number of issues.
I suggest you quit now rn, supporting this Bill puts you on a hiding to nowhere unless you are secretly into BS&M like PSB. Now there is a thought as to possibly why you put yourself through this humiliation on a regular basis.
August 20th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
When are Labour’s fellow travellers (Winston’s Party and Peter’s Party) going to pay it back?
Why isn’t the media blow torch blowing hot and fierce over them?
August 20th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
I dont who the facsists in wellington think they are but i for one will be completely ignoring this f….d law. As should we all. Force Clarke and her pricks to lock us up! That will expose her for what she is.
Or alternatively, all stand for election then you can say what the hell you want. How hard is to stand at an election (i.e. cost?)
And even better – if you get into parliament you can lie, slander and talk as much utter bullshit as you want and you are accountable to nobody. “nothing comes of nothing”.
I hate them
August 20th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
I second that , all those in favour ? Please stand up ?
August 20th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Roger Nome, Graham Edgeler: Bluebelle’s confusion does, of course, prove her point. The ads were constructed to create mental associations with Labour.
Now, just to throw the cat amongst the pigeons … I believe the official information act covers non-government agencies contracted to perform services for the crown. So all the correspondance and meeting notes for the WFF campaign may be discoverable under the OIA. …. heh. heh.
August 20th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
“Roger Nome, Graham Edgeler: Bluebelle’s confusion does, of course, prove her point. The ads were constructed to create mental associations with Labour.”
Rubbish mate – the only thing that proved was that she’s prepared to lie in order to prove her point. Nothing more, nothing less.
“But we do need to recognise that the $800,000 spent on the pledge card was”
Um – I think we may have been through that here on kiwiblog once or twice before fella –
“I suggest you quit now rn, supporting this Bill puts you on a hiding to nowhere unless you are secretly into BS&M like PSB.”
Look If that’s a common it’s a pretty lame attempt DavidW – Filthy old buggar.
August 20th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
The New National Meme.
1. The cost of political adverting by the National Party’s friends and supporters is a unimportant. The amount spent on advertising is irrelevent as it changes no-one’s voting intentions.
2. Except for the pledgecard which, through some strange trickery, stole the whole election and changed almost everyone who saw it’s vile communist lies into Labour voters.
Hmm
August 20th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
‘“ignorant Labour lickspittle”
‘I think that should be “Lickspittals”
‘It’s a well known rule of the internet that any posts calling others ignorant will contain at least one glaring mistake.’
Gotta laugh Sonic, you ignorant prat. Google finds 84,600 results for “lickspittle” (including all dictionaries) and 110 for “lickspittal”. Apology to Monty please.
August 20th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
If one can’t see the link between the timing and promotion of WFF and the election there is no hope of ever convincing them of anything. Socialists have to be the most rabidly religious people on the planet.
Herr Leader can do no wrong! Therefore Herr Leader is like God (but of course we the enlightened know there is no God because He never shows himself at our command). We’re soooo smart caus we would never bow to God. We will only bow to our Godless god will we the enlightened ones who understand that the true bliss of utopia can only come to NZ after giving up all our freedoms to our humble State servants. Oh look there’s a rabbit hole.
August 20th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
The New Labour Meme.
1. The cost of “public information” advertising by the Labour Party’s agencies and departments is a unimportant. Being told a handout may be available is irrelevent as it changes no-one’s voting intentions.
2. Except for brochures put out by the Exclusive Brethren which, through some strange trickery, swung lots of votes and may have led to National “stealing” the election
Hmm
August 20th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Graeme Edgeler says: “the WFF ads did not have “you’re better of with Labour” featured. I believe you are confusing the WFF ads with advertising paid for out of Labour’s Parliamentary Leader’s Fund, which came out at around the same time.”
Yes, and which had very very similar design to the “official” “public information campaign” allowing Labour to leverage off the taxpayer money.
August 20th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
I’m with vto, the facsists better start building reducation camps in a hurry as they will have tens of thousands of cilents come 2008. I for one will take no notice at all to their poxy little laws. And in fact I now feel like giving a healthy donation to the party of my choice to fight these scum.
This bill is total shit and an evil attack on democacry, the bastards and their followers promoting this crap should be locked up.
August 20th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
So whats the solution anon, not allow a government to tell people what they are entitled too? Should they have to go further and deny reponsibilty for anything popular they ever implement.
The more you guys talk about this the more I realise that the last thing you want is a level playing field.
August 20th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Yes Graeme Edgeler , the legal precedence here does seem rather murky and grey, no doubts you will beg to differ. Ambiguity represents as one of the chief cornerstones of the kiwi legal profession .
August 20th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Sonic , maybe I should have said that deception represents as one of the chief cornerstones of kiwi parliamentary procedures ?
August 20th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
The last election is a historical record of an election riddled with corruption, culminating in the Pledge Card, unable to be paid for by a cash strapped Labour Party, that passed the buck to Helen 2 to pay from Helen’s Leader’s Funds?
This was the rort that bought the election and required an Act of Parliament to make lawful, unlawful acts by politicians.
We should be looking as well, at who supported this iniquitous Validation Bill? Also who paid back their over expenditure and breached the Act by so doing? (Wily Peters and Dunne were too shrewd to do this!)
To distract attention from these dastardly actions the Exclusive Brethern like sitting ducks, were targeted as being the culprits for this latest proposed corrupt piece of legislation – The Electoral Finance Bill.
All associated are wilfully wasting taxpayer’s money by their support of measures designed to advantage themselves to the disadvantage of the voter to enhance the chances of their own return to Parliament.
August 20th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
“The more you guys talk about this the more I realise that the last thing you want is a level playing field.”
Well, Wormtongue, who’s you guys? Is everybody opposed to Labour by definition a Labour supporter? On what basis do you think people don’t want a level playing field? Or is arguing against a Labour government just a political crime?
In fact, you have missed the point. The arguments against Labour are simply showing that its defences of its actions are incoherent. Their rationalisations are so poor, they lapse into hypocrisy and incomprehensibility at the slightest pin prick.
And you want another three years of this?
August 20th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
It’s a repugnant and stupid piece of legislation.
August 20th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Sorry Mr Donkey not sure if I follow you.
“Is everybody opposed to Labour by definition a Labour supporter? “
August 20th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Grima , if you believe that this bill is designed to ensure a level playing field, then you’ll believe anything. That’s exactly the opposite of its intentions as well you know.
Ohh and I think KD may have have made a typo. Even you do that from time to time.
G
August 20th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
Sonic,
Another Poll is coming up ..
I know that you are sure that a poll rebound will save Labour..
Perhaps, just perhaps your wish could come true.. Nah, too late,
too long in deceit and denial, too deep into the faecal coliforms.
By now Sonic you are fast becoming a cause for quarantine.
Heh, septic has a double meaning for you.
(I am ashamed to say that I feel quite good just now).
August 20th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
Thank you Grant, yes, I meant National supporter, not Labour supporter.
August 20th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
When is this bill due in the house? Every MP and every person in the gallery that is against it should turn up with a big patch of gaffer tape over their mouths b/c this is what this is trying to do. In one word appalling for a western democracy… and no, I do not lay claim to be member of the VRWC for holding this view, just someone that is pretty much middle of the road…
August 20th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
So, I see that Sonic and Roger Nome think that this legislation is better than what we have at the moment. Because they are concerned that at the moment those with deep pockets are buying the elections, and that that advantages National.
So, given their predilection for asking for proof, I would like proof to substantiate their concerns:
1. What evidence do you have that those with deep pockets overwhelmingly support National? I can name some clearly wealthy people who support Labour – such as the donor of a substantial amount to Labour last election. Are donations by wealth individuals to Labour equally as bad as donations by wealthy individuals to National?
2. What evidence do you have that National and their supporting third parties spent significantly more last election than Labour and their supporting third parties. The National party and Labour both spent around about the amount of the cap (strictly speaking Labour were about $800K over). The EB surely didn’t spend any more than the unions. Where is the evidence that you are basing this on?
August 20th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Sonic said “The more you guys talk about this the more I realise that the last thing you want is a level playing field.”
So put your cards on the table Sonic. Are you for the provisions of the EFB, as it relates to third party advertising, or are you against it? And don’t come in here talking about level playing fields when the provisions don’t apply to your comrades in the unions.
The Labour party hoped to ram this through, unaltered, prior to Christmas. They won’t – stake your next commission cheque on it!
August 20th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
URGENT MESSAGE to all Operatives in the field.
Important strategy document:Please read and burn.
Mission 2007: Kill the Bill
Mission 2008: Ditch the Bitch
Over & out
August 20th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Damn. I’ll never get the petrol out of my laptop keyboard.
August 20th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
I have missed something – I read before that the unions weren’t subject to this but I havent seen the ‘justification’. Putting aside the obvious hypocrisy, can someone tell me the reason put forward by the facsists for this exemption?
Perhaps sonic, with his probable intellect and lack of brains would be on their wavelength.
August 20th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
“The more you guys talk about this the more I realise that the last thing you want is a level playing field.”
Sonic’s definition of a level playing field is obviously one where the incumbent government can legislate to suppress opposition thereby ensuring a return to power.
Mate… you’re too good for us. The Party has a promotion for you to Cuba or North Korea or alternatively Mac’s standup comedy show in Vegas may give you a slot.
August 20th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
ELECTORAL (MUGABE) FINANCE BILL
Whoever named this bill on this kiwiblog first needs a commendation because it is so apt.
If we all called it this same name “ELECTORAL (MUGABE) FINANCE BILL” with the catch cry to action “Kill the Bill” we would have the pleasure of seeing them squirm every time it gets mentioned.
August 20th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
I often wonder whether all commenter’s (and i include myself) are so forthright off line. I can only imagine the resulting scuffle that would occur if sonic or roger nome were to vomit forth their particular flavour of left wing trollism in a real world social setting. I always try to temper my comments to those that I would be comfortable delivering to somebody’s face or in a setting with other people in earshot. I sincerely hope that i someday have the good fortune to meet these two particular trolls face to face so they may explain why they are correct and almost every other person in the country with a voice is wrong. Sadly I suspect that face to face these two failures are less likely to be so forthright.
August 20th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Burton told Parliament that the government was “seeking to encourage full and open expression from a diverse range of interests in the run-up to a general election”. Ostensibly the Act seeks to control political expression from 1 January, in 2008 or in any other election year.
But already Helen1 seems to be trying to extend that draconian 10-month period of political censorship. This morning on NewstalkZB she criticised Australian foreign minister Downer for addressing the national party conference in (what she referred to as) the run-up to the general election. Downer’s speech was delivered, to a private audience, some 15 months before the next general election. Maybe our dear leader knows something about the election timing that we plebs don’t know?
August 20th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
maybe it would be easier if they just told us what to say
August 20th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
pointer, i think H1 is a conrol freak and her spin machine is well out-of-control right now. that said, she’s no idiot. i’m sure she has all sorts of taxpayer-funded re-election tricks up her sleve. these will take time to prepare and execute… and being well behind in the polls i can see her needing lots of time to frame us all up for polling day.
August 20th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Pointer, you neglected to mention that Downer cleared it with the NZ govt prior to accepting the invitation to speak to the Nat conference, he outlined the non political subject matter and Clarkes govt approved the visit. Further to this, our blog host told us that the speech was delivered free of media ears and was a non partisan speech.
Clarke is a suckhole of the highest order. Many of us thought that her standing astride the dead body of a polynesian overeater was the lowest she could fall. Clearly this venal gargoyle has the capacity to keep descending the desperation escalator yet.
And this was coming from the same creature that invited two jags to speak at a labour conference some years ago.
August 20th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
I unanimously agree it is classic “Mugabe” or to quote Audrey Young “Stalinist”!!
All public disagreement should be completely suppressed by law!
The mysterious thing that I can’t quite work out is that HC and Cullen both openly admitted that it was expressly designed to prevent those Brethren men repeating their advertising. Having chortled for so long about how ineffective it was the Labour team then shamed National into almost taking their spin about it and trying to distance the Nats from the Exclusive Brethren as much as possible – but I have never seen in the history of Politics in NZ a third party that has caused such a incredible reaction from a Political Party that they opposed.
The Labour spin machine has now admitted by this action [Mugabe bill] how effective those “dastardly brethren pampleteers “actually were !!!
August 20th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Could someone [Selma maybe?] please explain where the PR or Media dept for DPMC is at present?
It is almost completely disillusioning at present !!
With The Herald, The Press, the SST and a slightly lamer Dompost and now the Listener all completely decrying it why don’t they pull out now and park it up “Therapeutic Medicines style” and await till poll ratings are up again – it is foolish to add cans of petrol to the poll fires!!!
August 20th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
Civil Servant said “Could someone [Selma maybe?] please explain where the PR or Media dept for DPMC is at present?
It is almost completely disillusioning at present !!”
Sorry I’m not Selma – whoops – rephrase – GLAD I’m not Selma – but I suspect Helen’s spin doctors are putting in long hours helping her develop her “I Hate Australia” policy, whilst her officials are recovering from the paint-stripping they endured from her fiery tongue when quizzed on why they didn’t tell her about the flights to Iraq.
Meanwhile, I hear Winston tried some Single Malt Diplomacy with his MFAT officials over the weekend to see if he could get any of them to tell him ANYTHING!!!
August 20th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
The idea that everyone who has loads of cash supports national or act is simply wrong.
I have a friend who is a very wealthy and senior businessman, who has always voted Labour, but has decided that he can’t at the moment.
This Bill is one thing that has alienated him, but also the way they acted over the Auditor general really pissed him off. Not surprising as he is an accountant by training.
I am just bewildered at how inept the govt has been over all this. Gone are the slick and intelligent political tactics, now they just seem tired and desperate.
August 20th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Monty said “Mt real comment is “so who is supporting the Electoral Finance Reform Bill”.
Labour at seeing how unpopular it is are now trying to distance themsleves from it, and I have yet to see an editoral / comment in any paper that supports this corruption of our democracy.”
Not so Monty, I saw that pompous git Chris Trotter trying to tell all in The Dom. Post that Labour needs this law to counteract the fact that National have backing from rich, corporate types, etc. Who is he trying to kid!
August 21st, 2007 at 5:26 am
In my view it’s easy to see why Labour got so het up about the EB’s. Essentially the EB’s did what the media should have been doing but wouldn’t. I remember Clark on the front page of the herald with reps from the greens proudly announcing they would form a coalition after the election. I waited (vainly) for the media to be all over this. How would the coalition work? What are the green policies that would be adopted etc.
Sadly there was nothing, and the uninformed were left with a vague fuzzy feeling that a all was safely in HC’s capable control.
The EB’s just did what the media should have done, which was expose the more unusual policies of the greens and how they would most likely affect the average New Zealander. No wonder HC got upset.
Re the WFF advertising, in my view you have to have a very narrow idea of election advertising not to see this was blatent labour promotion. When you have a government that trumpets the WFF policy, throws out tax payer money by the bucketload, makes it a major plank in their election campaign and has it plastered over every media outlet as a Labour policy, then they pay millions to advertise the policy on TV. I find it extraordinary that RN and Sonic are incapable of realising that people will not automatically associate this with the labour party. We are struggling a bit with definitions here I think. I think you must believe NZ’ers are fundamentally stupid to not associate a policy with Labour just because it doesn’t have their logo on it.
August 21st, 2007 at 7:18 am
Bogusnews, you think people associalting a succesful policy with the party that created it is somehow cheating?
Best that Labour just resign now and give National the government benches without bothering with an election eh?
It’s the only fair thing to do.
August 21st, 2007 at 7:19 am
Sonic asks: “So whats the solution anon, not allow a government to tell people what they are entitled too? Should they have to go further and deny reponsibilty for anything popular they ever implement.”
I think that all govt advertising should need to be approved unanimously by a multiparty select committee. Of course the govt needs to say “your tax is due today”, “call 0800 Working for Families” to see if you are eligible, “join the police or army” etc – but these ads need to be strictly non-political.
The IRD does a good job in this respect, as do the police and army. The Working for Families ads were clearly too political, and the KiwiSaver ones are a bit dodgy too – not much information but funny with uplifting music etc to make the viewer feel good about the scheme.
August 21st, 2007 at 7:22 am
Sonic – we were posting at the same time.
You say above: “Bogusnews, you think people associalting a succesful policy with the party that created it is somehow cheating?”
Think about this way – it is govt policy that you need to pay tax on 7 April, but when the ads run, they don’t send a message that this is LABOUR govt policy. Same with “Don’t Drink & Drive” ads – its govt policy (and the law) that we shouldn’t drink and drive, but you don’t think LABOUR when you see these ads.
WFF did not meet this test. KiwiSaver probably just scraps through.
I think you do see this. Stop trying to be deliberately stupid to “prove” a point.
August 21st, 2007 at 7:37 am
Of course Sonic, Graeme, Roger – you are relying on the same recollections of there being no “better off with Labour” as on the bus shelter ads? And the integrity of the Speaker to enforce the rules?
But then again Labour had no pre-warning of the rules that the pledge card would be caught up in either?
http://www.rodneyhide.com/index.php/weblog/comments/speaker_wilson_replies/
August 21st, 2007 at 7:43 am
Sonic ; level 9 on the ball quick this morning. Must be very worried ?
August 21st, 2007 at 7:44 am
It is also rare that I turn to the words of Ron Donald for support but:
(Also please note the dates on this…)
http://www.hansard.parliament.govt.nz/hansard/Final/FINAL_2004_09_02.htm
Turning to this Labour Party campaign, the $21 million may be excessive—I would be interested to see the full breakdown of that spending—but we support communicating to the people of New Zealand what their entitlements are under the family package. The problem with the old rules is that at least half of those who were entitled to some taxpayer support did not receive what they deserved, because they did not know what they were entitled to. National should not be so mean-spirited as to stop the Government from communicating to the people who have missed out, because, of course, under National many, many people missed out for many years on what were their fair entitlements. So we support some of this money being spent. We are not sure it should be $21 million.
Where the Labour Government has crossed the line is that the 0800 number that it used for its departmental advertising through the Inland Revenue Department and Ministry of Social Development is the same 0800 number it used for its blatant propaganda: “You’re better off with Labour.” That is crossing a line, and the Labour Government should stop doing that. It should pull down all those posters that it has put up around the country. “You’re better off with Labour.” is so close to “Vote for Labour.” that there is hardly a sliver between the two messages. But, more to the point, Labour should not be cross-marketing like that and using a Government department to receive calls for what is in effect party political advertising.
I look forward to Labour facing up to that and cleaning up its act. I look forward to all political parties in this Parliament cleaning up their act. I also look forward to our cooperating with the office of the Auditor-General in the research that it is doing into Government parliamentary advertising and publicity. It is beholden on us all to do a much better job on behalf of the taxpayers, whom we are here to serve.
August 21st, 2007 at 7:47 am
Not looking good; ” look forward to Labour facing up to that and cleaning up its act.”
What century will that be ?
August 21st, 2007 at 7:50 am
Of course Prebbles pointing out that this amount is:
the biggest ever done by a Government;
greater than the amount of money needed to tell us all about GST
greater than the amount of money to tell us all about decimal currency
really shows most points needed against this Government.
August 21st, 2007 at 7:51 am
Worntongue said: “Bogusnews, you think people associalting a succesful policy with the party that created it is somehow cheating?”
Well Grima, it is when they spedn $20m of government money doing it.
August 21st, 2007 at 7:51 am
Corruption is the new Labour motto?
August 21st, 2007 at 7:53 am
Join labour ; lying and cheating is the game !
August 21st, 2007 at 7:53 am
Sorry guys does not pass the smell test. In any case where you are introducing a new scheme you have to inform people.
Perhaps you think that any sich ads should have funeral music and a solemn voiceover saying “This is a cr*p scheme, Vote National today” but I doubt anyone outside yourselevs would agree.
August 21st, 2007 at 7:59 am
Sonic – you seem rather rattled this morning ? Is it because your leader Helen Clark is the laughing stock of the world ?
August 21st, 2007 at 8:04 am
Typical logic chopping Wormtongue. Yes, you have to inform people. We already have the entire apparatus of government to do that. But why not a budget of, say $2 million? Or $500,000. Somehow $500,000 from the EB’s is a threat to democracy. We can evaluate a political party in election year for about $2m.
But the govenment’s flagship WFF policy needs $20m spent? Get real. Nor does that justifiy the blatant Labour associations in election year.
August 21st, 2007 at 8:11 am
“Sorry guys does not pass the smell test”
Neither does most of what you write, but you keep doing it anyway.
“This is a cr*p scheme, Vote National today”
Why do you have to resort to ridiculous scenario’s to try and prove your point? Talk about bad smells.
Information can be given to people through TV without resorting to ads that cost multi- millions to produce.
Still, when you turn people earning up to 120k per year into beneificiaries, I suppose you have to increase the quality of the message eh.
August 21st, 2007 at 8:22 am
************************************************
# Graeme Edgeler Says:
August 20th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Bluebelle – the WFF ads did not have “you’re better of with Labour” featured. I believe you are confusing the WFF ads with advertising paid for out of Labour’s Parliamentary Leader’s Fund, which came out at around the same time.
# roger nome Says:
August 20th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Thanks GE. I suspected as much.
**********************************************************
Congratulations.
You have just neatly illustrated why this proposed bill is such a threat.
Labour, with election adevrtising pointing to a policy, effectively make Government policy advertising such as working for families electioneering for labour. In this way they are acting not unlike the classic third party advertising this bill is trying to stop. As this bill makes provision for such advertising to be allowed, while reducing the capacity of those against to publically debate the issue, it gives an advantage to the government of the day, whoever that government might be.
Roger, you seem to make the point that the public can discern the difference between Government department announcements and Electioneering. Yet at the same time you feel the voting public should not be subjected to well funded campaigns by valid interest groups during the election.
You can’t have it both ways Roger.
August 21st, 2007 at 8:33 am
“you seem rather rattled this morning”
I dont know what wishful thinking led to that flight of fancy.
“Why do you have to resort to ridiculous scenario’s to try and prove your point”
From the guys giving us “NZ is becoming Cuba”? thats funny mate.
“Information can be given to people through TV without resorting to ads that cost multi- millions to produce”
It seems my “funeral” music idea was no so fanciful eh?
[DPF: Sonic is even less up with the play than normal. I did not compare NZ to Cuba. I compared how we treated our closest ally to how one would expect a country like Cuba to be treated. Huge difference.]
August 21st, 2007 at 9:04 am
David W
You forgot the gift duty on the $800,000 donation Labour made – about $200,000 – also Winston first and United no future – have they paid up yet? Thought not.
August 21st, 2007 at 9:48 am
I can’t wait to see the party returns for Labour for 2007. I wonder how they really paid for the pledge card. Heh, heh heh.
August 21st, 2007 at 9:55 am
I have read all the posts here, and tried to follow the reasoning.
All I know is this!
If there is legislation being introduced that is trying to control the way that people, or groups of people, talk or share information, about political parties to the point where our freedom to speak needs to be registered with an agency of the state, then there is SOMETHING F*****G WRONG!
Simple enough for you all, good!
August 21st, 2007 at 11:04 am
“I did not compare NZ to Cuba. I compared how we treated our closest ally to how one would expect a country like Cuba to be treated”
I wasn’t talking about you actually David.
Also this new habit of yours of editing posts rather than just replying makes long threads harder to follow IMHO.
August 21st, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Sonic – you have not responded to either of my posts this morning. Would you oppose a multiparty select committee to vet govt ads? And do you or don’t you see how IRD successfully communicates to us important information without being political – and that this could be a model? Your refusal to engage seriously – no one argues for funeral music – suggests you really do believe that Labour should be able to do whatever it likes with taxpayers’ money to promote its policies.