Electoral Finance Bill submissions

September 17th, 2007 at 8:44 am by David Farrar

I am hearing whispers from Parliament that Labour is 100% determined to get the Electoral Finance Bill passed into law, with the minimum of changes, and the Greens and NZ First are staying staunch to do so. The Select Committee is meeting outside its normal schedule so the Bill can be reported back in November.

The good thing is that there have been 579 submissions on the Bill – a very high number. One of the great new features of the Parliamentary website is you can read all the submissions on a bill online. A huge change from the days when they were secret and privileged.

The vast majority are against the Bill, and I’m pleased to say I recognise many a familiar name from here.

Now this makes last Friday’s Dom Post editorial worth highlighting:

Seldom has a piece of legislation so spectacularly failed to achieve its objectives as the Electoral Finance Bill.

According to the bill’s preamble, its purpose is to “provide more transparency and accountability in the democratic process, prevent the undue influence of wealth, and promote participation in parliamentary democracy”. But the bill’s effect is to do almost the opposite.

Prime Minister Helen Clark’s promise last year to “clamp down” on anonymous donations has proved, in Shakespeare’s words, to be nothing more than “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”.

The bill abysmally fails to live up to its promise to “promote participation in parliamentary democracy”.

The bill does almost the opposite, effectively creating a “licensing regime for political speech during an election year”. 

Even a person who wishes to make a placard to hold up at a public rally will need to make a statutory declaration before a solicitor, Justice of the Peace or notary public.

Had a past National government had the temerity to introduce such measures, Miss Clark and her Labour colleagues would have been the first to denounce its attack on free speech and participation in the democratic process.

That they have chosen not to see what everyone else sees shows just how desperate they are to cling to office.

In the wake of the outcry over the bill, Miss Clark has said changes will be made during the select committee process. But this is not a problem that can be solved with a better form of words.

The Government should go back to first principles. All that is needed is an open, transparent regime that requires all those who put significant sums into the political process to disclose their identities.

Another significant voice for the notion that should tell the Government to start again.

Tags:

307 Responses to “Electoral Finance Bill submissions”

  1. Graeme Edgeler (3,289 comments) says:

    A large number of submissions with your points cut and pasted into them too – you can tell from the large number of submissions with the typo “$5,00″ instead of “$5,000″ :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. CraigM (694 comments) says:

    A fight to the end? Has a bill ever been more widely attacked from all spectrums?

    It is staggering that Labour are proceeding with this. It would appear that they are going to ride out the backlash from those who understand what this bill means, and rely on the average ignorant voter to stay ignorant.

    This really is a desperate attempt to stay in power. If the bill passes (heaven forbid) and labour still get beaten at the next election, I wonder what they will say about electoral finance once they are in opposition?
    It seems they are taking a very big risk, one that would only be taken as a last gasp effort.

    The EFB is a repugnant bill. How can anyone support a law that would take away our right to free speech? that forces those who want to speak, to register with the government? why are ALL people not scared shitless by this bill and it’s connotations for our future freedoms?

    If the Labour Government can take away our free speech, what will they take next? Does anyone really think they will stop there?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Joely Doe (31 comments) says:

    Hey! My ‘cut and paste’ submission corrected that obvious typo. I thought it was put there deliberately.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. cubit9f (357 comments) says:

    Craig said

    “How can anyone support a law that would take away our right to free speech? that forces those who want to speak, to register with the government? why are ALL people not scared shitless by this bill and it’s connotations for our future freedoms? ”

    Craig I’m with you. However the answer lies with the fact that Labour actually relies on a goodly portion of the population not being informed, not caring, being uneducated, being easily manipulated and above all a sizeable group who see any view other than Labours being totally unacceptable.

    Go for a walk around any large shopping mall and try to pick those types of people. There are plenty out there.

    Those who are concerned enough to voice a contrary opinion are simply seen as National supporters and therefore worthy of being shouted down.

    By the way have NZ First paid back their overspend from the last election yet. Participation in Parliament should be like other clubs. No fees paid, no votes at meetings.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. GerryandthePM (328 comments) says:

    The end justifies the means.
    This is a Beltway issue.
    We won, you lost, eat that.
    Move on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “rely on the average ignorant voter to stay ignorant.”

    A policy with a reasonable chance of success, given the massive influence of the left controlled mainstream media. Of course ignorance is the policy that brings leftists to power wherever they ascend. They always strive to paint themselves as moderate, when their long term objectives are anything but. If there is one thing the left know well, its how to boil frogs.

    Watch for the orchestrated media campaign to label objectors to this bill as scaremongers, or perhaps even agents of the Exclusive Brethren, or worse, influenced by “extreme right wing” bloggers. Whatever, they must be discredited..!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Wycroft (873 comments) says:

    DPF, how do you read the submissions? The link you provided said “search expired” and I haven’t been able to find where the submissions are.

    Thanks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. CraigM (694 comments) says:

    “Go for a walk around any large shopping mall and try to pick those types of people. There are plenty out there.”

    I think I will. In fact I think I will make up a few thousand flyers and drop them under peoples windscreen wipers next weekend.

    At least I don’t have to register to do it…yet. Not that I would anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. kyotolaw (52 comments) says:

    I haven’t seen any analysis of the composition of the select committee and the changes that are likely to be made.

    Does the govt have a majority on the committee? Are the Labour members lackeys or do they have a smidgen of independence?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. kyotolaw (52 comments) says:

    Ask a question, do your own research…

    Role MP Name Party, Electorate
    Member Auchinvole, Chris National Party, List
    Member Chauvel, Charles Labour Party, List
    Deputy-Chairperson Finlayson, Chris National Party, List
    Member Hartley, Ann Labour Party, List
    Chairperson Pillay, Lynne Labour Party, Waitakere
    Member Tanczos, Nandor Green Party, List
    Member Wagner, Nicky National Party, List

    So this all comes down to Nandor?
    Does he have a conscience?
    What can we use to pressure him?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. anonymouse (721 comments) says:

    The Select committee page on the bill says that it is due to report back on 25 January 2008, are there moves to bring that forward?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. CraigM (694 comments) says:

    “Ask a question, do your own research…”

    ONE electorate MP. one. Bloody Hell.

    Let’s stack the committee with people who have no one to answer to for their future….except the PARTY!

    Yeah, total independance there. No worries.

    I’m starting to understand Guy Fawkes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. casual watcher (289 comments) says:

    It is time for another billboard campaign – the Nats are too quiet at the moment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    I think I will. In fact I think I will make up a few thousand flyers and drop them under peoples windscreen wipers next weekend. At least I don’t have to register to do it…yet. Not that I would anyway

    Flyers – I’m doing this in wellington

    Registration – I’m lawabiding enough to detest having overdue library books. But i will go out of my way to break this anti-democratic law if it is passed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Wycroft (873 comments) says:

    Thanks dc; very interesting. I note that while I got a brief kick out of thinking Hager had bumped his head and changed for the better with his “Nazi Party” comment on the bill it was obviously an aberation. His submission supports the bill but with even greater restrictions on personal freedom. But wait, there’s more; each member of the committee received a copy of his book in support of his submission. Lucky them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Danyl Mclauchlan (1,070 comments) says:

    The vast majority are against the Bill, and I’m pleased to say I recognise many a familiar name from here.

    Journalists covering the select committee have told me that many of the oral submissions consisted of people who did not appear to have read a single sentence of the bill but still insisted it was ‘like what Hitler and Stalin did’. I suspect kiwibloggers were well represented in this group.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    …consisted of people who did not appear to have read a single sentence of the bill but still insisted…

    I suspect some EFB opponents many have chosen not to read it while a good many supporters couldn’t if they tried.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Graeme Edgeler (3,289 comments) says:

    “But wait, there’s more; each member of the committee received a copy of his book in support of his submission. Lucky them.”

    Ask for a free copy – if it’s been published by the committee, then they should be releasing it (and the full reach of copyright may no longer apply)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    But wait, there’s more; each member of the committee received a copy of his book in support of his submission

    Would Hagars ‘gift’ have been illegal under the terms of the bill that he now supports?!? And why the change of heart… was he paid off?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “Journalists covering the select committee have told me that many of the oral submissions consisted of people who did not appear to have read a single sentence of the bill but still insisted it was ‘like what Hitler and Stalin did’. I suspect kiwibloggers were well represented in this group.”

    Didn’t I tell you?? See my post 9:52am.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Mark (496 comments) says:

    Interesting on only one MP holding an actual seat – has Labour, Greens and NZ First already promised high list rankings or cushy jobs if they can ram it through?

    It does make one think – after all if you passed this law and had to go back and face the voters you might be a dead duck at Election time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Calculus (74 comments) says:

    I think National need to do some bill boards as well and start exposing the Hypocrisy of the bill.

    Tui style even would work.

    The stated intentions of this bill are……Year Right.

    You are allowed to speak out against the Govt……Year Right

    Or even some this style………….

    -You can join Greenpeace this year because they will be outlawed next year.!!
    -Save the hectors dolphin this year because you cant disagree next year.!!
    -The Govt is promoting 1080 when it shouldn’t say loud this year because your not allowed to speak out about next year
    -Don’t burn fossil fuel like the Govt does Protest this year because you cant next year.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. sonic (2,818 comments) says:

    David still trying to ensure no law against third party funding makes irt onto the books before the next election?

    I wonder who National has lined up to pay the bills this time?

    “Even a person who wishes to make a placard to hold up at a public rally will need to make a statutory declaration before a solicitor, Justice of the Peace or notary public”

    As indeed will every secretive millionaire who wants to make 100,000 of them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Frank. (607 comments) says:

    Police Commissioner Howard Broad hasn’t as yet replied to my allegation (abridged) of 21 08 2007:

    Dear Commissioner

    The Electoral Finance Bill – The Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Act.

    I allege that the action of the Police in “burying” my complaint 10 02 2006 to Acting Police Commissioner Steve Long of: “In my view this is misuse of Public Funds (Parliamentary Services) by the Labour Government on behalf of the Labour Party and constitutes an offence under the Crimes Act 1961”, along with subsequent allegations, prevented and denied the course of justice.

    So Police are directly responsible for The Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Act (Statute of Shame and Memorial to Police and Political Corruption) and the corrupt: The Electoral Finance Bill now before the Select Committee.

    As

    I allege, Police failed utterly, not only to carry out their statutory duties and police the Electoral Act 1993 and the Crimes Act 1961, but also allegedly by lack of action and paucity of investigation, successfully buried allegations of misappropriation of Public Funds from the Prime Minister’s Leader’s Funds.

    This enabled the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Act to pass into law, supported by Members of Parliament, fully aware of the allegations in the first two paragraphs of this letter. Others with the same full knowledge did not vote. (A gross violation of their obligations).
    Outcome. A High Court hearing was negated. Justice was denied.

    (I’ll see if the Clerk of the House will accept this allegation as additional evidence supporting my submission).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. David Baigent (172 comments) says:

    sonic, are you capable? for this comment,

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/09/more_on_electoral_finance_bill.html#comment-339839

    or am I to continue with my present view of you??

    I know you have read it..

    Try now to find the undeclared intention..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. iiq374 (262 comments) says:

    As indeed will every secretive millionaire who wants to make 100,000 of them.

    Ahh – now I understand the real intentions of the Bill; Labour wants to hide the number of millionaires propping them up behind all the meaningless registrations…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. iiq374 (262 comments) says:

    I wonder who National has lined up to pay the bills this time?
    Because Labour is going to be perfectly willing to include the Union spend under their cap?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. sonic (2,818 comments) says:

    “Try now to find the undeclared intention”

    David, any chance of repeating that im English?

    I have my problems with the bill as anyone who has followed ny comments on it well knows. However I have also said that in my opinion much of the noise about it is from National party supporters

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. sonic (2,818 comments) says:

    “Try now to find the undeclared intention”

    David, any chance of repeating that im English?

    I have my problems with the bill as anyone who has followed ny comments on it well knows. However I have also said that in my opinion much of the noise about it is from National party supporters worried that all that lovely third party loot will not be available for the next election. A suspicion enganced by the screaming hysteria that this comment will, no doubt be greeted with.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. anonymouse (721 comments) says:

    Kyotolaw wrote the members were

    Role MP Name Party, Electorate
    Member Auchinvole, Chris National Party, List
    Member Chauvel, Charles Labour Party, List
    Deputy-Chairperson Finlayson, Chris National Party, List
    Member Hartley, Ann Labour Party, List
    Chairperson Pillay, Lynne Labour Party, Waitakere
    Member Tanczos, Nandor Green Party, List
    Member Wagner, Nicky National Party, List

    So this all comes down to Nandor?

    Not quite correct

    Benson-Pope, David Labour Party, Dunedin South
    Dunne, Peter United Future, Ohariu-Belmont
    Harawira, Hone Maori Party, Te Tai Tokerau
    Hide, Rodney ACT New Zealand, Epsom
    Tolley, Anne National Party, East Coast
    Woolerton, Doug NZ First, List

    Were added as members of the Justice & Electoral Member for this item of business

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Pita (374 comments) says:

    Doesn’t anyone protest anymore?

    Have students become so apathetic they are prepared to sit back and let this erosion on their (our) freespeach pass unchallenged?

    What happened to political graffiti (victory to the NLF) and bill boards like the “double standard” (Rooting pig shot in Ngaio, PM safe)?

    If this Bill goes ahead can we expect some public disobedience by way of street marches, placards with clever slogans and anti government chanting?

    I hope so

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. dave (988 comments) says:

    I’ve just come from doing my submission – the Committee is stacked with Labour, including Benson Pope. Labour is hell bent on getting this through. Most committee members are list MPs. Most questions from committee members are around financial donations – no-one asked questions on free speech or democratic issues on things like how we can have a say on the amended bill.

    Oh, and if you’re interested theres an article in this week’s Salient on the EFB right here

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Andrew W (1,629 comments) says:

    Sonic: “I have my problems with the bill as anyone who has followed ny comments on it well knows.”

    Sorry, I missed it, what problems do you have with it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    “Sorry, I missed it, what problems do you have with it?”

    For one he has said repeatedly that he is perturbed about labour’s U-turn regarding anon donations. Go back to sleep mate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. cubit9f (357 comments) says:

    “For one he has said repeatedly that he is perturbed about labour’s U-turn regarding anon donations. Go back to sleep mate.”

    Like all the anonymous donations from union members who don’t even know who they are donating to. But then again they are all safely sleeping.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Whaleoil (767 comments) says:

    No one has satisfactorily answered the question “What is so wrong about someone wanting to spend their own money to the tune of $1 million saying that National sux and to Vote Labour?”

    Huh? What is wrong with that proposition? Why do we need a law to ban political advocacy?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    cubit9f:

    I would think that most union members know well that their union supports labour. What’s more, most of them are likely labour voters. This contrasts with people who unknowingly buy goods and services from businesses that make anonymous donations to National. I for one wouldn’t knowingly give my patronage to such a business.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    The Critic magazine has also done a peice on the EFB and election 05. It can be found here:

    http://www.critic.co.nz/about/features/62

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. cubit9f (357 comments) says:

    I would think that most union members know well that their union supports labour. What’s more, most of them

    Oh yeah. Most (And my estimation is probably as reliable as yours) wouldn’t have a clue that donations are made. Most (my estimation) union members don’t even bother going to union meetings. That seems to suit most union officials down to the ground.

    The Labour party approach to this bill stinks of that approach.

    The majority of people have no idea how the fundamental tenets of democracy are being screwed by this piece of legislation.

    It all reeks a little bit like Joe Bjelke Petersens famous retort to any thing controversial.

    “Don’t you worry about that” I know what is good for you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. MrTips (100 comments) says:

    DPF

    There were over 5,000 submissions against the PRA and similar amount against the CUB. Labour is adept at ignoring numbers, especially if they are against its will. Of course, on those issues Labour had Nat and other party support to a greater or lesser extent.

    I suspect you actually want Labour to get their way on this, because the shit that will hit the fan on this will carry all the way to Oct 08 and hence improve National’s chances. Over 50% on Stuff.co.nz say that nothing Helen could do will make them vote for her anyway. Of course, National could repeal it if it got through:-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. george (388 comments) says:

    Whaleoil: No one has satisfactorily answered that question because there is no satisfactory answer. In politics, if there is no satisfactory answer, the best strategy is to bluff and talk about red herrings like “secretive cults” etc

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. burt (8,301 comments) says:

    sonic

    I wonder who National has lined up to pay the bills this time?

    A question for you sonic. IF as Labour said the theft of the lions share of $1m from the hard working tax payers made no difference to the outcome of the 2005 (and probably 2002 & 1999) election. Then why do we need to control election spending.

    You can’t have it both ways: Either the 2005 (and probably 2002 & 1999) elections were undemocratic or the size of a parties spending makes no difference.

    Which option do you choose ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “Why do we need a law to ban political advocacy?”

    There is no need, but NZers are gonna get one because they’re lame submissive half educated well indoctrinated ignoramusus who have elected barbarians to govern them, and who will lamely accept anything those barbarians foist upon them. Democracy counts for nothing in this miserable little soviet hole.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. iiq374 (262 comments) says:

    I for one wouldn’t knowingly give my patronage to such a business.

    You would actually withhold your patronage on the basis of a proprietors political views? I suppose you won’t buy from those ‘dirty jews’ either

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Mike S (229 comments) says:

    Has national promised to repeal it if elected?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    i blew it..!..

    my aim was to be cool calm and collected..wry..witty..making ‘deft’ points as i went..

    as it turned out..i (nervously) babbled..

    had a mild ‘senior’/doh! moment..

    (forgot one of those wry/deft points that i was talking about..

    right at the moment i should have delivered it..)

    and would rate my appearance a 2/10..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. The Perfect Man (88 comments) says:

    Dave, thanks, that was a well written article in the Salient, although he wimped down from saying it should be scrapped and falls for the lie that it is probably just badly written law than intentional – yeah right, of course they would say that. If their aim is to restrict freedom, and I believe it is, that will be the last thing they admit to. Just hope students can be bothered to read it all and be bothered enough to protest.

    If Labour want this through in a do or die manner than they really are more like Hitler than most think. At the end of the war with the enemy storming into Berlin he showed that his plans for Germany had always only ever been about him, he didn’t give a flying ***k about his country.
    He could have surrendered when the war was obviously lost and saved many lives. No. He hung on to his ideology and dream of power as long as possible. He was to proud to live after being defeated proving that he really hated his country and felt that if he was going down in flames then thats what everyone else should get too. Absolute egotistical self adulating fanatically obsessed son of the devil addicted to his belief that people needed him and would not be able to live a worthwhile life without him guiding, or rather ruling, them.

    Sans the war it sounds just like the mindset of the current Labour leadership.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. unaha-closp (1,179 comments) says:

    I for one wouldn’t knowingly give my patronage to such a business.

    Roger none announces boycott of NZ owned business.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. unaha-closp (1,179 comments) says:

    Has national promised to repeal it if elected?

    Good question.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. sonic (2,818 comments) says:

    New ratbiter electoral slogan

    You lame submissive half educated well indoctrinated ignoramusus who have elected barbarians to govern them, and who will lamely accept anything those barbarians foist upon them, Vote for me!

    Does your party leader know you are saying stuff like that in public?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. sonic (2,818 comments) says:

    cubit9f, so you really think it is news to anyone that the Trade Unions support Labour?

    TU’s are open and democratic orginisations, they make donations publically. Unlie National and their 90% anonymous donations.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. burt (8,301 comments) says:

    So sonic

    Are you avoiding my question or are you just still waiting for instructions on how to answer it.

    Can I put it more simply ? Perhaps I could ask – If National steals almost $1m dollars for advertising spend blow outs in 2008 and wins the election will you think that it’s OK and we should just move on ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. milo (525 comments) says:

    MMP appointed the minor parties the gaurdians of our democracy. Will they fail the test?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Grant (444 comments) says:

    This is not an attempt to threadjack DPF so please forgive this off topic question.

    Sonic, are you the same individual named as a contributor to this blog? http://christopherhitchenswatch.blogspot.com/

    G

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. sonic (2,818 comments) says:

    Burt, have you got an example of me sayign money did not matter in elections. You may recall National did conspire with the EB;s to try and steal the last election.

    They got caught.

    “are you just still waiting for instructions on how to answer it.”

    Care to elaborate on that remark, or should we put it down to your paranioa.

    VAST LEFT WING CONSPIRACY WOOO HOOOO!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    sonic – would you please inform us what it is about the bill that you personally have issues with? I asked you this when you said it was ‘less than perfect’ previously and you ignored the question then. Now you are claiming that from your comments here that it is common knowledge that you have some issues with the Bill. I cannot recall you ever stating exactly what you disagree with. I am burning to know. What exactly is/are your issue(s)? with the EFB. Please, can you just tell me what it is about the Bill that you feel is ‘less than perfect’ or causes you to have issues with it? or refer me to the part I must have missed where you actually outlined what your perceived issues are arounfd this bill.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. sonic (2,818 comments) says:

    Clearly Grant

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Grant (444 comments) says:

    Thanks
    G

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. sonic (2,818 comments) says:

    You can get my full name, address, telephone number and date of birth in the about me section of that blog if you need it Grant.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “You may recall National did conspire with the EB;s to try and steal the last election.”

    That is a lie and a cowardly leftist smear. I recall only that Labour stole the election, by stealing money from the taxpayer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    “I for one wouldn’t knowingly give my patronage to such a business.

    You would actually withhold your patronage on the basis of a proprietors political views? I suppose you won’t buy from those ‘dirty jews’ either”

    Hey I just don’t want to donate money to the National party – hardly a hate crime. But feel free to be the first of Godwin’s twits on this thread.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. sonic (2,818 comments) says:

    Not because all Kiwis (apart from you) are “lame submissive half educated well indoctrinated ignoramusus” Ratbiter?

    Do try and stay consistant eh?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. cubit9f (357 comments) says:

    Sonic said

    “so you really think it is news to anyone that the Trade Unions support Labour?”

    Like most of the things you write, your logisc is deficient. You use rash generalisations like “you really think it is news to anyone…..” you therefore have made the assumption (falsely) that everyone knows. A clever ruse but ifwhen asked directly there would be people who would say they didn’t know. I don’t know hopw many but my assessment that there would be some is more probable than your rash generalisation that it would not be news to anyone.

    The old adage that you cannot fool everyone all of the time applies.

    Also there are union members who only belong for reasons that don’t necessarily endorse union donations to any political perties.

    How about all members of PPTA, NZEI, PSA and the hardy old annual Student unions. Do the unions actually know howe many of their members actually support the making of donations to political parties. My bet it is only the majority of the small numbers who actually attend the tedious meetings.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Castafiore (262 comments) says:

    Sonic ,Where is your fact to support this “conspired with EB’s claim”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. sonic (2,818 comments) says:

    Cubit, these are democratic organisations. if a member objects to them supporting Labour they can support candidates whow ant to break the link or even stand for a position themselves.

    You claiming that you cannot see the difference between that and a secret donation from a millionaire is not convincing anyone.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    cubit:

    “The majority of people have no idea how the fundamental tenets of democracy are being screwed by this piece of legislation.”

    More kiwiblog histrionics: Since when was the right of the super rich to buy an election a fundamental tenet of our democracy. Yes, some of the aspects of the bill are a bit overly draconian, a few minor alterations will fix this. Also, nothing in the EFB stops anyone from having their say – they just stop the millionaires and billionaires from shouting over the top of everyone else come election time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    I will confess to not having read the bill from start to finish. So what…

    I know a sewer stinks even though I’ve never put my head in one, and;

    I know a neighbourhood nuclear detonation would not be good for my health despite not being a nuclear physicist, and;

    I know that the EFB will damage our democracy and edge us more towards totalitarianism even though I haven’t waded through the bill clause-by-clause

    (incidentally – the bill PDF is an image which makes keyword searching impossible. I guess it was typed on a manual typewriter and then scanned. Yeah right…)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    priceless.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Castafiore (262 comments) says:

    Roger,
    Your blatant untruthfulness is again presented to us.
    “Also, nothing in the bill stops anyone from having their say-”

    Year Right!!!

    You falsehood is a proof of your deluded view on what you wanted the bill to be but it is not what you get in the bill.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. sonic (2,818 comments) says:

    Krazykiwi, you made a submission on this bill and did not actually read it?

    “I know a sewer stinks even though I’ve never put my head in one”

    Sewers might not be pleasant, but try getting along without them?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    Secret donation this, EB’s that. yada yada yawn.

    Fact: Labour stole the last election and is now locked in a death sprial, desperatly trying to load the dice in their favour.

    Labour are are tried, sad bunch of has-beens with no fresh vision, no fresh talent. Just sad and tired.

    NZ is ready to move on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. CraigM (694 comments) says:

    “Also, nothing in the EFB stops anyone from having their say ”

    You missed out “uunless it is on a topic whereby an MP has already taken a position”

    And as long as they register with the government and provide a stat declaration that they won’t spend more than 5k.

    This is the NZ you want to live in?

    “..they just stop the millionaires and billionaires from shouting……”

    Because ALL millionaires & billionaires are just evil right?

    It is impossible to take your posts (& sonics) seriously when your support for this crap is based purely on hatred of those that are better off financially than the average person.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    It’s like McCrthyism in reverse. Instead of ‘Reds under the bed’ it “millionaires under the bed’. Sadly everyone who doesn’t happen to be a millionaire but who might disagree with what the other side does is seen as having no position worth expressing. Next step we can start to be encouraged to rat out any one we know who isn’t in support of the present ruling class, or have their tax status called into question if they express a political opinion. Put the squeeze on, intimidate and frighten people into silence. …. It is like that last scene in Animal Farm, where the revolutionaries have become the very thing they hated, because the power has corrupted them. ‘All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.” Remember it was George Orwell a socialist writer who pointed out the corrupting influence of power. If he were to write on this blog, he’d probably be accused of being a National Party drone by those who feel it is their prerogative to shout down views that oppose their own.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    sonic, i read enough to know that i don’t want anyone (even including your little hedgehogs) growing up in a country where their freedom of speech is controlled by the political elite

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Pascal (1,969 comments) says:

    Sonic and Roger. I keep on reading your comments, but at this point in time the only conclusion I can come to is that:

    (a) You are so indoctrinated you have lost the ability to think for yourself.
    (b) You are willing to give up fundamental freedoms for the right to dictate to everyone else
    (c) Both of you are capable of twisting facts to suit whatever truth you wish to proclaim
    (d) Both of you are completely daft.

    You have had, over the lifetime of the discussion on this bill factual evidence provided to you. Factual evidence that shows that the Labour Party of New Zealand overspent on their election spending. They bought the last election. Then legislated to make it legal for THEMSELVES. They have support of billionares overseas. Who donate to their campaign.

    And you keep on harping on National, the party that lost the last election and who – if they were supported by roger’s hysterical “millionares and billionares” surely would have won?

    And yet you’re willing to sign away your right to campaign or discuss anything that ANY political party has a viewpoint on during an election here. You are willing to sign a declaration that the government of the day is allowed to outspend all it’s political opponents.

    People like you vote in dictatorships. I’m disgusted and ashamed by the two of you.

    Now cue the sarcastic little deflectory remarks – but facts are facts, boys.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Castafiore (262 comments) says:

    Who actually has done the conspiracy,

    Labour conspired with CTU to win the last election. -Openly admitted by Labour

    Labour conspired with Heather Simpson and Mike Williams to steal public money.- Police Facts

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Castafiore (262 comments) says:

    Can a lobby group march up to parliament and hold a public protest like what happened in the CU bill under this legislation at any time of the year?

    Yes or No.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    Pita, thanks for reminding me of the name I’ve been struggling to recall for months – “The Double Standard”. Indeed it’s most famous billboard was the “rooting pig” one, but barely a day went by at one point without something equally pointed appearing on Wellington’s lampposts and construction site walls.

    If this Bill passes substantially unchanged – and looking at the make-up of the Select Committee, I believe it will – then it’s time for “The Double Standard” to make a reappearance, perhaps nationwide, and in different forms. I for one would do everything I could to assist its production and dissemination. And if National happen to win the election and don’t repeal the Bill (or Act as it would then be) I’d still support such an initiative. Because Labour reaping what it had sown – however satisfying that might be to witness – would still be a distant second place to freedom of speech.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “lame submissive half educated well indoctrinated ignoramusus who have elected barbarians to govern them”

    Read it right you non comprehending child. Its more a description of Labour voters than anyone else….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. CraigM (694 comments) says:

    Pascal – well put. That is all.

    :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Grant (444 comments) says:

    Pascal, you forgot:
    e) You both just like seeing your nicknames appear in the thread.
    f) you both have leftist political aspirations.
    or, and more likely
    g) are only commenting because it beats actually working.
    G

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Frank. (607 comments) says:

    Castafiore: Who actually has done the conspiracy?

    I would hazard a guess that it is done by all those connected with the justice system in this country, starting with the parliamentarians and including the media.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. sonic (2,818 comments) says:

    Nice try ratbiter but this is what you said

    “Redbaiter Says:

    September 17th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
    “Why do we need a law to ban political advocacy?”

    There is no need, but NZers they’re lame submissive half educated well indoctrinated ignoramusus…”

    Another keeper!

    I’d also like to note that nothing in this bill will stop you haveing free speech, it is only very expensive speech that appears to be under threat.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    ““Also, nothing in the EFB stops anyone from having their say ”

    You missed out “uunless it is on a topic whereby an MP has already taken a position”

    Only NZ’s super-rich can afford to spend over $60,000 on an third party campaign. Only thier agendas will suffer as a result of this bill. This is what the National Party is truely upset about.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. PaulL (6,035 comments) says:

    Sonic: “these are democratic organisations. if a member objects to them supporting Labour they can support candidates who want to break the link or even stand for a position themselves.”

    All publically listed companies have an elected board of directors. Shareholders who don’t want to donate to political parties can stand for board membership and change the policy.

    I thought that the existing law banned large anonymous donations. Small anonymous donations continue to be OK. And, of course, the new legislation doesn’t change anything around anonymous donations, so your entire discussion is a red herring.

    Getting back to the question of third party campaigning, in the last election there were a number of third party campaigns. Those from the unions, as you say everyone knew who they were from and who they were supporting, and made decisions accordingly. And those from the EB, again, everyone knew who they were from and who they were supporting, and made decisions accordingly. What is the problem that we are trying to solve? Because I can point to an awful lot of problems that we are creating.

    If National were half as nasty as you guys reckon, John would just let this pass. He’d then not repeal it – other important things to do. There is no way that this will stop Labour getting voted out (unless they really misuse the new power), it sure as hell will stop them getting voted back in. This is Helen’s personal interest v’s the long term interests of the Labour party. We can clearly see which takes precedence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. PaulL (6,035 comments) says:

    Roger: “Only NZ’s super-rich can afford to spend over $60,000 on an third party campaign. Only thier agendas will suffer as a result of this bill. This is what the National Party is truely upset about.”

    Actually, this bill puts significant impediments in the way of any private individual seeking to have a say, irrespective of how much they spend. The administration associated with even a few pamphlets would be a barrier to many people.

    Most activist groupings could find $60,000. Not as individuals, but definitely as a group. The unions, for example, spend way more than that. Of course, your definition of super-rich may be different from mine. Last I looked there were very few people in NZ who would qualify as super-rich.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    “Those from the unions, as you say everyone knew who they were from and who they were supporting, and made decisions accordingly. And those from the EB, again, everyone knew who they were from and who they were supporting, and made decisions accordingly.”

    Only because through sheer luck an ex EB member outed the leaflet’s publisher as a EB church member. Also, the National party certainly weren’t going to voluntarily come clean about their collusion in the secretive campaign.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. sonic (2,818 comments) says:

    “I thought that the existing law banned large anonymous donations”

    But there is a loophole, if you donate through a “trust” then you can geta way with it.

    90% of National finances go through trusts, so no-one knows the source of their income.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    PaulL – the super rich are, apparently, repugnant. if roger has his way they’d all be lined up an shot.

    an exception of course for the super-rich who secretly donate to Labour.

    it’s just re-election pragmatism packaged as ideology adherence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “Another keeper!”

    Yep, NZers who vote Labour. Is this today’s diversion from the issue? Some pissant attempt to draw attention away from what Stalinist election theiving anti freedom of expression creeps are running this country?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. sonic (2,818 comments) says:

    “Yep, NZers who vote Labour”

    Trying to backtrack eh Redbiter? everyone can read what you wrote, it’s a permanent record.

    When it comes to a elections you are such a liability to any party we should call you leadweighter?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    “Most activist groupings could find $60,000. Not as individuals, but definitely as a group. The unions, for example, spend way more than that.”

    That’s just not true. I challenge you to come up with any information that supports this assertion.

    “Actually, this bill puts significant impediments in the way of any private individual seeking to have a say, irrespective of how much they spend.”

    Yes I also think this aspect of the bill is overly draconian, and I think that people spending under say for the sake of argument $5,000 shouldn’t have to register. However – I suspect that this might be a bit like the anti smacking law – i.e. technically it makes reasonable things legal, but the police have the discretionary power to ensure that only the egregious instances will be prosecuted – i.e. I would be very surprised if the police pulled up to a protest and demanded that the holder of $5 home – made banner prove that they had made a statutory declaration with the relevant authority. Imagine the public outcry.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. david (2,561 comments) says:

    “……. millionaires and billionaires …..”
    A bit reminescent of the line from Alice’s Restaurant.

    ” … mother rapers, … father stabbers …. FATHER RAPERS sitting there on the Group W bench …..”

    sonic and the gnome are frothing rather today.

    I say chaps, please provide a list of billionaires who are likely to try and buy an election. Oh BTW how much policy does $500,000 buy these days from Labour. That is the only single donation of any significant size that I’m aware of.

    And don’t trot out the worn out excuse of “secret trusts”. Using a trust mechanism to ensure donor anonymity and to consolidate a large number of small donations makes perfect economic sense. As well as the fact that there is no such thing as a “secret” trust no matter how much the CTU might use the term in their submission on the EFB.

    Also could you please explain how a $10,000 donation from a non-millionaire differ from a $10,000 donation from a millionaire?

    I’m afraid that your tactic of labelling people and groups (as per the published techniques of socialism/communism) with negatively connotated words is wearing a bit thin fellas.

    Are you against the donations or against the millionaires? – please elucidate

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    that should have been …

    “i.e. technically it makes reasonable things ILLEGAL ….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. sonic (2,818 comments) says:

    “sonic and the gnome are frothing rather today”

    I think you’ll find the “frothing” is coming frm your side. You guys hate it when anyone contradicts you dont you..

    “I say chaps, please provide a list of billionaires who are likely to try and buy an election”

    Well as National refuses to tell us who pays their bills that is rather hard to do. Perhaps you will ask them to open the books?

    “there is no such thing as a “secret” trust”

    Care to tell me where I can find the list of donations then?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    David .. yet another plutocratic apologist that could do with some education from Mr Hager – read the hollow men dim wit!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. david (2,561 comments) says:

    Oh roger
    so the police shouldn’t enforce the law when there is a public outcry?

    What sort of police force is that? or more accurately what sort of law is that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. david (2,561 comments) says:

    I’ll not be dragged down to your level of personality abuse roger. please debate the issues

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. david (2,561 comments) says:

    sonic I was pointing out that the use of the word “secret” is redundant and excessively emotive.
    apologies if that message didn’t come through clearly.

    I’ll spell things out in words of one syllable in future.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. cubit9f (357 comments) says:

    Just where did the $800,000 that was needed to pay off the pledge card theft debt actually come from (its an awful lot of meat raffles at the Black Bridge Pub in Mangere)?

    And has Winston paid yet?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    well have you read the hollow men david? Thought not. I must say, I’m sick to death of having to spoon feed you righties details from that book when it’s available from any public for you to pick up and read for yourselves. Look up the names for yourselves – there’s at least half a dozen millionaires that funded National’s election campaign in 2005 – one of which is NZ’s favorite corporate crook David Richwhite!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. helmet (807 comments) says:

    David .. while you’re at it read the Operation Leaf story that Hager co-authored.

    Nome’s hero indeed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. sonic (2,818 comments) says:

    “sonic I was pointing out that the use of the word “secret” is redundant and excessively emotive”

    Oh I see you admit the fact but get hung up on the word?

    Which would you prefer Clandestine? hidden? Anonymous? Backdoor, Furtive? Hush-Hush? Mysterious? Shrouded?

    Do tell!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    “Oh roger so the police shouldn’t enforce the law when there is a public outcry?”

    Technically the police can pull over any driver that goes over 100 kmph on a highway. But do they pull over all such drivers? Of course not – the police have common sense and they excersise it. They use the law to punish the eggregious offenders who act contrary to the spirit of the law. Not every tom dick and hary who happens to be technically acting illegally.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. helmet (807 comments) says:

    A million bucks just isn’t that much any more Roger.

    Cue Dr Evil… “ONE MILLION DOLLARS!” (puts finger in his mouth).

    There’s heaps of millionaire mums and dads out there who hardly fit the ultra rich super elite stereotype. If you think NZ has anyone who fits that description you clearly haven’t travelled much.

    Several organisations that I know of can raise 60k easy. Forest and Bird + Fish&Game are two nice friendly (non EVIL) organisations I’ve worked with this week who have run campaigns costing more than 60k. It’s just way too low.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. frederico (72 comments) says:

    Nicky Hagar and the Hollow Book.

    http://www.michaelbassett.co.nz/articleview.php?id=152

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. helmet (807 comments) says:

    BTW I should apologise for smearing Hager re the Operation Leaf thing. As I understand it he was all but cleared from any ill-doing there. He just got a bit suckered in.
    Still, until he reveals his sources it’s hard to guarantee his scholarship in the Hollow Men.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. david (2,561 comments) says:

    No sonic – the word trust tells me everything I need to know without embellishment (oops too many syllables try dressing up). Just as the word anonymous tells me what I need to know as it should you considering you must have a good reason to not post under your real name.

    roger

    I asked for the list of billionaires who you appear to hold in such contempt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. PaulL (6,035 comments) says:

    I thought David Richwhite said that was a complete fabrication?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    “A million bucks just isn’t that much any more Roger.

    Cue Dr Evil… “ONE MILLION DOLLARS!” (puts finger in his mouth).”

    Perhaps it would be more appropriate to say “tens of millionairs”? just sounds stupid though – in any case people understand what is meant by “super rich”.

    “Several organisations that I know of can raise 60k easy. Forest and Bird + Fish&Game are two nice friendly (non EVIL) organisations I’ve worked with this week who have run campaigns costing more than 60k. It’s just way too low.”

    Really? I know for a fact that forest and bird have had to rely completely on govt legal aid in several environment court cases – I would be very surprised if they had the finances to spend over $60,000 in one year on campaigning. Not sure about fish and game, though I’m not convinced that they could afford a $60, 000 + campaign.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. PaulL (6,035 comments) says:

    Relying on legal aid doesn’t mean you couldn’t afford to pay. It just means you have your snout in the govt trough. Which is one of the problems with the RMA, but that would take us way off topic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    sonic and roger have managed – again – to shift the focus. the impact of this bill is to limit free speech and to load the voter dice in labours favour.

    these outcomes are totally and utterly unacceptable. they should be repugnant to every kiwi.

    yet we allow these two to blather on about wealth and influence. we engage them in well though-out debate which is ignored save for picking a comment out to again de-focus away from the core the issue.

    enough!

    labour are preparing to [again] abuse their executive power to legislate for their impending rigging of the 2008 election.

    they must be stopped. and to hell with the lame irrelevant arguments of the EFBs wildly blind supporters

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. sonic (2,818 comments) says:

    “No sonic – the word trust tells me everything I need to know without embellishment”

    There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

    You can just close your eyes and take it on “trust” that those nice guys in the National party would never take dodgy money, thats up to you.

    I’d like to know the sources of their secret funding.

    “you must have a good reason to not post under your real name.”

    Indeed, do you ever read some of the deranged stuff your chums post on here?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. PaulL (6,035 comments) says:

    Further to that – you are saying that forest and bird don’t have 600 members who would give $100, or 6000 members who would give $10? If they don’t, their message cannot be particularly strong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. sonic (2,818 comments) says:

    “we engage them in well though-out debate”

    Where?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    “I thought David Richwhite said that was a complete fabrication?”

    hehe nice – David Richwhite’s word is good as gold of course :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    AT first, I thought that the EFB is at best incompetent or at worst, corrupt. But that doesn’t appear to matter to some.

    Then I thought what if it is actually a good idea proposed for the noblest of reasons? sonic and nome have convinced me I have been duped by big business.

    I think we should just give Labour the benefit of the doubt and let it through. Why argue with it? Just let it pass, and endorse it, after all the thought-process behind the EFB is obviously working from a higher moral plateau than we can seem to conceive of.

    If people do break the law, well, the cuddly old police will just well, turn a blind eye. It’s not like they will have the legal power or the support to close down political debate, even if one of our political master were to (and this is probably a ridiculous idea) one day decide to enforce the law. Surely not in good old laid back New Zealand. I mean it’s not like we live in a police state or anything, is it?

    Yes, I see the light. Rather than frame a piece of legislation which had the cross-party acquiescence to end legal secret political donations, frame a piece of legislation whch misses that point completely, then accuse anyone who disagrees with all of its other inadequacies of being motivated to protect our democratic rights because they are in the pockets of big business. (Cue image of cigar-smoking pin-striped, monocled guy off monopoly box).

    Clearly someone is living in the nineteeth thirties here. After this law passes, we will all be able to join them.

    Come on guys, just go with the flow, pass the EFB!

    Vote EFB!!!!

    Vote EFB!!!

    EFB for fair elections now!

    DEstroy the corrupting influence of wealth on our political system. SUpport the EFB.

    Thanks sonic and nome. I thnk I actually love Big Brother…..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. PaulL (6,035 comments) says:

    Roger: “That’s just not true. I challenge you to come up with any information that supports this assertion.”

    Facts for you:
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/4204959a6160.html

    PPTA spend $130K in the last election year (according to the PPTA secretary).

    Do I get a grovelling apology, or will you ignore this? You’re wasting my time with made up assertions like that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. sonic (2,818 comments) says:

    Lee is complaining that people who are against this bill are given the ”
    image of cigar-smoking pin-striped, monocled guy off monopoly box”

    No complaints that anyone who refuses to join in the hysteria getting painted as the loive child of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin?

    Thought not, one standard for you a different one for us.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. casual watcher (289 comments) says:

    So you have to be poor to care ? What a load of bullshit !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    WTF are you talking about sonic?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    Who is the ‘us’ to whom you refer? Didn’t you read the post? I’ve had a Road to Damascus’ I actually support the EFB as it stands now, and would encourage every National supporter to do the same.

    There’s no pleasing some people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. helmet (807 comments) says:

    You’d be surprised at how much people will give to stand up for something they believe in. I’ve individuals piss away hundreds of thousands of dollars into court cases where they could only hope to recover a fraction of that sum, because of the principles involved.

    And although community lobby groups are typically stretched for funds, they may occasionally receive large donations or may be bequeathed large sums from estates, so 60k is not an entirely unrealistic figure.

    Posters on this blog have already covered how little 60k can buy you in the media. It’s just too low.

    I disagree with the concept of a spending cap, I think it’s the message, not the money that wins the votes, but if we have to have one 60k is too low. I think 250K is more reasonable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. PaulL (6,035 comments) says:

    Roger: “hehe nice – David Richwhite’s word is good as gold of course”

    As good as Nicky Hager’s. I thought David had provided evidence that supported his assertion. Where Nicky had none for his assertion. I guess you’ll believe whomever you want to, but I think it is a little dishonest to post Nicky’s allegation and ignore David’s rebuttal. You could at minimum have noted that this was disputed.

    My underlying problem with your and Sonic’s debating style is that you regurgitate statements that have been disagreed with many times. We then need to disagree with them again, which takes the whole thread off track. Things like misrepresenting the amount of the EB campaign or it’s effect on the election, and whether or not it was common knowledge. Things like National having enormous funding where Labour is poor. Things like National outspending Labour (when both were subject to the same cap, Labour exceeded their cap by $800K, National by about $100K).

    It would be easier for everyone, and a tidier comment thread, if you stuck to debating the topic of a particular thread rather than going back over old content, most of which was debated at the time. It just means debating it again, or alternatively leaving it to stand unchallenged and having you guys (or any random new reader) thinking that it is accepted as fact. Repeating incorrect statements over and over doesn’t make them true, and is only an indication of how much spare time you have and how little original thought you are capable of.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    Just rmeber that. I’m on your side, mate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. helmet (807 comments) says:

    should read “I’ve seen individuals…” sorry

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    Actually i feel as if a great weight has been lifted from my shoulders.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. cubit9f (357 comments) says:

    “If people do break the law, well, the cuddly old police will just well, turn a blind eye”

    What’s wrong with that? Isn’t that how the socialist system works

    Speedgate, paintergate, pledgegate, DBPgate

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    “PPTA spend $130K in the last election year (according to the PPTA secretary).

    Do I get a grovelling apology, or will you ignore this? You’re wasting my time with made up assertions like that.”

    So one of New Zealand’s biggest and richest unions could only muster $130,000 for the last election! This clearly shows that only a few unions (maybe 3 or 4?) will have their spending levels curtailed by the law. It also shows that (aside from these 3-4 unions) only super rich individuals or their organisations (NZBRT or Business New Zealand) will truly be affected by this legislation. i.e. if this is the best that the PPTA can do, how much can other average sized “activist groups” afford? $10,000 tops maybe?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. bwakile (757 comments) says:

    What amazes me is that ther are people out there who are so ready to flush our freedom of speech away solely on the word of a few failed politicians and without any reflection of what society has been through to firstly gain those rights and then hold them.

    This world is a small place so don’t expect some of us to give our rights away so easily

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    “I disagree with the concept of a spending cap, I think it’s the message, not the money that wins the votes”

    Why are you worried about the spending cap being “too low” then?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. helmet (807 comments) says:

    Jaz, I know you’re taking the piss and the forest & birdies you see in the news may all look like bearded freaks, but I’m guessing that there are plently of the old wealthy tramper types etc. I’d say that there’s plenty of cash there in the membership even if only a small amount makes it to the organisation.

    Oh and re legal aid roger- just because they don’t have thousands to piss away into every law suit they get mixed up with doesn’t mean they couldn’t raise 60K over twelve months for a year long campaign.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. helmet (807 comments) says:

    “Why are you worried about the spending cap being “too low” then?”

    Because if it’s too low you might not be able to get the message to everyone.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. PaulL (6,035 comments) says:

    For gods sake Roger. You said “That’s just not true.” You were wrong. You are now redefining your position.

    That was $130K under the old definition of election period, I am sure they spent more than that in the year leading up to it. It doesn’t clearly show anything like what you claim. You are making stuff up, and trying to pass it off as fact.

    Please define super-rich for me, I am wondering whether your definition is entirely different from mine. Any activist group with a strong message should be able to raise $10 per member, for 600 members, for an election campaign. Or $1 per member for 6,000 members. How many members do you think an activist group would have?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. baxter (893 comments) says:

    SONIC the only billionaire I recall making a donation was $500,000 last election, by an Ex Pat living in Australia who enjoyed watching his countrymen suffer under the corrupt Liabour Goverment and Winston.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    “And although community lobby groups are typically stretched for funds, they may occasionally receive large donations or may be bequeathed large sums from estates, so 60k is not an entirely unrealistic figure.”

    So? They are the exception rather than the rule. If an idea is popular enough, many different organisations and individuals will spend modest amounts on publicising them. Ideas will get coverage according to their popularity, not the money behind them – it will be a truly competitive marketplace of ideas.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    If I had a dollar for every time Roger bleated about ‘super rich individuals’ I would become what he envys !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. sonic (2,818 comments) says:

    I’m sure if we stopped arguing with you at all Paul then you would find everything more convienent eh?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. sonic (2,818 comments) says:

    “SONIC the only billionaire I recall making a donation..”

    Of course as we do not actually know the source of National’s donations how can we be sure?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Matthew (163 comments) says:

    Sonic,

    explain yourself. I’ve read all your comments and the last one has arrived with Stalin and Hitler in it. Specifically:

    1. what makes who the love child of Stalin & Hitler?
    2. conclusively demonstrate histeria for the rest of us.
    3. why are you refusing to join what you have not defined?
    4. “Thought not”. Wow, no right of reply but please don’t wait for it.
    5. do you understand illustrations and why they are used?
    6. link together your lack of complaints to your aforementioned point of condition.
    7. Define what a love child of Stalin & Hitler is and how it is relevant to those who are refusing to join what they do not to define in a way that has no link demonstrated to the unfair treatement you have yet to prove.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. PaulL (6,035 comments) says:

    Roger, what this means is that the media get to continue their monopoly on ideas. In the current scheme of things, you can pay to get your ideas out when the newspapers don’t publish them to your satisfaction. In the new world you cannot, the media are the only source.

    Of course, it should be reasonable simple to circumvent. There appears to be no definition of newspaper, and certainly it doesn’t appear to require a newspaper to be paid for – there are free newspapers. I think I will call my election year pamphlets “The Daily Mail” or some such. It will be a free newspaper available to everyone, my business model is to be supported by advertising. I will ask some rich businesses to take out ads in my paper, which of course would be fully tax deductable for them. I will write interesting editorials, and give special coverage to positions I agree with.

    This legislation has holes that any true “super-rich” could drive a truck through. The average small special interest group gets a bunch of new administrative hassle, those that are slightly larger get a spending cap to avoid them really making their message known. I’m pretty sure that the preamble didn’t say “make it hard for anyone other than the super-rich to participate in the political process.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    You go sonic! Tell it like it is.

    Those fcapitalist fascist bastards have had it coming for a long time.

    He’s my hero.

    Support the EFB You know it makes sense…

    EFB EFB EFB EFB NOW!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    And on a slightly more intellectualised and less working class level,, I also agree with nome.

    Support the EFB – you know it makes sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    “Any activist group with a strong message should be able to raise $10 per member, for 600 members, for an election campaign. Or $1 per member for 6,000 members.”

    What a load of twadle PaulL – Name me one “activist group” (not unions) in NZ with 6,000 members. They simply don’t exist. (greenpeace may be an exception to the rule).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. burt (8,301 comments) says:

    sonic

    Burt, have you got an example of me sayign money did not matter in elections. You may recall National did conspire with the EB;s to try and steal the last election.

    They got caught.

    So did Labour ! Except it’s opinion that National were conspiring with the EB and fact that Labour stole tax payers money.

    So you didn’t say money didn’t matter in elections, therefore you agree that Labour distorted the democratic process. Willingly, knowingly and they got caught. They paid it back and denied it had any effect. loosers – they must think the public are either stupid or as blindly partisan as you.

    How can you be so bankrupt in your principals that you can support a party that deliberately distorted the democratic process to hold onto power ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. kaykaybee (153 comments) says:

    David

    How is that search for moderators going?

    I for one, am sick of the off-topic, oft-repeated irrelevancies of sonic

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    “Roger, what this means is that the media get to continue their monopoly on ideas.”

    Utter rubbish PaulL – $60,000 is a hell of a lot of paphlets. Like I said …

    “If an idea is popular enough, many different organisations and individuals will spend modest amounts on publicising them. Ideas will get coverage according to their popularity, not the money behind them – it will be a truly competitive marketplace of ideas.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. slightlyrighty (2,475 comments) says:

    # Mike S Says:
    September 17th, 2007 at 1:15 pm

    Has national promised to repeal it if elected?

    I understand National is on record as saying that this bill would be repealed if it became government.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Billy (121 comments) says:

    Burt, I think he relies on the Chris Trotter defence that corruption is OK if it is committed by Labour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. unaha-closp (1,179 comments) says:

    Sonic,

    ”image of cigar-smoking pin-striped, monocled guy off monopoly box”

    You poor gullible sucker, this bill spells more than any other piece of legislation the end of citizen involvement in NZ politics. When Plutocrats NZ Assoc. hold their next ball they are going to be sending out political invitations on the back of this bill. Helen and Michael will be invited, annomynously of course. This bill is any plutocrats wet dream.

    This bill secures the right of plutocrats to buy friends in the government behind closed doors. This bill denies people unfriendly to the government propoganda the right to put their views in public. This bill effectively bans any protest involving more than 1000 people. This bill makes involving students in politics illegitimate. This bill is made for the holding of power by the government and their backers – privileged and untouchable plutocrats behind closed doors.

    How did the Labour Party pay off that overspending debt? And did that not occur at the same time as Fay & Richwhite got fined a pitiful 20% fee for the ripping off of $100 million from NZ? Did Fay & Richwhite pay Labour enough to write this bill?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. PaulL (6,035 comments) says:

    Roger, how about you do some research, and show me that there are no groups with that many members? Your last assertion I proved to be false, I can’t be bothered doing the research for your current assertion. I would suggest that it is your turn.

    I completely disagree with your “if an idea is popular enough” assertion. How do people know about the idea if you cannot publicise it?

    Put simply, what is your objection to the current arrangements? What is going wrong that we need to make this change. A large number of people are pointing out the potential for this bill to be a problem, you are basically denying each of those issues one by one, never with any facts, always with your personal opinion.

    Will you at least accept that some of these problems might be real? And agree that there would need to be some severe problems with the current arrangements before we would take this risk?

    If that is the case, please explain what our current problems are that this bill will fix. Note that this means you cannot waste our time talking about anonymous donations, because this bill doesn’t change that. You need to explain where a third party group spent more than $60,000 and led to a material impact on the democratic process. If there is no problem, then this legislation isn’t needed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. slightlyrighty (2,475 comments) says:

    Utter rubbish PaulL – $60,000 is a hell of a lot of paphlets.

    Roger.

    You must be well aware that $60,000 spent on pamphlets is nothing againsta a well funded media campaign.

    As I have stated earlier in threads here.

    Canada has an election period of 6 weeks and a spending limit of $150000 (canadian) (or $201,000 NZD)

    Great Britain has an election period of 12 months and a spending cap of 250,000 pounds. (or $697,000 NZD)

    And good ol’ NZ…..11 months, $60,000.

    Given current campaigning methods. That won’t get you very much at all.

    The question is, will it take New Zealanders being arrested for exercising free speech to get people worked up about this?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    They’d be nuts to repeal it. It could potentially turn New Zealand into a National-lead country for the next twenty years.

    I say pass the Bill!

    Single Party State now!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. AGJ (563 comments) says:

    What a load of twadle PaulL – Name me one “activist group” (not unions) in NZ with 6,000 members.

    Why don’t you try the EMA, 7200 members. http://www.ema.co.nz/about_EMA.htm

    Time to remove that foot from your mouth Rog.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. Linda Reid (416 comments) says:

    Why would it be a problem for a third party’s advertising to affect an election result?

    Please tell me – because from where I’m sitting, it seems perfectly OK.

    If some group want to influence voters I say let them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. PaulL (6,035 comments) says:

    Thanks AGJ.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    “Roger, how about you do some research, and show me that there are no groups with that many members?”

    Piss off – you made the original assertion, that many such organisations exist – now you prove it.

    “Put simply, what is your objection to the current arrangements?”

    It allows huge parallel campaigns, which serve to effectively circumvent the electioneering spending cap for political parties – i.e. EB-National ($500,000-$1.3 million), Racing Industry-National ($800,000) etc ….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. helmet (807 comments) says:

    “If an idea is popular enough, many different organisations and individuals will spend modest amounts on publicising them. Ideas will get coverage according to their popularity, not the money behind them – it will be a truly competitive marketplace of ideas.”

    Yeah, sounds real cute. But could you could clarify this for me. Are you saying that several organizations might spend say, 10k each on an issue, or 60k each? The 10k is an arbitrary number of course.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. Billy (121 comments) says:

    Rog – NZUSA?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. Billy (121 comments) says:

    Rog – the Rugby Union?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. david (2,561 comments) says:

    Lee C it would appear that you have turned to the dark side and can no longer claim the title of Jedi Knight. Reach deep within you Lee and summon the force .. you can beat this thing and once again become an advocate for democracy and freedom.

    Otherwise you will be condemned to co-exist with “Darth” Trotter in belief that there is such a thing as acceptable corruption.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. Billy (121 comments) says:

    Rog – NZ Bowls?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. Insolent Prick (417 comments) says:

    How about the AA, Rog?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. PaulL (6,035 comments) says:

    Further Roger, Forest and Bird annual report 2007. http://forestandbird.org.nz/aboutus/annualreports/2007annualreport.pdf

    Income from subscriptions: $581,000
    Income from donations: $209,000

    Total income looks to be about $1.5 million per annum.

    Spending on communications last year of $500,000. If even 20% of that were covered by this legislation in an election year they would be well over the limit.

    Maybe you should do a little bit of work before you run off making your statements.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. Insolent Prick (417 comments) says:

    Or the New Zealand Golf Association?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    hehe – nice “activist group” there AGJ. I can just see those 7000 suits taking to the streets, brandish their lattes and brief cases chanting – “down with business taxes!”, “no money for solo mums!” etc – priceless mate :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. Insolent Prick (417 comments) says:

    Or Rotary, Rog?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. burt (8,301 comments) says:

    Sonic

    I think Billy is correct about you.

    However before you do a ‘nome’ and hide behind the ‘It wasn’t only Labour that cheated therefore it’s OK for Labour to cheat’ childish-logic defence…

    The election was clearly undemocratic or there would be no need to restrict spending in the interest of democracy. I would say this even if my party of choice was the only party caught cheating… Pity you don’t have the same integrity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    The socialist ideology calls for power to be gained and sustained by political manipulation. Any force that poses a threat to those outcomes must be neutralised.

    Power that is not politically sourced is found in wealth and/or co-ordination of various factions, so it’s no wonder that the EFB seeks to ‘ban’ both those with money and/or those who would have a voice.

    IMHO allowing this bill to pass is the worst form of child abuse. We’ll be allowing our children grow up in a country which denies them democratic involvement in their own destiny.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. david (2,561 comments) says:

    Rog –
    Tainui
    Ngai Tahu
    Ngati Whatua
    Nga Puhi

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. Insolent Prick (417 comments) says:

    Or Scouting New Zealand, Rog?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    “Or the New Zealand Golf Association?”

    oh this one’s even better! What would the chants be? “less forests, more golf corses!” hehehe :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    “Or Scouting New Zealand, Rog?”

    Since when were they considered an “activist group”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. Insolent Prick (417 comments) says:

    Or how about Friends of Te Papa, Rog?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. helmet (807 comments) says:

    What the hell, I’ll put the boot into Nome too.

    The Automobile association had 1.5 MILLION members in 2006.

    Beat that anyone!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. Linda Reid (416 comments) says:

    We each get one vote. And I want to know as much as possible about the issues – and I’ll read info from any source – as long as I know where’s it’s from. I can then make up my mind who to vote for.

    What the EFB does is to try to remove or limit my access to the information and points of view from people who are not already in Parliament.

    If a third party can make a good case for or against a particular issue or party, then it may well change my mind about who to vote for.

    And what’s wrong with that? If we have to get our information through ‘official’ channels, we will be very poorly informed.

    If some poor sucker wants to spend $1M trying to make me vote for the corrupt crowd who represent Labour, then they are wasting their money. But I defend their right to spend their money having a go.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. Insolent Prick (417 comments) says:

    Or have you thought of the EMA, perhaps Rog?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. helmet (807 comments) says:

    Sorry I see IP already got it :-(

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. Insolent Prick (417 comments) says:

    No, Helmet, I already said the AA, and I wasn’t referring to Alcoholics Anonymous.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    “Tainui, Ngai Tahu, Ngati Whatua, Nga Puhi”

    Again, I’d struggle to call them “activist groups”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. AGJ (563 comments) says:

    You’re too stupid for words Rog. Nice going on showing yourself to be a complete ass when you have ONCE again been proven wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    “The Automobile association”

    Yet another non-activist group ….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. david (2,561 comments) says:

    Also check out
    NZDeerstalkers Assn
    any of the vintage car clubs
    NZ Motor Sports
    NZ Bowls
    Junior Doctors Association
    RSA

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. Billy (121 comments) says:

    In fairness, what Rog meant by “activist” was anyone who was liekly to agree with him. Therefore, it is perfectly OK for motorists to be muzzled, but bad for Greenpeace to be,

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    Linda, good points but lost on Labour. their objective isn’t to ensure fairness of process, rather the guarantee of their return to power. you will not be allowed to have your own opinion. you will be told what to think. this will be the new new zealand way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. helmet (807 comments) says:

    “The Automobile association”

    Yet another non-activist group ….”

    Might want to read this Roger- http://www.aa.co.nz/about/issues/Pages/default.aspx

    Dumbass.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. PaulL (6,035 comments) says:

    Shit Roger, I didn’t realise that your definition automatically excluded any group that had more than 6,000 members. If you’d made that clear up front it would have made this process easier.

    Did you also rule out the AA? I think they are explicitly an activist group, and they clearly have the money.

    I also provided clear evidence that Forest and Bird would be affected.

    Plenty of others have provided examples of groups that may have political desires.

    Is there some way you can redefine the argument to avoid saying those three little words “I was wrong”? It isn’t that hard to say, and saying it when you are actually wrong can encourage you to think a little harder before you post crap in the first place.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. Insolent Prick (417 comments) says:

    Oh, really, Woger? Then how come the AA makes submissions to the select committee on every land transport-related legislation, and much more besides, has an active full time lobbyist in Wellington, and regularly launches campaigns on behalf of its members?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. helmet (807 comments) says:

    “Did you also rule out the AA? I think they are explicitly an activist group, and they clearly have the money.”

    Especially relevant given the saturday headline about the govt looking at raising the driving age.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. unaha-closp (1,179 comments) says:

    “Power that is not politically sourced is found in wealth and/or co-ordination of various factions, so it’s no wonder that the EFB seeks to ‘ban’ both those with money and/or those who would have a voice.”

    That is half wrong. The bill does not restrict those with money from financing any established political party. Wealth will buy politicians.

    The bill would prevent any who are not politically connected from making a coordinated campaign against a governing party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. AGJ (563 comments) says:

    Any minute now Rog will tell us he needs to be somewhere else and will wish us good night. Comedy Gold Rog.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    “Nice going on showing yourself to be a complete ass when you have ONCE again been proven wrong.”

    Where have I been proven wrong? I’ve yet to be shown one single “ACTIVIST GROUP” that has over 6000 members in NZ.

    it seems there are a few of you here that have no idea of what is meant by the word “ACTIVIST”

    “3. advocating or opposing a cause or issue vigorously, esp. a political cause: Activist opponents of the President picketed the White House”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. Insolent Prick (417 comments) says:

    Yeah, Woger, your really good looking girlfriend is waiting for you to show up about now…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. cubit9f (357 comments) says:

    Mr Farrar,

    Please come back, all is forgiven.

    Please start another subject or two so that Sonic and Nome can derail them and give us the benefit of their razor sharp minds. Don’t worry about the subject they know everything about anything.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. Matthew (163 comments) says:

    “It allows huge parallel campaigns, which serve to effectively circumvent the electioneering spending cap for political parties – i.e. EB-National ($500,000-$1.3 million), Racing Industry-National ($800,000) etc ….”

    Roger, would your vote be bought by the businessmen (who were from the EB, but did not represent the EB)? If so, why? If not, why not?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    ““Did you also rule out the AA? I think they are explicitly an activist group, and they clearly have the money.”

    They’re a lobby group – not an activist group – idiot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    “Yeah, Woger, your really good looking girlfriend is waiting for you to show up about now…”

    Actually you’re right – she looks damn fine today and is due to come see me in about 10 minutes …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. PaulL (6,035 comments) says:

    “it seems there are a few of you here that have no idea of what is meant by the word “ACTIVIST””

    There it is, the famous redefinition. Well done, I hadn’t thought of being so bold as to redefine the word “activist”. Hell, can we redefine the word “money” as well?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  199. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    “Yeah, Woger, your really good looking girlfriend is waiting for you to show up about now…”

    BTW which one of your “many girlfriends” are you due to see tonight IP? Also you still haven’t answered my question. Are you a polyamorist?, a swinger? a mormon?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. Insolent Prick (417 comments) says:

    I think you’d need to redefine the terms “polyamorist”, “swinger”, and “Mormon” for me, Woger, given that you’ve drawn a distinction between activist and lobbyist.

    Let me get this straight. Groups that you agree with are activists, whereas groups you dislike are lobbyists, right?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  201. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    I haven’t redefined the word IP – you can find it here:

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/activist

    “I think you’d need to redefine the terms “polyamorist”, “swinger”, and “Mormon” for me”

    Well which one do you identify as IP? You aren’t ashamed of what you are? are you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. Matthew (163 comments) says:

    Roger answer the question. You’re getting behind.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    They’re a lobby group – not an activist group – idiot.

    Pathetic! Mirrors Labours desperation I guess.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. unaha-closp (1,179 comments) says:

    Trying to convince Roger none and sonic that people in general can intelligently make up their own minds when confronted with conflicting information and basing a defence of open debate in a democratic forum, may prove difficult.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  205. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    Sorry – Matthew, I have too many fans here to keep up with sometimes :-)

    So you belong to the old “money is irrelevant” in political campaigns. My contention is that the well heeled business people that contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars to political campaigns know the value of a dollar – and how valuable marketing is. That’s how they got where they are after all. Your contention is that they’re stupid and don’t know how to effectively spend their money – just a ridiculous proposition.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  206. slightlyrighty (2,475 comments) says:

    “If some poor sucker wants to spend $1M trying to make me vote for the corrupt crowd who represent Labour, then they are wasting their money. But I defend their right to spend their money having a go.”

    Linda. I applaud you. In one paragraph you have neatly summarised why this bill should be banned.

    Labour does not want us to be informed. It can’t ban free speech but it can regulate it. It can set the limits so low that it effectively monopolises political speech within it’s own “clique” and groups that IT feels are “illegitimate” are DELIBERATELY excluded.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  207. Matthew (163 comments) says:

    Roger, I asked a question, would your vot ebe bought by these groups? ANSWER THE QUESTION.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  208. Matthew (163 comments) says:

    ANSWER THE QUESTION ROGER. WOUL DYOUR VOTE BE BOUGHT BY people who opposed Labour at the last relection. WOULD YOUR VOTE BE BOUGHT?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  209. slightlyrighty (2,475 comments) says:

    They’re a lobby group – not an activist group – idiot.

    That may be true, but this legislation will require them to register, and limit their spending to 60,000 if any politician talks about Roading, or Fuel prices, or Tolls, or Public-Private partnerships in roading infrastructure, or Driver Licensing, speed limits etc in an election year.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  210. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    Roger, Matthew’s question is a good one. I’m listening…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  211. slightlyrighty (2,475 comments) says:

    Quite simply, the vote of an intelligent thinking person CAN’T BE BOUGHT.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  212. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    Matt – no i don’t think that marketing and advertising is a waste of time, and I don’t think that NZ’s most successful business people are too stupid to know how to spend their money effectively.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  213. gd (2,286 comments) says:

    Im hoping the Bill succeeds I cant wait to see the faces of the many groups who dont grasp what it means for them Imagine the up roar when they realise that they cant carry out the activitied they have been doing for years because its now illegal.

    Because outside the beltway the citizens have no idea. It will seal the Socialists fate when their former supporters find out. Cant wait to see Rogers and Sonics reaction when their dearly beloved leader and her mates bite the dust. Will they go all quite or will they start to forth and rant and rage about the unfairness.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  214. Matthew (163 comments) says:

    ROGER, WAS YOUR VOTE BOUGHT BY THE BUSINESSMEN FROM THE EB. If not why not?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  215. Insolent Prick (417 comments) says:

    Woger,

    Since you’ve previously claimed to be a distinguished academic at Otago, I wonder if you’ve read your esteemed colleague Bryce Edwards’ work on the myths about campaign funding, financing, and spending? Because none of your arguments stack up alongside his.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  216. Matthew (163 comments) says:

    I’m talking about your vote Roger. Not about other people’s votes. Answer the question.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  217. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    Matt – doo you think that marketing and advertising is a waste of time, and that NZ’s most successful business people are too stupid to know how to spend their money effectively. ANSWER THE QUESTION!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  218. Matthew (163 comments) says:

    Answer my question first. Was your vote bought by the businessmen from the EB? If not, why not. The I’ll answer your question.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  219. Bok (740 comments) says:

    Roger
    Now that you have a new asshole on the 6000 member issue…let’s start on activist groups who has 600 members and can afford 10 bucks each.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  220. Matthew (163 comments) says:

    Roger, did the businessmen from the EB make you not vote for Labour or the Green’s? If not, why not? Answer my question. This is the third time that I’m waiting for a simple yes or no, followed by a reason for your yes or no.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  221. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    Come on Roger… Matthew’s right. He’s asked this quite reasonable question umpteen times and you’ve simply ducked and dodged. Please answer the question.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  222. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    It don’t matter according to Rog people wouldn’t be prosecuted unless they were to act in an ‘egregious’ manner.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  223. Castafiore (262 comments) says:

    HYPOCRISY — HYPOCRISY

    Helen did it this morning on One LEFT News,

    LISTEN TO THIS

    She, speaking about Zaowi’s security certificate said “you wouldn’t sign something that wasn’t true”

    Caught again Paintergate and Pledgegate both with items she signed that were untrue

    Quite apart from the fact they get her along to talk about the polls or rather Labours lack in them and Paul doesn’t even ask her about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  224. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    OK Matthew, I agree – every dollar spent on advertising by every company on earth is wasted. Everybody knows that nobody buys any product before they know everything about it, and its competing products in the market …..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  225. Matthew (163 comments) says:

    Roger, the delay is not looking good. Did the money that the businessmen spent change your vote? If not, why not?

    You need to answer the question if you’re going to retain your credibility.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  226. Bok (740 comments) says:

    Or hey let’s talk about the rich capitalist bastards with 60 members who can get together $100 each.
    Let’s see….
    We got just over $1120 for a one saturday sausage sizzle outside the Red Shed two weeks ago for a group of kids going to Aussie and expect do do another 3 of those so one group of 6 parents will raise about 3k. Imagine what 12 could do!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  227. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    night all — have fun!! :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  228. Castafiore (262 comments) says:

    Sorry Link is here from One LEFT News Breakfast,

    http://tvnz.co.nz/view/video_popup_windows_skin/1352970?bandwidth=128k

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  229. Bok (740 comments) says:

    Sad loser! Roger the plagiarist. Starts an argument then runs away.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  230. Matthew (163 comments) says:

    Roger, was your VOTE CHANGED AT ALL BY THE BUSINESSMEN. I’m asking about YOU, NOT OTHERS. Answer my question, as you still don’t seem to have answered it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  231. helmet (807 comments) says:

    Roger’s answered that vote buying question already a few months ago. he said his vote can’t be bought, but people like you and him are only a small fraction of the electorate, maybe ten percent. The rest can be bought.

    However I can only see a problem with being swayed by advertising if the advertising is false. Roger thinks everyone else are sheeples. He’s at least partly right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  232. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    Poor poor Roger. Abandoned my his blue-rinse hedgehog mate, and then set upon by a bunch of people asking complex yes/no questions. He’ll need some counselling this evening of that I’m sure.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  233. Matthew (163 comments) says:

    People, what do you think Roger’s answer is to my question?

    I think we may be able to have a concensus.:)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  234. helmet (807 comments) says:

    And the activist/lobby group distinction is absolutely meaningless. In the context of the thread, either term is used to refer to a group who will be affected by the EFB.
    Yes the dictionary definition of the words is different (of course) but to attempt to weasel out of argument based on the distinction is cowardly. In this context they can be used interchangeably.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  235. Matthew (163 comments) says:

    Helmut, that is my point. Now Roger needs to produce proof that someone’s vote was bought by the EB. Proof, not assertion.

    His assertion that “people like you and him are only a small fraction of the electorate, maybe ten percent. The rest can be bought.” needs to be put on the front page of the Herald and then see how many people agree with it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  236. Gerrit (107 comments) says:

    While we talk about questions, asked Russel Norman from the Greens to answer these questions.

    Not nswers back except to agree with my summation on question 1.

    No answers on the others, perhaps someone can answer them?

    1. Define whom or what is a third party that can be quantified in a court of law. (It will be virtually impossible to legally quantify whom or what is a third party. Potentially we have 1 million third parties. ie. each elector can and their partner can become a third party of two. Secondly every branch of any organisation can become a third party in their own right (such as each workingman club, every sports club, every chamber of commerce). Database management of these third parties will be interesting as will setting up the infastructure to handle all registrations.)
    2. What is to stop interested parties logging (registering) multiple identities as third parties. (Nothing. The EB’s cn register every chapter or group as an individual third party as can unions, cossie or sport club, chamber of commerce region ec. Proving collusion will be an issue for the courts.)
    3. Who will police the electoral infringements and what powers will they have to prosecute. (Technically the Police, but will they be given the extra resources to investigate and prosecute electoral fraud.)
    4. When a ruling is placed before the courts will an election be able to be called or will we have to wait for a court ruling on potential electoral fraud? (An election cannot be ratified until all court decisions have been finalised. These potentially can drag on for months – years right up to the supreme court.)
    5. Who will govern while electoral matters are before the court. The incumbent or a coalition. (Parliament is dissolved prior to a general election meaning the country is without elected representatives until all court cases have been settled and an election ratified. There is no incumbent government.)
    6. Does the Governor General have sufficient contitutional powers to dissolve a parliament and call for a fresh general election if the courts cant decide on the status of an election. (I dont think the GG has the power to run the country without an elected parliament.)
    Some further questions.
    7. Who will decide what is constructive and vital government advertising of new innitiatives during the election year. Police?
    8. Will the electoral commision who decides what is government advertising and not government electioneering be an elected body?
    9. If the incumbent government publishes what they consider advertising but oppostion parties consider electioneering, will the resulting court case postpone the election (the incumbent having gained an unfair advantage)and the election year cycle start from scratch?. If so see point question 5 regarding who occupies the treasury benches while the court cases are in progress.

    Summation. While the arguments are what happens in a lead up to an election, very little is said what happens after. Something to address surely?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  237. Ross Miller (1,705 comments) says:

    I actually expect Labour party apologists to be bereft of any commitment to democracy … their mantra ‘preserve power by any means’. So lets accept that and move on. Their time will come and perhaps sooner than later.

    The real sad loosers in this whole sorry debacle are the good people who voted Winston First. They have been sold down the river by a Party under the thumb of an old man who has nothing to offer but lapdog responses to what his mistress sez. Baubles indeed. Come round this neck of the woods and my dog will have his ‘baubles’ for garters.

    Rumour has it that Dail Jones (NZ First President) is ready to quit in disgust. If so at least he retains his honour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  238. helmet (807 comments) says:

    matthew said “Helmut, that is my point.”

    Yeah I know. You seemed keen to know, so I was just helping out a mate.

    BTW my name isn’t helmut, it’s helmEt, you know, like a dick. Don’t worry, I get it all the time ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  239. helmet (807 comments) says:

    For all Roger’s bluster, his link to the definition of ‘activist’ says it means:

    “1. an especially active, vigorous advocate of a cause, esp. a political cause.”

    It applies to several of the groups mentioned by posters above, including the AA, EMA, & Forest & Bird among others.

    If I didn’t already know that Roger is never wrong, I’d be tempted to say he’s buggered this one up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  240. Reg (539 comments) says:

    I’ve come to the sad conclusion that this Bill will go through.
    The simple fact is that the Labour Government has neither the resources nor the intention to enforce it in a wholesale way.
    What they’ll do is selectively enforce with the assistance of a “tame” police force.
    Interesting that the new police authority replacing the SFO has included in its brief the investigation of religious groups.
    Am I right in joining the dots here?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  241. Graeme Edgeler (3,289 comments) says:

    Gerrit – the answers are as follows:

    1. A third party is someone (or something) who promotes an election advertisement.

    2. Clauses 54(1), 54(2) and 104(2).

    3. The police, or anyone who wishes to lay a private prosecution.

    4. Electoral petitions – the only way an election result can be challenged – cannot be appealed.

    5. Those declared elected will govern while election petitions are being heard. If people lose their seats following election petitions, or criminal action, Parliament will change in membership and go on from there.

    6. Yes.

    7. The Auditor-General.

    8. No.

    9. No.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  242. Billy (121 comments) says:

    Rogernome: Where have I been proven wrong? I’ve yet to be shown one single “ACTIVIST GROUP” that has over 6000 members in NZ.

    Rog, WE can’t prove you wrong, because you’ve redefined your terms to ensure it is impossible.

    But YOU proved yourself wrong right at the beginning. Greenpeace.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  243. PaulL (6,035 comments) says:

    Forest and Bird may or may not have the 6000 members, but they definitely have the money, per their annual report. They will be impacted. Roger was wrong on that one as well. Is anyone keeping tally of how many times he was proveably wrong on this thread?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  244. helmet (807 comments) says:

    “Rog, WE can’t prove you wrong, because you’ve redefined your terms to ensure it is impossible.”

    Na, his terms include most of the groups listed above by posters. His argument is f%#ked.

    The twit can’t even weasel out of an argument properly. All of the groups listed above are “especially active, vigorous advocates of a cause”.
    Even if the cause is golf. :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  245. The Perfect Man (88 comments) says:

    Reg, you are in danger of stepping over the line between good citizen and dangerous revolutionary. You should not attempt to join dots because that could be very bad for your health (well soon anyway). Joining dots is now reserved for ‘experts’ i.e. the police force.
    But first they must ask Dear Leader for the lead to put in the pencil. Only she who must be obeyed can be trusted with lead, it being poisonous an’ all to us whom Leader needs to protect from our own ignorance.

    And yes, it will go through no matter the submissions against it. Rise up NZ!

    And Sonic, Rog & Co – our swords glow when Orcs are about. Some of us understand history. If you want to trust people who constantly feed us lies go ahead, but I rather doubt that these folk will suddenly discover good character just because the EFB passes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  246. Inventory2 (10,404 comments) says:

    A thought which just occurred to me…..The Electoral Finance Bill (EFB) is the government’s response to so-called dirty tricks by National and the Exclusive Brethren (EB) – so, if the EFB is intended to crush the EB, what does the F really stand for?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  247. Reg (539 comments) says:

    The Perfect man said:
    Reg, you are in danger of stepping over the line between good citizen and dangerous revolutionary.
    Thanks for the warning old chap. I am a bit worried that the anti-sedition laws are still in force and we don’t want HC to “take us out” on them before they’re gone.
    In all seriousness, the symbiotic relationship between the cops and the Clark regime boils down to the sordid little fact that both have dirt on each other and neither will move to end the stand-off as too many careers are at stake.
    Why else is Clint Rikkard driving around in a new car.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  248. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    Waaaaaaay back up there before the usual internecine partisan tongue-poking broke out, Mike S asked whether National has vowed to repeal the Bill if they’re elected.

    I too would genuinely like to know the answer to that question. Whether they will or not in no way mitigates the responsibility for the damage done to our democracy by Labour in introducing it, but will at least give us (i.e. those concerned about free speech and not point scoring) a clearer idea of who our enemies are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  249. Castafiore (262 comments) says:

    Reg, very dangerous to join dots like that you will give the politiburo more business.

    BTW have a look at her Goof about not signing things that are not true
    A classic do as I say and not as I do
    http://tvnz.co.nz/view/video_popup_windows_skin/1352970?bandwidth=128k

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  250. Matthew (163 comments) says:

    Hi Rex,

    I’m fairly certain on this thread that it has been said that National will repeal the Bill.

    The question that Roger has completely failed to answer is really the heart of the issue (Linda expressed it very well in a different way). He has unfortunately fallen into the trap that people will knowingly support a policy if enough money is spent on it, which is different to people deciding to support a policy that benefits them so much that they would be silly not to take it up (e.g. Student and interest free loans at the last General Election). I suspect even if George Bush had the resources of the wealth of 1 million Bill Gates it still wouldn’t convince Roger, or any person in NZ (who was/is against the war) that the war in Iraq was right. The reason for this is plainly obvious.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  251. burt (8,301 comments) says:

    Matthew

    I think what you say is correct for most people but I disagree for either sonic or roger nome.

    I think in their case they are not smart enough to have any opinion other than the same opinion as their dear leader. There is no other reason to explain why they enter a thread like this and try to distract the debate to issues such as the EB, big business buying votes etc. These are the sorry ass responses that the party of zero principals has tried to use to deflect attention away from a Zimbabwe style piece of legislation.

    I think National should promise to repeal this legislation if it passes and also the retrospective validation.

    There would be a lot of people who would see the irony of repealing retrospective legislation retrospectively.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  252. vto (1,131 comments) says:

    yes burt bwilliant!

    retrospectively repeal the retrospective validation legislation.

    ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

    i love it when people play the system back at itself. I will sleep with a smile tonight.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  253. francis (712 comments) says:

    After this:

    “If some poor sucker wants to spend $1M trying to make me vote for the corrupt crowd who represent Labour, then they are wasting their money. But I defend their right to spend their money having a go.”

    I vote for Linda as moderator.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  254. Calculus (74 comments) says:

    Castafiore,

    She is “hoist in ones own petard” with that comment today about not signing something that wasn’t true.

    Absolutely funny to here the tone of her /his voice saying it.
    Perhaps she was unaware that the painting wasn’t hers when she signed it like the speeding and the pledgecard.

    The hypocrisy of it is amazing.

    Perhaps Guyon Espiner will now ask her if she still thinks that it is wise to sign things that are not true and therefore she and Ahmed Zaowi have more in common than we first thought.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  255. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    Matthew this is because he is an equivocator – he is happy to ‘buy’ votes in one way but woe betide anyone who ‘buys’ them in another. Clearly he cannot see that his morality is flawed – he is not actually against the ‘purchase’ of elections, actually he is in favour of it, but only if the ideological purpose for purchasing elections agrees with his world-view.

    This is why it is so difficult to enlist his interest in a debate which might invite him to criticise the ideology of those he supports. He actually thinks there is an intrinsic difference in spending say 1,000,000 dollars on interest free loans as opposed to say 1,000,000 dollars on a pamphlet which proposes a view-point he disagrees with, even if the purpose of each initiative is to win an election, using cash to do so.

    This is why he can’t understand the question, but rather deflects it with references to sinister forces which threaten his world-view.

    Incidentally, the student loan thing was in my opinion, a massive shot-in-the-arm for the middle classes. It enabled a goodly proportion of middle class parents to bank-roll their kids and encourage them to borrow cash interest-free which one day will make a nice little down payment on a new house. I hope it’s still around when my little boy gets older!

    National will not repeal the EFB. They would be crazy to repeal a piece of legislation which will guarantee them unlimited power to influence future elections. They will not need political donations – they will be able to charge it to the tax-payer! But they will enact a proper procedure for leaning it up. I suspect if they get into power, they will have a strong incentive to clean up the constitutional parliamentary sytem, because as it stands, it reeks of corruption and venality.

    In my opinion the Labour Party of New Zealand under Helen Clark and her ilk has become a perverted version of what it originally stood for. It was designed to protect the constitutional rights of the ordinary person against the influences of capitalism. But now? It uses the tools of capitalism to suppress our democratic rights. If I order an assassination and spend a million dollars to get it done, does it matter what colour the envelope the payment arrives in is?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  256. Reg (539 comments) says:

    Good idea burt
    It could simply be called The Reinvalidation Bill.
    Then Darnton could continue his case and the courts could decide a suitable penalty for the Kleptocrats

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  257. burt (8,301 comments) says:

    Lee C.

    What really annoys me about the likes of sonic and nutta-nome is that they just can’t understand what you are getting at re:

    If I order an assassination and spend a million dollars to get it done, does it matter what colour the envelope the payment arrives in is?

    I’m not sure if the left wing appologists are completely stupid or just so partisan that they can’t see how they have corrupted themselves to defend their corrupt leaders.

    I also agree that it’s not in Nationals interest to repeal this law if (when) they gain power in 2008 or before. However unlike the corrupt self serving Labour party I would expect National to put the best interests of democracy and the NZ public ahead of their own self interest. Time will tell on this – I’m not holding my breath.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  258. Reg (539 comments) says:

    Lee C said re Roger:
    Clearly he cannot see that his morality is flawed – he is not actually against the ‘purchase’ of elections, actually he is in favour of it, but only if the ideological purpose for purchasing elections agrees with his world-view.

    Absolutely right LC,but thats just the way that socialists think.
    In fact their poster boy Chris Trotter exemplified it with his his notorious comment, about the electoral corruption, being a good sought of corruption because it ensured a Labour victory.
    I suppose they regard the theft of virtually all the Nats Pre-election communications as a good sought of theft because it helped gain the same end. But of course the Police a leaving no stone unturned to identify the culprit aren’t they?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  259. Matthew (163 comments) says:

    Francis, Burt, well said both of you. I too would support Labour having as much money as they want at their disposal to promote their policies because at the end of the day it is not the money that is spent, it is the idea (i.e. the advert) that is judged on its merits.

    I will hammer the question home again to Roger tomorrow. He will not get away from it this time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  260. burt (8,301 comments) says:

    Matthew

    I have learned that when attempting to have a debate with roger nome or sonic if you simply don’t allow them use infantile “National did it too so it’s not fair to hold Labour accountable” logic – they simply run away. They are both lightweights.

    I asked nome (when nome was PJ) once if he thought I would get off a speeding ticket if I said to the office that I wasn’t the only one speeding…. that same logic was his key defence for Labour over spending their election funding allowance… Other parties also did it. The idea that all parties could be prosecuted didn’t seem to make sense to him… all that seemed to matter was that Labour couldn’t be held responsible for something if others were also doing it.

    This is the level of intelligence you are dealing with – better to not bother trying to debate anything with them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  261. Matthew (163 comments) says:

    Burt,

    I agree with you.

    I have thought the same thing myself previously, and e-mailed another commenter on this blog stating the same thing.

    My original question though is both straighforward and identifies the heart of the issue. If he can’t answer it then really he has genuinely lost all credibility on this issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  262. JesusCrux (88 comments) says:

    the Lefties here talk so much http://www.cupchick.com (note: R18 – do not click if you are under 18 or easily offended)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  263. JesusCrux (88 comments) says:

    opps, meant to be cupchicks

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  264. burt (8,301 comments) says:

    DPF and/or Graeme Edgeler

    I just watched an item on the news about docking dogs. There is a report due in for Govt with recommendations on banning or not banning the practice of docking dogs tails. Docking tails has always been a pretty emotive debate however if the Govt pass this stinking bill will the dog breeders and their interest groups be restricted to a maximum of $60K making submissions or defining their position because it is an election year?

    If this were so then this seems like a good example as it’s shaping up to be a contender to test the legislation that Labour say is good. I’d imagine that Labour would normally be too lilly livered to take on such a fight in an election year but that would all change if they could simply muzzle the aggrieved parties.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  265. Graeme Edgeler (3,289 comments) says:

    I understand the select committee reported back on the Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs’ Tails) Bill and recommended that it not proceed about a month ago, but yes, if the Electoral Finance Bill is passed in its present form dog breeders and their interest groups would be limited to either $5,000 or $60,000 in making their position public.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  266. cha (4,076 comments) says:

    # slightlyrighty Says:
    September 17th, 2007 at 5:13 pm

    Quite simply, the vote of an intelligent thinking person CAN’T BE BOUGHT.

    Tax cuts anyone.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  267. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    See Tuesdays Herald article by Audrey Young about the EFB:

    “In a damning submission on the Electoral Finance Bill, the usually conciliatory Human Rights Commission says the bill should be withdrawn, describing it as a “dramatic assault” on fundamental human rights.

    It says the bill “undermines the legitimacy of political processes”.

    The two specific rights most seriously affected by the bill were freedom of expression and the right of informed citizens to participate in the election process.

    “The bill is inherently flawed and should be withdrawn,” the submission says.

    If it were not withdrawn, it required radical change.

    The commission is viewed as a liberal agency of state that rarely uses such strong language against anyone, let alone Government proposals.”

    Also see Helen’s responses: in another article by Tait and Fleming:

    “Asked about the critical submissions Miss Clark said the Government was “relaxed” about concerns being aired and the bill could be changed.

    “It wouldn’t be the first bill to go to a select committee and come out amended the other side,” she said.

    Pressed about the strong opposition Miss Clark said she would not provide a “running commentary” on submissions.

    “These are all concerns which should legitimately be aired in the select committee process. You improve bills when people come in and put a point of view and then you look at how you can accommodate legitimate concerns. This is a normal process and we’ve indicated quite some time ago that we are perfectly happy to work on improving the bill through that process.”

    She said Justice Minister Mark Burton had handled the bill “as well as anybody could”.”

    Where are the articles about htis in North and South, The lIsener, etc. WHere are the interviews with the Moinisters involved. Seems Labour is keeping very quiet about this Bill and only speak in vague terms about it when their actions are exposed.

    Perhaps the Teachers Ubnion and the Human RIghts commission are guilty of ‘hyperbole’ on this. At least next year they wn’t be allowed to speak about it at all!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  268. Bogusnews (477 comments) says:

    The say every revolution starts with an idea, and ends when the only idea left is to retain power at all costs. This has never been more true than with Labour.

    I’m still surprised how few people are aware that the barbarians are at the gate with this bill. With Labour still recovering in the polls, I suspect people either haven’t bothered to look, or don’t care if the freedoms that many people died for are about to be flushed away.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  269. iiq374 (262 comments) says:

    90% of National finances go through trusts, so no-one knows the source of their income.

    Another Sonic red herring – National was willing to remove this, it was Labour that suddenly realised that they were going to be screwed if they actually kept their promise to change it.

    Again Labour (and Sonic) resort to the trick of yelling about what the other side is doing – while doing it themselves and then backing away quietly when forced to put up or shut up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  270. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    I wonder if the electorate are going to start asking themselves about the level of competence that a government must have to propose such a hamfisted attack on our civil liberties? Then will they ask what motivated it/ Then will they ask if this is how they treat legistaltion this importatn, should they start to question other legislation they have passed?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  271. iiq374 (262 comments) says:

    Rog – Sensible Sentencing Trust

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  272. iiq374 (262 comments) says:

    “It allows huge parallel campaigns, which serve to effectively circumvent the electioneering spending cap for political parties – i.e. EB-National ($500,000-$1.3 million), Racing Industry-National ($800,000) etc ….”

    CTU-Labour, PPTA-Labour, etc-Labour, WFF-Labour($15,000,000)

    Oh crap – you keep wanting to forget the last one don’t you
    Oops – and forgot Labour+Labour($800,000)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  273. Frank. (607 comments) says:

    LeeC; It is not a “question of the level of competence that a government must have to propose such a hamfisted attack on our civil liberties?” It is a question of an intended Criminal action

    All of you have forgotten that this proposed legislation was devised and approved by elected political parties (Our servants).

    Their present contract of employment (Wages and conditions, drawn up by themselves} comes up for renewal.

    They have set down the conditions pertaining to their interview with their prospective employers and are allowing their future employees to air their grievances. (Gilbert and Sullivan would have made a meal of this).

    However our employees have become so big for their boots, that they have forgotten that under the Crimes Act 1961, they (Servants of the Crown) cannot advantage themselves to the disadvantage of others.

    This intent is criminal and has the approval of their police buddies as this matter has been brought to their attention and the Select Committee on justice and Electoral are aware of the criminal intent behind the Bill

    Chew on it Sonic and rogerome.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  274. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    Frank, you forget that the political elite are above the law while we serfs are subject to all laws, but particularly those that perpetuate our subjugation.

    If it wasn’t so serious it would be comical.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  275. Inventory2 (10,404 comments) says:

    iiq374 said “Another Sonic red herring – National was willing to remove this, it was Labour that suddenly realised that they were going to be screwed if they actually kept their promise to change it.”

    You’re right there iiq – I thought the whole intent of the changes in legislation were to bring transparency to the FUNDING OF POLITICAL PARTIES – with 3rd party advertising a distinct second. Maybe Labour discovered they actually had too much to lose if anonymous donations were outlawed. It must really stick in H1’s throat though when even the teacher unions slag off the EFB!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  276. Frank. (607 comments) says:

    krazykiwi: I haven’t forgotten that our elite are above the Law. They all have an Archille’s heel, so it’s a matter of being on target. They are exposed with this EFB as never before.

    We still have a weapon in the Official Information Act 1982, if used effectively. Our State Servants are given special training courses in taking evasive action against this form of attack. A favourite action is to quote privileged legal opinion (Paid for by us taxpayers, but withheld from us?).

    Just a question of keeping up the good fight. Does Justice get served?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  277. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    Frank. Your observation is an interesting one. If they were in fact conspiring to break the Law, one explaination for the (apparently/deliberately) confusing way this Bill is worded, might be to provide an inbuilt defence of ‘I didn’t realise what I was doing was wrong’ were anyone to prosecute. Or secondarily make it too cumbersome to prosecute.

    Might it also explain Helen Clark’s rather coy attitude towards this Bill? I notice she is not going out all guns to defend it, and her statement of Burton ‘doing as well as anyone could’ already has the whiff of plausible deniability/hard-working and reliable Minister line about it.

    This ‘I didn’t know it was happening’ line of defence by Helen Clark is used over and over again. Whatever happened to Ministerial Responsibility? What suprises me is how much New Zealanders are prepared to put up with.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  278. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    It is also interesting that some of the Bill’s defenders are similarly keen to use the tools of obscufication, deflection and irrellevance when they discuss the Bill. Perhaps the defenders of the Bill and the Bill itself were formed in a similar philophical mould:

    Confuse/deny/evade/deflect and corrupt….?

    The minor parties who have been bought of with this should be ashamed of themselves. This includes The GReens and WInstons litle posse. Are any of them able to claim they have a shred of honour?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  279. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    Finally, I have made it my new year’s resolution to essentially ignore sonic and rogernome on this issue in this blog. Not because I seek to limit their freedom of expression as they would mine, but because they are abusing the very freedoms of speech they would so gleefully deny me, were their buddies in Parliament to have their way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  280. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    Roger and out, as they say…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  281. KevinOB (267 comments) says:

    I’ve had my turn at the hearings.
    Actually read most of the Bill. It’s worse than we believed. It’s well drafted and provides a good framework but the definitions are to tight. Someone has put a lot of work into this Bill; there would have been months of work. More importantly law draftsmen don’t make decisions on policy.

    There is a clever hidden fishhook: cl. 55. requires all promoters (i.e. anyone initiating) an electoral advertisement (doing anything during the regulated [muzzled] period) to have it agreed to in writing by the political party it promotes (encourages). The ambiguity lets this one slip under the radar. The effect is that all third party spending or activity is required to be approved by the relevant party it promotes and included in its counted expenditure. So no speaking out of place. I don’t know if this was intentional and I told the SC that it might have been. I have seen obscurity used to hide provisions in a NZ tax Bill that the Government wanted, but did want it freely revealed for political reasons (it was a small tax perk to a very small group). I know the drafting tricks that are possible and law draftsmen or any other class or species of genus human charged with the textual construction of such a Bill as may be enacted for the benefit, personal or otherwise of Dear Leader Klark, whether it be solely for her personal benefit or for the benefit of her and any other person including her remote and peculiar husband or any other person or organisation she is associated with or may aid or assist in the constraint, reduction, or dimminuition of the works or personage of any person or body corporate or unincorporate wherever they may be situated and without limiting the generallity of these provisons in particular Hellensville and Parnell. Read the small print too!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  282. Graeme Edgeler (3,289 comments) says:

    Kevin – that fishhook is in the current law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  283. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “Kevin – that fishhook is in the current law.”

    I’m puzzled by this. How can that be an enforceable law. A person may publish a pamphlet advocating a political stance but not endorsing any party. (no particular party may be attractive) What’s the deal then??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  284. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “Perhaps the defenders of the Bill and the Bill itself were formed in a similar philophical mould: Confuse/deny/evade/deflect and corrupt….?”

    They are. The philosophy/ ideology is commonly referred to as communist, but goes under many pseudonyms, such as “progressive, liberal, socialist, etc”. Where one professes to care for some ideal, and speaks in humanistic terms of preserving that ideal, whilst all the while working furtively and gradually to destroy it.

    The strategy could be called Mugabean, or Chavezian, or (now) Klarkovian..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  285. Graeme Edgeler (3,289 comments) says:

    If it promotes a stance at the moment e.g. “vote for a party that will keep NZ GE free” then you don’t need permission from the party concerned.

    If it promotes a party e.g. “vote for National” then you do need permission from National.

    This does not change.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  286. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    Graeme, what about “Don’t vote for [insert party name], because they [insert failings] and [insert more failings]” ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  287. Matthew (163 comments) says:

    I note that Roger still has not responded to my question. What his vote changed? If not, why not?

    Furthermore, does Labour want ideas suppressed by this Bill. The answer is pretty clear: Yes. If so why? Why are they so worried about people being exposed to new ideas? Are they the font of all knowledge now via their massive budget available by promoting government policies? Why don’t we all treat ourselves equal before the law: everyone has a large budget (i.e. if ‘big business’ has a lot of money, then I’m pretty certain this socialist government has enough money to promote its own ideas) or everyone has a limited budget. One or the other, but note that whil eoy uneed mponey to promote your ideas, acceptance of the idea is based on the idea itself. Plenty of people rejected both the ideas from the businessmen from the EB as well as Labour’s own policies. Nothing wrong with that; in fact, it indicates a healthy democracy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  288. Frank. (607 comments) says:

    LeeC: “an inbuilt defence of I didn’t realise what I was doing was wrong were anyone to prosecute.”

    Section 25 of Crimes Act 1962: The fact that an offender is ignorant of the law is not an excuse for any offence committed by him.

    This was quoted by Police commissioner Rob Robinson when he publicly reported on the 260 A4 page report on Helen’s Paintergate fraud.

    Members of Parliament and all State Servants are really susceptible to the Special Sections of the Crimes Act 1961.

    Taito Philip Field comes well and truly into this category. If he had not been a MP and a Minister he would never have had the opportunity of advantaging himself to the disadvantage of others.

    My allegation against him, which was buried by the Police Commissioner took into account S. 25 Ignorance. I’m not entirely sure of the charges against Field. But, if they relate to his abusing his position as a MP and Minister, it would be similar to my complaint.

    It would be a first and would set the cat among the pigeons. Other Allegations in which I have been involved, under Sections 100 to 116 have been laid with the police, but they have all been buried.

    The Taito Field case has dragged on now for 14 months? Like Rickard’s case? Did you see Police Association O’Connors on TV last night? “Methinks he protesteth too much – tongue in cheek?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  289. Matthew (163 comments) says:

    whoops, I should say “Was his vote changed?”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  290. Graeme Edgeler (3,289 comments) says:

    Krazykiwi – for an anti-party advertisement you don’t need permission from any party now, and you don’t need it under the Bill either.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  291. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    Yes Frank.

    Section 25 of Crimes Act 1962: The fact that an offender is ignorant of the law is not an excuse for any offence committed by him.

    But in this man’s world, it appears that ‘plausible deniability’ is not only an acceptable defence for Helen Clark and her cronies, it has become part of their political currency.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  292. PaulL (6,035 comments) says:

    This thread closed, new thread opened. Score: Roger/sonic – zero or negative, no good points made, and demonstrably wrong in a number of instances. VRWC – 7/10, points off for being distracted by the trolls.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  293. Matthew (163 comments) says:

    PaulL,

    well said :) My thinking on this Bill is all the better for the debate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  294. Fost (102 comments) says:

    Following up on what KevinOB said:

    There is a clever hidden fishhook: cl. 55. requires all promoters (i.e. anyone initiating) an electoral advertisement (doing anything during the regulated [muzzled] period) to have it agreed to in writing by the political party it promotes (encourages). The ambiguity lets this one slip under the radar. The effect is that all third party spending or activity is required to be approved by the relevant party it promotes and included in its counted expenditure.

    So the ‘best’ thing to do would be to produce a pamphlet saying “Support [insert party name]” and get them to approve it, make it nice. It shouldn’t be that hard to convince some of the more guillible candidates to endorse them, ‘free’ publicity and all… Then hit them with a big “Oops, sorry overspent the budget of $5,000 actually spent $50,000″ so they have to take that into account on their electral spending, but have ‘logistic difficulties” and not deliver them properly/or at all. Coordinate this with several electorates early in the year and screw both the candidates electoral spend limits and the overall party spend – you’d only need to be able to get a dozen or so electorates to majorally hamper that party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  295. Frank. (607 comments) says:

    Lee C; It has yet to be tested by law. The Darton V Clark case was a golden opportunity, but it was demolished by the unlawful Validation Act, with the full approval of Police, who had already buried the allegation of misappropriation of Helen’s Leader’s Funds. Why? Because they didn’t want to test the sections of the Crimes Act 1961 exposing MPs vulnerability and culpability under the Act.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  296. KevinOB (267 comments) says:

    Here’s the fishhook in detail –

    The problem with cl. 55.is the definition of “promote”.

    This is the explanatory note –

    “Clause 55 provides that an election advertisement that encourages or persuades,
    or appears to encourage or persuade, voters to vote for a party or candidate
    must be authorised in writing by the financial agent of the party or the
    candidate, as the case may be. An election advertisement that encourages or
    persuades, or appears to encourage or persuade, voters to vote for 2 or more
    candidates must be authorised in writing by the financial agent of each of the
    candidates or by the financial agent of the party to which the candidates
    belong. The election advertisement must state the name and address of the
    promoter who has promoted the advertisement.”

    There is no mention here of cl. 55 being limited to election advertisements placed directly by or on behalf of a party or candidate. The generality appears in cl. 55 in the word ‘promote’ which
    “means a person on whose initiative an election advertisement is published…”. The definition of electoral advertisement even includes “taking a position on a proposition with which 1 or more
    parties or 1 or more candidates is associated” Publication does not help either to narrow the definition. It would seem in any case that cl. 55 (1) (a) applies so that 3rd parties require written authorisation by a promoted political party. Whether it is included in the party election expenses is doubtful but it may be that any printed advertisement of a 3rd party that has been duly authorised by a political party has to be included in the political party expenses. Isn’t that what Klark & Co wanted in regard to the EB? I do not trust these provisions. Any amibguity now may be removed later when the electoral officers interpret it restrictively.

    Relevant clauses follow–
    ——————————————————————–
    55 Requirements for election advertisements that promote parties or
    candidates

    (1) No person may publish, or cause or permit to be published, an election
    advertisement that encourages or persuades, or appears to encourage or
    persuade, voters to vote for a party unless the advertisement—

    (a) is authorised in writing by the financial agent of the party; and

    (b) contains a statement that sets out the name and address of the
    promoter of the advertisement.

    (2) No person may publish, or cause or permit to be published, an election
    advertisement that encourages or persuades, or appears to encourage or
    persuade, voters to vote for a candidate unless the advertisement—

    (a) is authorised in writing by the financial agent of that candidate;
    and

    (b) contains a statement that sets out the name and address of the
    promoter of the advertisement.

    (3) No person may publish, or cause or permit to be published, an election
    advertisement that encourages or persuades, or appears to encourage or
    persuade, voters to vote for 2 or more candidates unless the advertisement—

    (a) is authorised in writing either by the financial agent of each of
    those candidates or by the financial agent of the party to which those
    candidates belong; and

    (b) contains a statement that sets out the name and address of the
    promoter of the advertisement.

    (4) Every person is guilty of an illegal practice who wilfully contravenes
    any provision of this section.

    ———————————————————
    5 Meaning of election advertisement

    (1) In this Act, election advertisement—

    (a) means any form of words or graphics, or both, that can reasonably be
    regarded as doing 1 or more of the following:

    (i) encouraging or persuading voters to vote, or not to vote, for
    1 or more specified parties or for 1 or more candidates or for any combination
    of such parties and candidates:

    (ii) encouraging or persuading voters to vote, or not to vote, for
    a type of party or for a type of candidate that is described or indicated by
    reference to views, positions, or policies that are or are not held, taken, or
    pursued (whether or not the name of a party or the name of a candidate is
    stated):

    (iii) taking a position on a proposition with which 1 or more
    parties or 1 or more candidates is associated; and

    (b) includes—

    (i) a candidate advertisement; and

    (ii) a party advertisement.

    (2) The following publications are not election advertisements:

    (a) an advertisement that is published by the Chief Electoral Officer,
    the Chief Registrar of Electors,…………

    (b) an advertisement within the meaning of section 43(1) of the Citizens
    Initiated Referenda Act 1993:

    (c) any content of a newspaper or periodical that has been selected by,
    or with the authority of, the editor of the newspaper or periodical solely for
    the purpose of informing or entertaining its readership:

    (d) any content of a radio or television programme that has been
    selected by, or with the authority of, a broadcaster (within the meaning of the
    Broadcasting Act 1989) solely for the purpose of informing or entertaining its
    audience:

    (e) a book that is sold for no less than its commercial value, if the
    book was planned to be made available to the public regardless of any election:

    (f) a document published directly by a body corporate or unincorporated
    to its members:

    (g) the publication by an individual, on a non-commercial basis, on the
    Internet of his or her personal political views (being the kind of publication
    commonly known as a blog).
    ————————————–
    promoter—

    (a) means a person on whose initiative an election advertisement is
    published; and

    (b) includes, without limitation, a person—

    (i) who enters into a contract, arrangement, or understanding
    with another person to the effect that the other person publish an election
    advertisement; or

    (ii) who publishes an election advertisement in the absence of
    such a contract, arrangement, or understanding
    ———————————————–

    publication, in relation to an advertisement, means to—

    (a) insert in a newspaper or other periodical published or distributed
    in New Zealand; or

    (b) issue, hand out, or display; or

    (c) send to any member of the public by any means; or

    (d) deliver to any member of the public, or leave at a place owned or
    occupied by a member of the public; or

    (e) broadcast; or

    (f) include in a film or video; or

    (g) disseminate by means of the Internet or any other electronic medium;
    or

    (h) store electronically in a way that is accessible to the public
    ————————————
    party advertisement means any form of words or graphics that can reasonably
    be regarded as encouraging or persuading voters to do either or both of the
    following:

    (a) to vote for the party (whether or not the name of the party is
    stated):

    (b) not to vote for another party (whether or not the name of the party
    is stated)
    ——————————————–
    candidate advertisement means any form of words or graphics that can
    reasonably be regarded as encouraging or persuading voters to do either or both
    of the following:

    (a) to vote for a candidate in the candidate’s capacity as a candidate
    for an electoral district (whether or not the name of the candidate is stated):

    (b) not to vote for another candidate (whether or not the name of the
    candidate is stated)
    ————————————-
    party advertisement means any form of words or graphics that can reasonably
    be regarded as encouraging or persuading voters to do either or both of the
    following:

    (a) to vote for the party (whether or not the name of the party is
    stated):

    (b) not to vote for another party (whether or not the name of the party
    is stated)
    ——————————————
    81 Meaning of election expense

    (1) In this subpart, election expense means an expense that—

    (a) is incurred in undertaking a party activity; and

    (b) is incurred in respect of any of the following costs:

    (i) the cost of the preparation, design, composition, printing,
    distribution, postage, and publication of a party advertisement:

    (ii) the cost of any material used or applied for a party
    advertisement:

    (iii) the cost of displaying a party advertisement on any
    advertising space on any land or building that is used solely or principally
    for commercial or industrial purposes.

    (2) Despite subsection (1)(b), election expense does not include the cost
    of—

    (a) travel:

    (b) the conduct of any survey or public opinion poll:

    (c) the labour of any person that is provided free of charge by that
    person:

    (d) the replacement of any material used in respect of a party
    advertisement which has been destroyed or rendered unusable by 1 or more
    persons (other than a person acting on behalf of the party) or by the
    occurrence of an event beyond the control of any person acting on behalf of the
    party:

    (e) the election expense of any of the party’s candidates:

    (f) allocations of time and money made to the party by the body
    responsible for such allocations under the Broadcasting Act 1989:

    (g) any publications that relate to a member of Parliament in his or her
    capacity as a member of Parliament.

    (3) Where any material referred to in subsection (1)(b)(ii) or any
    advertising space referred to in subsection (1)(b)(iii) is provided free of
    charge, the commercial value of that material or advertising space must be
    included as an election expense.

    (4) Where any material referred to in subsection (1)(b)(ii) or any
    advertising space referred to in subsection (1)(b)(iii) is provided at less
    than its commercial value, the amount of the difference between the contract
    price of the material or advertising space and the commercial value of that
    material or advertising space must be included as an election expense.

    (5) However, subsections (3) and (4) do not apply where the commercial value
    of the material or advertising space is less than $1,000.

    (6) For the purposes of subsections (3) to (5), commercial value, in
    relation to any material referred to in subsection (1)(b)(ii) or any
    advertising space referred to in subsection (1)(b)(iii), means the lowest
    amount charged at the time the material or advertising space was provided, for
    the same kind and quantity, by—

    (a) the person who provided it, if that person is in the business of
    providing that material or advertising space; or

    (b) another person who provides that material or advertising space on a
    commercial basis in the area where it was provided, if the person who provided
    the material or advertising space is not in that business.
    ————————————————-
    80 Interpretation

    In this subpart, unless the context otherwise requires,—

    election expense has the meaning given to it by section 81

    party activity, in relation to a party, means an activity—

    (a) that is undertaken by, or with the authority of,—

    (i) the party; or

    (ii) the party’s financial agent; and

    (b) that comprises the publication of a party advertisement in any form
    (for example, in the form of a radio or television broadcast, notice, poster,
    pamphlet, billboard, or electronic message); and

    (c) that is undertaken, or deemed by section 85 to have been undertaken,
    during the regulated period; and

    (d) does not include anything done in relation to a member of Parliament
    in his or her capacity as a member of Parliament

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  297. Graeme Edgeler (3,289 comments) says:

    Frank. And here’s the fishhook in the current law:

    “[221Advertisements for candidates and political parties

    (1)Subject to subsections (2) and (3) of this section, no person shall publish or cause or permit to be published in any newspaper, periodical, poster, or handbill, or broadcast or cause or permit to be broadcast over any radio or television station, any advertisement which—

    (a)Is used or appears to be used to promote or procure the election of a constituency candidate; or

    (b)Encourages or persuades or appears to encourage or persuade voters to vote for a party registered under Part 4 of this Act.

    (2)A person may publish or cause or permit to be published an advertisement of the kind described in subsection (1)(a) of this section if—

    (a)The publication of that advertisement is authorised in writing by the candidate or the candidate’s agent or, in the case of an advertisement relating to more than one candidate, the candidates or the party to which they belong; and

    (b)The advertisement contains a statement setting out the true name of the person for whom or at whose direction it is published and the address of his or her place of residence or business.

    (3)A person may publish or cause or permit to be published an advertisement of the kind described in subsection (1)(b) of this section if—

    (a)The publication of that advertisement is authorised in writing by the Secretary of the party or his or her delegate; and

    (b)The advertisement contains a statement setting out the true name of the person for whom or at whose direction it is published and the address of his or her place of residence or business.”

    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/libraries/contents/om_isapi.dll?clientID=1688761356&hitsperheading=on&infobase=pal_statutes.nfo&jd=a1993-087%2fs.221&record={2514C}&softpage=DOC#JUMPDEST_a1993-087/s.221

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  298. KevinOB (267 comments) says:

    The present S.221 is interesting. There is no definition of “promoter”or “promote” in the Electoral Act, but in the EFB. a promoter –

    “(a) means a person on whose initiative an election advertisement is
    published; and

    (b) includes, without limitation, a person— ”
    ………..
    This defines it, in terms of an election advertisement,which is effectively anything remotely associated with taking a position about anything that may interest the pollys. cl. 16 [“An application by a promoter to be listed as a third party may be made to the Chief Electoral Officer—“]. So all promoters are caught. “8 Appointment of financial agent for third party

    (1) A third party must appoint a financial agent”

    53 Election advertisements not to be published in regulated period unless
    certain conditions met
    (1) No person may, during a regulated period, publish or cause or permit to
    be published any election advertisement unless-
    …………
    (2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b), a promoter is entitled to promote
    an election advertisement if the promoter is—
    ………….
    (c) a third party; or

    S. 221 is meant to catch those would place fake advertisements on behalf of a party so only what is expressly authorised for advertising by the party is included in the limited expenditure. I think there is a similar provision regarding candidates. These election tricks were being carried out to my knowledge in the 1975 election. The section is very limited as to what it applies to, in contrast to cl. 55 of the EFB.

    What has NZ come to?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote