Human Rights Commission on Electoral Finance Bill
September 18th, 2007 at 10:21 am by David FarrarAudrey Young has picked up the significance of the submission from the Human Rights Commission on the Electoral Finance Bill. She notes:
The commission is viewed as a liberal agency of state that rarely uses such strong language against anyone, let alone Government proposals.
So what does the Human Rights Commission say in their submission:
the Bill will infringe certain human rights – most obviously freedom of expression but also the right of all citizens to participate in the election process.
Pretty black and white. The bill is a breach of human rights, and prevents freedom of expression and participation in the election process.
They then make a key point:
Given the significance of the changes to the electoral funding regime, there is a need for an extended public participation in a more neutral environment to allow for discussion, debate and contestation of core principles. This has not happened with the proposed legislation, and the opportunity for informed authorisation has been lost. The Commission therefore recommends that the Bill is either withdrawn or substantially redrafted to reflect a better balance between political participation and freedom of speech and controls on electoral financing.
They’re saying that restricing the rights of third parties is no minor things, and any law should be based on principles and policy which the public have had input into. And this is crucial – we need the public debate, the forums, the seminars, the issues papers, the recommend.
Another great point is:
Democracy implies far more than the mere act of periodically casting a vote… it covers the entire process of participation by citizens in the political life of their country – UN Secretary General
In analysing one clause of the Bill, they say:
It will also limit lobby groups, for example, to expenditure under $5000 in promoting a particular cause (if not registered as third parties). It is difficult to see how this will promote the ability of civil society to participate in the political process and makes a mockery of clause 3(b) which refers to promoting participation by the public in parliamentary democracy.
But get this paragraph:
The combination of “election advertisement” in clause 5 and “regulated period” defined in clause 4 will have a chilling effect27on the expression of political opinion during an election year.
Now these are the sort of statements we are used to hearing from overseas human rights bodies about repressive regimes. But this is the NZ Human Rights Commission on Helen Clark’s Electoral Finance Bill.
They specifically reject the year long ban on non regulated speech:
Currently the Electoral Act 1993 limits the regulation period during the run up to an election to 3 months. The Commission does not accept that extending the period to almost a year is justified.
They also refer to the muzzle your targets clause:
The Chief Electoral Officer cannot register third parties once the writ for a general election is issued: cl.17. As a result of how election advertisement is defined in cl.5, if a political party makes negative comments about a lobby group or particular ethnic group, the group itself would be unable to respond to the criticism during the writ period if it was not registered as a third party.
It is difficult to conceive of a greater limitation on freedom of speech than this.
They also quote approvingly from the Bell Gully opinion against the Bill. Now some commenters here tried to smear Bell Gully as being funders of the National Party (which just displayed their own ignorance). Will they alspo now try and smear the Human Rights Commission?
Finally we have their excellent conclusion:
A human rights approach to democratic government requires genuine participation. Genuine participation, in turn, requires an informed electorate. By limiting freedom of expression and creating a complex regulatory framework in the way it does, the Electoral Finance Bill unduly limits the rights of all New Zealanders to participate in the electoral process. The Commission therefore considers that the Bill is inherently flawed and should be withdrawn.
What more needs to be said. Kill the Bill.
Related posts:
- Was the Human Rights Commission censored?
- The Electoral Finance Bill and the Bill of Rights
- Start Over says Human Rights Commission
- Rodney on Electoral Finance Bill
September 18th, 2007 at 10:39 am
I’m amazed that Labour can ignore input like this. The fact that the media haven’t picked up on this is yet another example of why they shouldn’t be elevated to a privileged position (as this bill does). They simply do not provide enough diversity of viewpoint, or enough publicity to those with a message. Whether or not you agree with the messages, I don’t see how you can refuse the ability to publicise it.
I am still at a loss to understand the problem that this bill is trying to solve? Was Helen really so upset at the EB campaign – noting that it essentially reduced National’s total share of the vote?
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 10:41 am
No-one cares about your Right-wing agenda David. Us Labour supporters are actually doing something with our lives, you know, like sending our kids to school and mowing lawns and going to work each day. We don’t have time like you unscrupulous business executives who sit in rich hotel lobbies reading the paper and talking about the obscure details of what’s happening in Parliament.
So what if you are only allowed to spend $5000? The average Kiwi has to do things like feed their families and pay bills and medical costs etc… Unlike you and your lawyers who have money to burn. I wish you’d stop spending it on luxuries and actually donate to charity, did you know that poor people give more to charity (proportionally) than rich people? It’s because they can emphasize ‘cos they know what it’s like to have to work for a living.
This blog is full of crap. How about covering some serious issues for once?
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 10:42 am
Utterly damning of an utterly seditious Bill. Destroying our most precious human right? This spelle the demise of the supporters of this Iniquitous bill.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 10:44 am
“This blog is full of crap. How about covering some serious issues for once?”
I love satire.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 10:45 am
JesusCrux, people like DPF are defending our freedoms, whilst you and your friends are mowing your lawns. You may be happy to have Helen decide what is good for you and what is not, others in NZ are not. If you don’t like what DPF posts, bugger off somewhere else.
I am amazed at your complete misunderstanding of the issues. Are you a member of Forest and Bird? Or any other group. Do you realise that these groups will also all be limited to $5,000 without registering (said registration having a cost)? This isn’t about any individual.
If National were in power and passing this legislation, would you have the same attitude? Nothing to see here, move along, John Key knows best?
Are you not concerned that the Human Rights Commission thinks that this violates some of our most fundamental rights?
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 10:45 am
“This spelle the demise of the supporters of this Iniquitous bill.”
Don’t be stupid, Frank. Sonic will be along in a moment telling us we’re all getting worked up about nothing.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 10:47 am
“This blog is full of crap. ”
Yes JesusCrux it certainly is when you, sonic and the Nome are in full flight.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 10:52 am
Frank made an observation that the formulation of this Bill is tantamount to conspiring to break the law: My response was:
His 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:September 18th, 2007 at 10:54 am
Exactly! We endure three years of near-totalitarian reign only punctuated by loaded-dice elections. And folks just wanna mow their lawns. Unreal.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 10:58 am
“No-one cares about your Right-wing agenda David.”
Not enough people care about your left wing agenda- anti freedom of expression, anti individual, pro regulation, pro big government. More and more people tho are gradually awakening to the scam you and your thieving cronies are pulling. Your days of political acendancy in this country are numbered. This bill will help you get your commie arses kicked out quicker than anything else.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 10:59 am
Y’know bait that if the Nat’s get in they’ll cut your community care funding…
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:00 am
I can just see Helen running around the 9th floor with her fingers in her ears screaming “I’m not listening”.
JesusCrux….comedy gold. Say you wouldn’t want to mow my lawns would you? Its just I’m too busy sitting in a hotel plotting the down fall of the left to mow my own. *youth rates apply*
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Robinson’s back. How’s Tane? You two still posting from the same location?
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:01 am
That should be “Nats” – I think I’m losing my mojo. DPF – are there any early signs I should be looking out for?
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Minor parties claim their raison d’etre is to keep the Government of the day honest. This Bill is dead in the water.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:02 am
David, no one’s saying Bell Gully donated the money to National, just that they were the bag men for the National Party’s dirty money and would have made a tidy profit on the side. This hardly makes them neutral bystanders when it comes to electoral funding, given their role in National’s efforts to rort the system last election.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:03 am
Yeah KK – I’m back and yep I’m still posting from the same IP, It’s ‘cos I’m Tane’s mum. Whose mum are you?
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:03 am
No Tane, stay on topic please
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:04 am
Robinson/Tane, do you guys work shifts with Sonic/Roger? Last thread it was their turn to post irrelevencies and demonstrably untrue “facts”, and this thread it is your turn?
DPF, what do you reckon about a really big sign across the top of the comments saying “do not feed the trolls”?
Tane, your suggestion is laughable, and has been rebutted before. No point in repeating it.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:05 am
KK – David specifically addressed Belly Gully and their link to National’s rorting of the electoral system in his initial post. That sounds pretty on-topic to me.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:05 am
Billy: Sorry. I was stupid. I was referring to the Winston Peters – Peter (Common sense Done etc, and the other people who didn’t vote against the passage of this Bill through the House.
I hadn’t taken Sonic etcetera into account. They are programmed to delete
Vote:Human Rights Commission “Spam”.
September 18th, 2007 at 11:07 am
Hey Tane, good job the EFB addresses anonymous funding, then.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:07 am
If this is the kind of legislation we get under MMP, then MMP has to go. I don’t think we could have had such outrageous proposals put forward under FPP.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:09 am
Krazykiwi says “We endure three years of near-totalitarian reign only punctuated by loaded-dice elections.”???? WTF
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:12 am
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.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:13 am
Yeah that’s right Paul I’m like on the ninth floor and looking at your SIS file as I’m typing this. Jeez, you really did *that*!
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:14 am
Robert Owen – ok so perhaps a little strong, but i stand by it.
That our government can use $800k taxpayer money on electioneering, retrospectively validate this, push the EFBs draconian restrictions on free speech and then ignore the protestations of quite possibly the broadest cross-section of NZ society should be enough to concern most.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:17 am
Can I suggest we ignore the diversionary issues raised by certain individuals and stick the point – the EFB, introduced by a Labour Government has been defined as a serious breach of human rights??
Otherwise, it might appear that we condone the abuse of our human rights because we are prepared to ignore it by engaging in tittle-tattle which suits certain peoples’ agendas?
Let’s stay on subject, the lawns can wait.
Lie down with dogs and you will catch fleas.
(cue diversionary rebuttal)
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:18 am
Ah, I suspected as much. Thanks for the confession. And no, I didn’t do that, I took that rap for my brother.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:21 am
“do you guys work shifts with Sonic/Roger?”
You are getting paranoid again it seems. Funny how David Mentions Bell Gully in the original post, yet contradicting him is “off topic”
You always have to feel sorry for people who cannot deal with any opposition.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:22 am
Hey Lee C – “tittle-tattle”? Ooh la la. “certain peoples’ [SIC] agendas”? Just put your tinfoil hat back on girl – I can read your mind.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:23 am
Sad thing is, I am reading this article (and the other one) in the Herald more in sadness than anything else.
Surely the Greens and such can’t continue to support this crock? Or have they been bought too?
Their name will be mud in the international Green movement surely.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:25 am
And I shudder to think what the international Labour movement must think of this shameful attempt to create a cut-n-paste piece of legislation which serves not only to maintain a party in power, but also to deny the human rights of the electorte to engae in their own democracy.
I thought all that stuff about freedom o expression and the right to unimpeded suffrage was why the Labour movement was created.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:26 am
I’m with Lee C.
What have Labour got to fear by the promotion of different ideas? Since when is it wrong for a student to be convinced that an interest free loan for their studies is wrong if they think so?
This Bill curtails the spread of ideas.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:27 am
No worries Paul – but it looks more like your bro was implicated too (that sort of thing might go down fine in the deep south boy but we’re a civilised society… Hold on, Helen’s calling me.. what’s that Helen? leave the kids alone? but they’re such fun… okay, okay – sorry guys I’ve got to get back to my plan to nationalise the internet.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:30 am
Lee C.- Don’t you know Robinson is “funny”? Must be, he told us that. Of course from the perspective of a mentally antiquated, half educated, well indoctrinated, innately narcissistic and witless bore like Robinson, it might appear funny.
Anything to make objectors to this Mugabean legislation seem overly concerned. That’s the direction that has come from commie control deep in the beehive, and as they always do, the arse licking jack booted thugs who always support such regimes spring into action.
See the Educational Institute has written a submission in support. Shows what state education is in in this propaganda ridden commie hole.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:30 am
Sooo, there it is…. there’s another 15 seconds of my life I’ll never get back Thnx Robinson. Stay on topic please.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:32 am
LeeC, the labour movement (small l) supports the bill’s intention of promoting a fair and open electoral system where disparities of wealth and power have limited influence over the electoral process. Obviously the bill has been rather poorly drafted and needs some work around the third parties, but that’s what the select committee process is about. No Right Turn has an excellent summary of the unions’ submissions here:
Vote:http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2007/09/election-finance-more-hearings-and.html
September 18th, 2007 at 11:32 am
Bell Gully would have collected a small fee for a simple transfer of money from the trust account, but it would be bugger all. Bell Gully is a bloody huge outfit and I’m telling you, the tiny fee they get for a simple transaction like that wouldn’t even register.
If you’re using their involvement in this to call them Nat bagmen, it’s time to take the tinfoil hats off and get some help.
However they do know a thing or two about law, and are eminently qualified to say that the EFB is crap. Deal with it.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:32 am
Lee – if it took you 15 seconds to read that then I suspect you should get some adult literacy training (but get in quick ‘cos the Nats will probably cut the funding)
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:38 am
Q2 this afternoon could be interesting:
JOHN KEY to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her reported statement, in relation to the Electoral Finance Bill, that “some definitions might need changing but Mr Key is exaggerating the impact of the Bill.”
Do you think his first supplementary might invite Dear Leader to comment on the Human Rights Commission’s submission to the Select Committee?
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:40 am
Inventory – stop trying to sidetrack the thread.
Everyone else – DON’T FEED THE TROLLS!
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:40 am
“disparities of wealth and power have limited influence over the electoral process.”
Tell me Tane, was your vote changed to support what the businessmen from the EB were saying at the last General election? If so, why? If not, why not?
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:42 am
krazykiwi: You are right. Already the sound of jackboots echoes through the Corridors of Power.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:42 am
The more that I think about the ramifications of this bill, the more I wonder about the concept of a “third party”. In a democracy such as ours, the people of New Zealand choose who will govern them. Certain political groups have established themselves over time.
Now one of these groups is saying that should a certain group within the public choose to express opinions, they must register, and spend only up to 60,000, regardless of the size of that group.
So I find myself wondering, what is wrong with a “third party”? Why should a group, exercising a democratic right be stopped from doing so? Why is a group exercising it’s rights such a scary prospect to Labour?
Why is Labour drafting laws that a body like the HRC is coming out against like this, in order to maintain it’s grip on power?
Labour has broken the law to stay in power. Labour has rewritten the rules to make this unlawful expenditure legal, and now Labour proposes this bill to remove our rights to stay in power? Broken down to it’s simplist form, it makes me sick.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:43 am
Cut the jibber-jabber Robinson. If you haven’t got anything useful to say its best you don’t say anything for sure as hell you are wasting (stealing?) valuable oxygen in your time on this blog
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:44 am
Tane said “Obviously the bill has been rather poorly drafted and needs some work around the third parties, but that’s what the select committee process is about.”
When you say “some work”, do you agree with the HRC’s assessment? Let me remind you:
“The Commission therefore considers that the Bill is inherently flawed and should be withdrawn.”
No, didn’t think you would!
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:44 am
No, because I am politically aware and have a university education. The fact the Brethren and National were exposed before the election helped too.
But I will say, the point about disparities of wealth and power goes well beyond the Exclusive Brethren. Farrar’s bleating over this bill is far less to do with the drafting problems that will be ironed out during the select committee process than they have to do with his rich mates being restricted from buying the election. That’s why he’s arguing in bad faith for the bill to be killed rather than fixed.
[DPF: Please try not to both invent things about me and state them as fact. Incidentally I took the time to do a well researched and argued 20 or so page submissions which involved research from 111 electoral systems around the world. Maybe you could point out your submission which backs up your arguments?]
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:45 am
That’s a bit rich Robinson – thread-jacker extraordinaire!
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:47 am
Actually Robinson I am a fully-trained Adult Literacy Facilitator Both here and in the UK, but again, you are apparently incapable of sticking to the topic.
Tane I can’t believe this ‘obviously the bill has been poorly drafted’ line. It is apologetic crap, frankly. How much of this bs are the labour movemnt prepared to put up with? Or is it that Labour have got them bought off with the promise of a cushy little safe seat in parliament?
Interesting to me how ‘corruption’ as a term appears to be levelled at some, yet when the Labour Party does it it is back to the tired ‘oh we didn’t know it was wrong’ line. WTF are we paying these people for? Jeez, I could have done a better cut and paste job of this Bill. And It would hae stipulated that anonymous donations should be illegal.
Too many sell outs.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:48 am
I see your sense of irony is as well-honed as your wits Inv2.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:49 am
‘bleating’ ‘hyperbole’ etc. personal attacks, stick to the point.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:49 am
on topic.
slighty righty – could it be that the EFB is actually a red herring (or possibly a sacrificial lamb) that could be made to go away in return for support for Government funding of political parties? Labour must see that their funding streams are unsustainable in the long term and without security of income they are rooted as a political party.
The Labour “movement” doesn’t resonate with the population to nearly the samer extent now that the general poublic are educated and relatively wealthy compared with the working class during the early parts of the 20th century. Die hard labour supporters, with the possible exception of some nutbar uni types and odd refugees from the Clydeside, are dieing off in droves and this must reflect in party membership.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:51 am
Sharpest knife in the drawer Robinson
BTW – having been out of the loop for a couple of weeks, I’m feeding trolls today to indulge myself but I will try to be more disciplined tomorrow!
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:51 am
Wow LeeC, an “Adult Literacy Facilitator” sorry but that sounds like PC crap to me – what part of your income come from my hard-earned taxes?
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:52 am
Is it just me, or is there a glaring loophole in this bill? There doesn’t seem to be a definition of third party, so in the case of the EB, if each of the seven people decided to spend 60k each, that would be 420k, as long as they are all considered separate third parties. Or could an individual set up multiple trusts, donate 60k to each, and have each trust spend the 60k?
[DPF: This is the great irony. I don't think the EFB would in any way stop members of the Brethren from spending the same amount as they did last time. As the senior members are considerably wealthy in their own right and presumably could each personally pay $60,000 (rather than take money from others) then they could well legally spend say $500,000 again. I don't think one could claim collusion as they would be able to genuinely claim it is their strongly held beliefs that they are paying to publicise.]
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:52 am
Bro – you’ve been outta the loop for a lot longer than that…
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:52 am
Tane: ANSWER THE QUESTION:
Tell me Tane, was your vote changed to support what the businessmen from the EB were saying at the last General election? If so, why? If not, why not?
The longer you take the less credible you become in addressing the question.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:53 am
“That’s the direction that has come from commie control deep in the beehive, and as they always do, the arse licking jack booted thugs who always support such regimes spring into action.”
Honestly Ratbiter it really does not take some vast conspiracy to out-think you. My rabbit could best you in a political debate.
Also this obession with jackboots? Does the thought of lots of men in uniform wearing jackboots make you feel all funny inside?
“Shows what state education is in in this propaganda ridden commie hole.”
Still not got over failing those exams I see?
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:53 am
Does anyone here have any contacts in the United Nations Wouldnt it be a laugh to send a copy of the Bill to all the members of their Human Rights Committee with the NZ Human Rights Commission submission attached. Wonder what they would makeof Dearly beloved heavenly Leader eh.
Would be great to see them send a one of their special envoys to conduct an investigation and report back to the Committee that the NZ Government is in breach of its own and international Human Rights Law.
How would you pinkos Roger and Sonic cope with that. Lovely Jubbly
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:53 am
<p>LeeC, I’ve made it clear elsewhere that I think the whole process behind the bill has been botched. My views on this are pretty close to Jordan Carter’s – http://jtc.blogs.com/just_left/2007/08/if-i-were-the-j.html</p>
<p>But this close to an election we have to work with the process we have, not the process we would have liked, and that means working in good faith through the select committee process to get a decent outcome with broad public support. What we shouldn’t do is follow Farrar’s line of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.</p>
[DPF: Also the Human Rights Commission's line. The so called baby is at best a deformed eight week old foetus which should be aborted]
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:55 am
Matt, he’s not gonna answer your question ‘cos no-one but you thinks it matters. I know you’ve got this whole “oh boy, oh boy, I’ve got him on the ropes now, uh-huh, uh-huh” thing going on but really you just so don’t. frankly, I’m a little embarrassed on your behalf.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:56 am
Tane
Vote:This baby was deformed and stillborn. All it is good for is a decent burial
September 18th, 2007 at 11:56 am
Matthew, you illiterate fool. I already answered your question:
“No, because I am politically aware and have a university education. The fact the Brethren and National were exposed before the election helped too.”
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:57 am
Are you seeing “broad public support” for the bill Tane?
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:57 am
David – what do you know about burying children, oh no… here’s your SIS file, I take that back. Heh, um, friends eh?
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:57 am
“My rabbit could best you in a political debate.”
Practice on him do you?
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:59 am
David, no. But that’s the Labour Party’s problem, not mine.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 11:59 am
It is possible that the ‘only game in town’ is a specialised craft which has little to do with democracy as we have been lead to believe.
Helen’s take on this – has been to patronise those who oppose it, suggesting they are engaging in hyperbole for example, meanwhile many supporters keep parroting the illegal donations that apparently have so rigged the last three elections that National spectaculary failed to take power.
Meanwhile, given an opportunity to stamp out illegal donations, labour suddenly realised it would hit them in the wallet, so they conveniently left out the very thing they said the Bill would do.
At the same time. they are trying, behind closed doors to use this Bill as a vehicle to finally ratify the retrospective emergency legislation which rubber-stamped their over-spend of about 800,00 to ‘buy’ (sorry’ ‘influence’ sorry ‘corrupt’) the last election, while harping on about the EB.
Yes the EB were very naughty and so was National. BUt ironically, it probably lost them the election.
Best fit for labour – appear to be fixing the evil capitalists, while leaving the gate open for their own abuses, then accuse decent people of being guilty of ‘hyperbole’ if they have the temerity to ‘bleat’ about the threat to their democratic and human rights.
“poorly drafted’ Yeah right!
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
# Redbaiter Says:
September 18th, 2007 at 11:57 am
“My rabbit could best you in a political debate.”
Practice on him do you?
That should get the anti-vivisectionists going.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
“Matt, he’s not gonna answer your question ‘cos no-one but you thinks it matters.”
You should have read the last comments thread then. Others did say it mattered. Let’s see who is laughing now.
Anyway, he has answered the question. So Tane if their money didn’t change your mind, find me the person whose mind it did change.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
LeeC – you haven’t answered my question. How much of my hard-earned tax dollar pays for you to sit on KiwiBlog pontificating for the right? (oh boy, oh boy, I’ve so got her on the ropes now, uh-huh, uh-huh)
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Tane What we need as I told the SC was an independent Commission to hear submissions and formulate a short list of models to be voted by a binding referendum The Burkean defence is not acceptable when the parliament is so conflicted as I told them they are. They have little understanding of the basic principles of good governance. Good grief Why do we have to keep reminding them.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Matt – others said it mattered, sure glad you’re feeling validated by a few loosely interpretable comments on a crazy right-wing blog. Do you not have a job or something?
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
“Still not got over failing those exams I see?”
That the Educational Institute supports such anti human anti freedom of expression anti human legislation, in opposition to the HRC, is a disgrace. Any real educator (as opposed to the left’s indoctrinators) anyone who understood the value of ideas and information, would be totally opposed to this Chavez style legislation, especially when it is being pushed through by means of thuggery and abuse of process. What a disgrace that this crap is supported by teachers. They’re not teachers. They’re arse licking anti-democracy commie sycophants.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Address the issues Robinson. Labelling people never gets you anywhere.
back to the issue: So Tane if their money didn’t change your mind, find me the person whose mind it did change.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Someone forgot their meds this morning I see…
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Mattew:
Very few I imagine seeing as National and the Brethren were exposed for lying to the public and trying to rort the system. As your mate LeeC says, they were both ‘very naughty’ and were punished accordingly.
Had they not been exposed, who knows how many swing voters with only a passing interest in politics could have been influenced? Given the closeness of the election, that could have been decisive. Just because National and the Brethren got caught with their pants down in 2005 doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to stop it happening again.
And as I have said, there are plenty of other examples of wealthy third party interests tied up with the National Party who’d like to buy the election, such as the racing industry’s Fair Tax campaign last election or the Kyoto Forestry Association’s threat to mount a million dollar billboard campaign in 2008.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Of course I have a job
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
“Someone forgot their meds this morning I see…”
Wow.. real sharp…!!
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Yes dear thing.
Look do you really want to give me more ammunition today?
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Robinson, I’m a bloke. I can honestly state you have never had to subsidise me in New Zealand with your tax-dollars, as I worked for a very left-leaning private company here in NZ and taught people from a range of backgrounds about Health and Safety in the workplace.
AT present I am self-employed so I’m paying my own way to sit on kiwiblog. I am a capricorn, and enjoy photography as a leisure pursuit when I get the time. But I fail to see what this question from you has to do with the threat to my human rights presented by the EFB.
Anyway, good to talk, mate, catch you later maybe. Take care now.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
“Look do you really want to give me more ammunition today?’
All you’ve ever had is blanks, and even then, they’re mostly misfires.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Fair Tax and Kyoto Forest Association tied up with National? WTF? When did that happen and why wasn’t I told at the time?
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
“Had they not been exposed, who knows how many swing voters with only a passing interest in politics could have been influenced? Given the closeness of the election, that could have been decisive.”
And it’s wrong for anyone to change their minds (or not) based on the ideas presented to them? How would you respond if I said that to you?
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Just had a read of the HRC’s submission via DPF’s link. Para 10.2, as quoted, is only that start of the conclusion. Here’s the rest of it:
“10.3 If it is not withdrawn, the Bill requires substantial redrafting to ensure that it does not have a chilling effect on the right to freedom of expression during and in the run up to an election. The Commission suggests at the very least that:
• the present regulatory period is retained;
• the definition of “election advertisement” is reworded – and cl.5(1)(a)(iii) deleted -so it is more clearly focused on advertising relating to the election;
• greater thought is given to the implications of scheme regulating the position of third parties including the excessive restrictions on comment during the regulatory period, capped funding and what constitutes a third party; and
• the definition of a third party is amended to ensure that young people are not excluded from political debate.
10.4 The Commission does not underestimate the difficulty in balancing the need to protect the integrity of the political process by ensuring that some groups do not have an unfair financial advantage against genuine public participation. The Electoral Finance Bill achieves at least some of what it purports to do – for example, by requiring disclosure of election donations throughout the year of an election and addressing the implications of the decision in Peters v Clarkson.33 although the provisions relating to disclosure of donations to political parties should be strengthened to ensure the highest level of transparency.
10.5 The bill in its current form represents a dramatic assault on two fundamental human rights that New Zealanders cherish, freedom of expression and the right of informed citizens to participate in the election process. The proposed legislation lacks public authorisation and as a consequence will undermine the legitimacy of political processes. It requires radical change.”
For the Human Rights Commission to make a submission to a Select Committee that proposed legislation “represents a dramatic assault on two fundamental human rights that New Zealanders cherish, freedom of expression and the right of informed citizens to participate in the election process” is remarkable in itself. I wholly agree with the HRC’s assessemnt that the EFB “lacks public authorisation”. Labour and its support partners must think VERY carefully about allowing the Bill to proceed, even in an amended form.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Also a bit “unfortunate” that labours pledge card deliberate illegality and rort was not publicly uncovered until after the election. How convenient …. but then in the words of the Great Trotter himself:
“That was acceptable corruption”
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
But Lee – I’d imagine the company you worked for was in receipt of govt funding either directly or indirectly (that’s generally the way it works) but y’know if you feel you have clean hands good on you. I’m disappointed to hear you’re a bloke I was getting quite hot. You don’t… swing… do you?
[DPF: Robinson, you're becoming close to a troll again. I enjoy some of your humour but posts which incite disorder will get short shift]
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
“Will they alspo now try and smear the Human Rights Commission?”
The Human Rights Commission is as honest a authority as we have, so no. They attempt to launch attacks is every other which way possible, avoid addressing the core issue. A political party has presented legislation to censor speech, illegitimise opposition voices, ban publications and pervert democracy. They ask that we trust the same political party to make changes to the bill. Trust the state, trust the party, trust facism – not bloody likely.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
As it was unfortunate that National’s $10,000 overspend was uncovered after the election, as was the ‘misunderstanding’ over their broadcasting overspend when they ‘forgot’ to include GST. Have they even paid that back yet?
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
“Had they not been exposed, who knows how many swing voters with only a passing interest in politics could have been influenced? Given the closeness of the election, that could have been decisive. Just because National and the Brethren got caught with their pants down in 2005 doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to stop it happening again.”
This is my point, Tane. The EFB doesn’t address that issue.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
It really is a case of overlooking the rafter in your own eye to expose the splinter in someone elses
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Hello Left Trolls- good to see you all back behind your tax payer funded positions being very effective employees wasting valuable time clutching at straws.
The human rights report does fit very well with Zimbabwe.
The Electoral [MUGABE}Finance Bill is the best description of it and obviously HRC agree.
We must keep referring to it as it is odious to her to have the comparison.
So altogether now-
KILL THE BILL - THE ELECTORAL [MUGABE] FINANCE BILL.
This cartoon of the day from Stuff says it all.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/0a17216.html
Trolls this all she’ll do to you once you have been used as pawns in her ideological experiment.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
I have had dealings with the Human Rights Commission in the past and I have felt that they have been too constrained by their own internal politics to be truely objective.
I am re-assessing that conclusion. This is a wonderful submission and if it does not give Labour some pause, then this government should step down now, and elections be held as soon as possible.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Well it does restrict third parties from spending a million bucks and lying about who they are. The $60,000 limit is a bit too low in my opinion, but again, that’s what the select committee process is for.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
You appear to view this Bill as some kind of virile knight in shining armour, when in fact it is a maggot-ridden and decomposing …. dead thing. (if I may mix my metaphors). Or something.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
virile?
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Lee – that’s not funny and it’s not even an argument, I’m starting to go off you now…
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
This submission from the HRC must be like a wooden stake through the hearts of the vampires on the 9th floor. Shit how could their beloved HRC turn on them like this. If, and God forbid, the Liarbour scum are returned to govern. And I was part of the HRC I would start looking for a new job because there will be swift retribution.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
I thought ‘virile’ would tap intothe obvious hard-on some of you have for thiis Bill.
But will you respect it in the morning?
Robinson, you’re ‘going off me’?
Ooooh, call me a shrink,
I’m a broken man!
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Lee, you’re rambling.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Yeah Lee stay on thread.
DON’T FEED THE TROLLS
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
It’s getting close to lunchtime, can we resume in half an hour? I can get some sustenance in me and you can give that viagra some time to kick in. Let’s face it it is the only way you are going to keep any sort of arousal going for this nasty piece of legislation.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Yeah, I need a kebab. Why are there no kebabs down Lambton Quay?
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
ps sonic is hung like a pistachio
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Ask Robinson. He’ll tell ya.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
but again, that’s what the select committee process is for.
Select committee is the rubber stamping of approved changes as directed by the majority parties. The same majority parties who are attempting to pervert democracy with this bill.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Lee, your homophobic is repugnant. DPF, I’d like Lee censured for that.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
“Well it does restrict third parties from spending a million bucks and lying about who they are.”
Opinion received and noted. Proof to follow. In any case, I note that the majority of the electorate rejected their view. That, my friend, is democracy.
“The $60,000 limit is a bit too low in my opinion, but again, that’s what the select committee process is for.”
So let’s set the limit where the exchange of anyone’s ideas is not going to be curtailed.
Again, what is wrong with a voter changing or not changing her/his mind based on ideas presented to the electorate? If you believe Labour’s ideas are the right ones, then you’ll vote for them. Nothing anyone else can do to change your opinion once you’ve decided. In fact you already admitted that earlier in this thread. Likewise, if someone else believes a third party’s ideas, then they are entitled to change their minds. What is wrong with that?
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
david: Also a bit “unfortunate” that labours pledge card deliberate illegality and rort was not publicly uncovered until after the election. How convenient …. but then in the words of the Great Trotter himself:
“That was acceptable corruption”
The Chief Electoral Officer David Henry and the Electoral Commission were both made aware of this rort in September 2005 PRE – ELECTION. No action was taken
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
I meant “Homophobia”. My appeal for Lee to be censured still stand.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
I meant “stands”. Christ, I’ve been on this blog too long.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Again, what is wrong with a voter changing or not changing her/his mind based on ideas presented to the electorate?
Because as we know human beings are susceptible to advertising. That’s why people do it. When a narrow section of society have far more opportunity to put their ideas in the public arena and set the political agenda than others do then our democracy has a problem. Therefore we need a system whereby everyone is free to express their ideas fairly, without being drowned out by the slick and expensive marketing campaigns of the few who can afford them.
It’s a pretty basic argument that I’d have thought someone like yourself would understand.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
you won’t find many who will argue with that Robbo
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Robinson said “I’ve been on this blog too long.”
At last we agree!
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Robinson, The correct word is ‘homophobia’ (unless you are suggesting I have a homophobe locked up somewhere ready to unleash when I see fit) and I think it is you that is suggesting sonic should be be judged on what he does with his organ, not me.
I’m just putting it out there for everyone to discuss.
Besides, there are loads of times you might have seen it without having a sexual relationship:
a) wrestling
b) happened to glance at it in the showers after rugger
c) any other situation which involves ‘plausible deniability’ (ie, I was reading some papers and didn’t realise he had it out’)
Oh go on, censure me anyway, why wait for the EFB to pass?
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
“good to see you all back behind your tax payer funded positions”
Another recruit for the tin-foil hat brigade!
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Tane
So a well presented set of arguments that are so compelling that it causes someone to change their mind on an issue is a “slick marketing campaign. One would have thought that we should be encouraging the presentation of arguments and alternatives to the voting public. After all Burton has been bleating in the House for weeks that it should be a “contest of ideas”.
Pretty hard to have a contest if the ideas cannot be adequately presented.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Well David, that’s the balance you’ve got to strike, and that’s why I think a $60k limit is too low.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Lee – that wasn’t what you were implying and we all know it. Stop trying to wriggle out of it, admit you made a mistake and move on. Sheesh, you really can’t lie straight in bed you lot.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Yeah – lets push a bill through that prevents the Exclusive Bretheren from actually telling the truth about the Greens. For example, God forbid that people are alerted to the fact the the greens had a policy to introduce a comprehensive capital gains tax!
What the hell is wrong with highlighting bad or unpopular policy, like the Exclusive Bretheren did?
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
So the use of the term “slick” is totally subjective and out of place in a sensible argument on this topic?
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Robinson, try typing with both hands.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Well, the fact they spent up to a million bucks without telling anyone who they were had a lot to do with it. National’s decision to collude with the Brethren then lie to the public about it didn’t help. And the fact they spent a million bucks as a third party was pretty sketchy as well.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
“Because as we know human beings are susceptible to advertising.”
Oh, so it is wrong now to be exposed to new ideas, especially if they are presented well.
What you are now supporting is the reduction of ideas in the marketplace and thereby prevent voters from hearing them. Why should you be concerned that an idea that you don’t agree with is agreeable with another person. Isn’t it all about making your own mind up, or do you want people to be denied that right?
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
“Well David, that’s the balance you’ve got to strike, and that’s why I think a $60k limit is too low.”
Let’s set it at a limit that allows the free expression of ideas. After all, who was ever worried about the introduction of new ways of looking at issues of the day?
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Oh please, Matthew. You know very well the difference between fostering a marketplace of ideas and letting those with the most money and power drown out other voices and set the agenda to their liking through expensive advertising and PR campaigns. Are you seriously arguing for a complete removal of spending restrictions during election campaigns? Because that’s the logical conclusion of your argument.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
So, Tane, does your argument against third-parties funding campaigns come down to the fact that they didn’t say who they were? Well, this is already required in the electoral act – you don’t need this new EFB to prevent this. The EBs didn’t properly authorise their pamphlets, and suffered for it.
But what was wrong with their actual message (not that it received much debate over the election campaign). They set-out to point out bad policy from the Greens. DO you object to that?
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
“Well, the fact they spent up to a million bucks without telling anyone who they were had a lot to do with it.”
They did give their names. When I do a submission in my name, I give my name, not the fact that I am a member of an organisation, especially when I don’t have the right to make a public statement on behalf of the organisation without their say so.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
“The EBs didn’t properly authorise their pamphlets, and suffered for it.”
In what way?
They might have got some adverse comment in the media, but as they do not read newspapers or watch TV they would not even have known it happened!
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Well, lets see: They got denigrated by those lovely tolerant people that make up the treasury benches. Chinless scarf wearers? A Cult?
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Sorry – a “whacky cult”
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
pistachio
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
“The EBs didn’t properly authorise their pamphlets, and suffered for it.”
Neither did the Labour Party.
But Helen Simpson told Parliamentary Services to cough up “toot sweet”
Vote:when the Labour Party war chest was empty – “Mother Hubbard’s cupboard was bare”?
September 18th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
“Are you seriously arguing for a complete removal of spending restrictions during election campaigns? Because that’s the logical conclusion of your argument.”
So is it wrong to prevent new ideas coming into the marketplace? Really, I would support Labour getting as much funding from anywhere as I would anyone else. Specifically, if Labour were supported to the tune of NZ$100 billion, then I would have no problem with that if there were no restrictions on anyone else spendig their money.
Likewise, if third parties are limited to $60,000 then I have no problem with that if Labour Party is limited to the same, and the Government is limited to the same.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
What is this thread? A Three Billy Goats Gruff Conference or something.
The HRC of all things is pointing out that this “bill” is flawed. Wouldn’t that be nearly enough to sink it on its own? The terse wording in its submission reiterates how much of a blow to NZ citizens rights the EF(M)B will be – so why is the MSM not running this story on their front pages?!
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
So after this damning submission by the HRC, Sonic is still arguing in support of this travesty of a bill.
This submission noted more than once, that this bill infringes not only the right of people to express political opinions, but the right to receive information on political matters as well.
Surely Sonic, we should be allowed access to as much information to make as informed a decision as possible.
My question to you Sonic, is why do you support a bill that the HRC has come out so vehemently against?
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
What – gasp- actually use a newspaper to openly criticise the government?!!? Talk sense man? You’ll frighten the horses.
They are following Helen’s implicit directive that it is a ‘beltway’ issue because they are frightened to defy her.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
“Lee, your homophobic is repugnant. DPF, I’d like Lee censured for that.”
Vote:LMAO that from the vile little creep that came up with this
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/08/labour_vs_moore.html
September 18th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Given the screeching sisterhood that runs the HRC are all ‘best friends” of you know who they must be seeing the beginning of the end of the Socialists A few years ago they would have either remained silent or put in a submission full of waffle that didnt agree or disagree with the Bill. The fact that they have attacked the Bill front on means they are no longer frightened of upsetting the 9th floor as they know the end is nigh. Just love watching Socialists tear each other apart Such great soprt.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Don’t sweat it Bok, Roobinson’s just the kind of little toady that ‘runs to teacher’ when he’s up against it. That’s why he has a pic of Helen in thigh-length boots and a riding crop pasted up on his bedroom wall.
I mean ‘Robinson”
ROBINSON!! Come clean my shoes, and I want these sheets spotless before Latin Prep, or you are for a serious flogging!”
“Yes ma’am, thank you ma’am… Can I have another?”
That’s MAY you have another, you toady! Now get down and give me 800,000!”
“Yes Ma’am, sorry Ma’am..”
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Lee C: One can’t help but think that the above lurid fantasy says more about you than Robinson.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Jeez Bok, that’s so like pre-banned Robinson. I’ve moved on mate, grown up and all that. I do recall you calling me a “rapist” though, perhaps you’ve got a few issues to work through. Like why you’re so angry and concerned about people’s mothers…
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
erudite, pithy and on-topic as usual gnome.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Hey don’t sweat it Nome you are there too, as Helen’s ‘manservant’.
Little gnome, dressed in PVC bondage gear:
‘Boy! Fetch me the nipple-clamps…”
“Yis, your highness…” (scuttle scuttle)
‘Now, put them on on Robinson while he looks at my pic from the last election…” (scuttle, fumble)
“Quickly, now we haven’t muct t…”
“Oh shit, he’s soiled himself, ma’am.”
“Never mind, I’ll get Burton to clean it up later, ‘At The ‘Select Commitee’ Stage”
Heh”
“Hehe hehe eheh ”
Heheh Hehe ”
“Shut up Robinson!”
“Sorry Ma’am.”
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Lee, you’re rambling again.
ps. I ended up getting fish and chips instead of a kebab. Had to walk to Bond St though, which is always a hassle.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
This is better than watching sonic in little roger getting put in their place. Now we have a little vile molester (try carry on like he did, in a work place and see how quickly you end in litigation) “growing up” in a month. And wants to be taken seriously. He makes this place smell.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Yes, Tane, Viagra and a Kebab – dangerous combination…
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Sonic.
I await your answer. Why are you arguing in support of this bill? I look forward to a rational explanation.
or do you have to ask your rabbit first?
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
oh look at Bok the manly soudafrekin patriarch putting everyone in their place with his sanctimonious bullshit. Piss off Japie.
Anyway – the Bill can and will be fixed, and the proof will be in the pudding. i.e. I look foward the aftermath of the election when the only people who are complaininig about the Bill are National’s sugar daddies and their appologists.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
Bok – I don’t know what kind of a workplace you work in (actually I do – it’s definitely IT of some kind) but some people actually tolerate a few bad-taste jokes. As for calling me a molester? You’ve got an anger problem bro and I wouldn’t like to bee too close to you when you went off. Has your wife left you yet?
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
Helen Clarks answer to Q2 is akin to “everyone is wrong but me”
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
In Wanganui election signs are everywhere yet no one claims to be spending much!
Vote:http://wanganuigossip.blogspot.com even has a section for people to report sign stories!
September 18th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Lee: Seriously bro, you’ll have to try harder than that.
And Bok – what the fuck?
Seriously, you righties need to sort your shit out.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
No Tane, we need to vote your shit out.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
I wouldnt worry about Bok chaps, do you remember him confidentlly telling us all he had contacted a customer of my supposed employer to make sure they did not do business because of me?
Very impresive until he let slip he had totally the wrong company.
Bok, you seem unable to add anything other than polution to any debate. You are a nasty a piece of work as I have had the displeasure to encounter online.
Just leave to stew in his own filth Robinson, or laugh at him. Both are good.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Am I correct in thinking that our greatest and highly esteemed Constitutional Law Expert Sir Geoffrey Palmer, who donated $10,000 to the depleted Labour Party War Chest (Perhaps in breach ot the Electoral Act 1993?) is somehow guiding? this EF(M)B through the Select Committee process.
I have to wonder whether he read it? Anyone of his eminence in this field of law, would have been able to understand the ramifications of the bill and disassociated himself from any involvement.
Perhaps his involvement was somehow supposed to engender a sense of transparency and respectability?
In my view if his involvement is true, then as far as i am concerned his credibility is gone.
I hope my assumption is incorrect.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Roger, you’re back.
The question you didn’t answer has been answered for you. I see that your vote would not have changed to supporting the ideas the businessmen from the EB put forward.
That leaves me to conclude that you made up your own mind. Therefore I conclude that anyone else is also capable of making their mind up. Or do you want to deny somone else what you’re capable of doing yourself?
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Oh Sonic! You are there!!!
Could I have an answer to my earlier question?
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Yo Slightly – nobody here can even remember your question (what is it with all you righties and your delusions of significance? Is it perhaps that you need them to cling to your individualist politics?) Remind me to tell you the story of the house-slave and the field slave sometime…
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
When a narrow section of society have far more opportunity to put their ideas in the public arena and set the political agenda than others do then our democracy has a problem. Therefore we need a system whereby everyone is free to express their ideas fairly, without being drowned out by the slick and expensive marketing campaigns of the few who can afford them.
I’m glad you also agree that Labour shouldn’t be allowed to spend $15 million when everyone else can only scrape together a couple…
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Why are you arguing in support of this bill? I look forward to a rational explanation.
In the likely absence of a reply from sonic rationalisation is simply thus:
If the best people are in power* it is rational to protect society from unhelpful voices who spread infomation and ask disingeneous questions about those in power. The power of the state must be extended, because the state holds the best interests of the nation as one with the people. It is neccessary that the rulers hold on power is protected at all costs, because this is the right ruler to have.
For this rational reason the state must censure publication of literature, prevent an organised opposition from gathering and maintain the secrecy of the rulers funding arrangements. This EFB ticks every box.
Facism is rational as ‘rule by the best is the best type of rule’.
* The problem occurs if the best people are not in power. But it is hard to convince any “party faithful” that they are mistaken.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Robinson.
I am as significant as anyone else on this forum.
All I have done is ask a question. All you have done is avoid the argument by the use of a derogatory lable directed at me. Stop avoiding the argument and argue the issue. Why do you and others continue to support this bill, when even the HRC has come out so vehemently against this bill.
Answer the question. I am eager and willing to listen to a reasoned debate. Largely I find myself waiting in vain.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
SlightyRighty said:
“Surely Sonic, we should be allowed access to as much information to make as informed a decision as possible.
My question to you Sonic, is why do you support a bill that the HRC has come out so vehemently against?”
took me 15 seconds to find it.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Heh. In question time Steve Maharey just said the Bill would be amended to allow the Catholic Church to advertise next year, because they are supporting the type of policies promoted by Labour.
Can it get any clearer? Labour wants to ban advertising by opponents, and allow it from supporters.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Tane, I find it so ironic that you have managed to convince yourself that you are further to the left of the political spectrum than I am. In addition to that, you appear to hold that conviction as a justification for supporting any law no matter whose rights it treads on. I mean the HRC! Who are you going to refuse to listen to next – Amnesty International?
And as for ‘you’re going to have to do better than that’ ‘I remember sonic coming up with the same line one time, something along the lines of ‘Nice try, 3 out of 10, and that’s for effort.)
This is the kind of patronising BS that pervades the diatribes of the politically corrupt – perhaps I am guilty of ‘hyperbole’ here).
Why do I ‘need to do better’? are you suggesting there is some hidden nugget of truth, which once I get to it, will convince you that my viewpoint has any merit?
Which part of the HRC submission did you feel was unfair on your chosen view?
Do you get the impression they were paid by anonymous benefactors to say it?
Instead of rejecting the opinions of those you disagree with try to learn how to listen, and then you might gain their respect.
If you choose not to at least you can console yourslf with the idea that next year, any view which is anti-Labour will be censured, repressed and suppressed.
It’s the political equivalent of putting your hands over your ears and going ‘LALALALA”.
Saying it don’t make it so, and ignoring don’t mean it will go away. Grown ups know this, and you seem pretty grown up in most respects, so why do you still subscribe to the ‘Labour is Left’ fairy-tale?
Huh?.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Helen Clark’s interpretation of Public Consultation in the House a little while ago, is that The Select Committee process is just that? The Messiah has spoken! End of argument!
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
“You are a nasty a piece of work as I have had the displeasure to encounter online.”
Looks like I’ll have to try harder..
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Matty – Like most here I’m a political junky – I also have a first-class honours degree in political studies, so no amount of media saturation and subtle manipulation by public relations firms is likely to influence my vote much.
Unfortunately most people aren’t really very interested in NZ politics – most people would rather spend their leisure time relaxing and/or drinking than reading in depth political analysis – so they are much more susceptible to the arts of the pollsters – that’s why companies and political parties spend millions of dollars on employing them to promote a favourable public image. Are suggesting that political parties and businesses are wasting their time employing pollsters and PR companies? Are you suggesting that you know their business better than they do? If so, I suggest that you’re being just a bit stupid and a bit arrogant .
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Sorry Slighty, missed your question
Unfortunately it seems you missed me answering that very question 50 times already.
I have my problems with the bill, especially the cop out over anonymous donations. However I do hope it will be improved in select comittee. After all of the controversy over party funding at the last election no-one could say it is not something we can ignore.
However I have also said that I believe many on the National side are being deeply duplicitious, and are hoping to derail the whole issue until after the next election, so as to run another 3rd party funding scam.
Happy now?
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Your are just a muppet Ratbiter, a source of amusement really.
In fact you are one of the reasons I’m really looking forward to the next election.
Tee, hee.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Phillip John/Roger Nome
I see you’re still peddling (on multiple Kiwiblog threads) your conspiracies about election campaigns being bankrolled by those in right-wing circles.
A couple of questions for you:
(1) Do you have proof of a disparity in private election campaign funding across the left-wing and right-wing political divide?
(2) Do you have proof that those in right-wing circles can “purchase” an election?
It’s very hard to see how you can assert either of these propositions, since National was squeezed out on polling day.
And two more questions:
(3) Why don’t you get agitated about the well-heeled union influence? Their involvement in election campaigns is well-known.
(4) Do you accept that an incumbent government can influence elections? We’re talking here about Working for Families, interest-free student loans, lolly bribes etc.
Still want to peddle your conspiracies?
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
“Are suggesting that political parties and businesses are wasting their time employing pollsters and PR companies? Are you suggesting that you know their business better than they do? If so, I suggest that you’re being just a bit stupid and a bit arrogant.”
Roger, of course it’s obvious that they employ these organisations to promote their ideas because they don’t believe it is a waste of time. That was never my point.
But according to you it is wrong to “deny somone else what you’re capable of doing yourself?” Now that is a bit arrogant.
“so they are much more susceptible to the arts of the pollsters – that’s why companies and political parties spend millions of dollars on employing them to promote a favourable public image.”
And preventing the spread of free ideas will make them even more susceptible to the fewer ideas that are put forward.
I have no problem with limiting third party spending if the government limits itself to the same amount. Likewise, if the government places a very high spending limit on itself, then third parties (both those who support the governement and those who don’t) should have the same limit. Level playing field.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
“After all of the controversy over party funding at the last election”
Was that the one that Helen Klark stole by misappropriating public funds?
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
(3) Why don’t you get agitated about the well-heeled union influence? Their involvement in election campaigns is well-known.
I think you may have answered your own question.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Thank you sonic for your answer. At frikkin last.
The only hole in that argument is that if they simply roll over, it will ensure that the Labour Party can skim tax-cash to finance their depleted resources, and limit how much National spend to an unreasonable amount.
Yes, there are those in National who want to derail this process for a number of reasons. That’s called politics.
But, would you say that the Human Rights Commission’s views, and the Teacher’s Unions are typical National party advocates?
The point is, this Bill, which can be ‘cleaned up at the Select Committee stage’ is not justa any old piece of legislation. It has massive constitutional implications for our children actually.
It is time to stop tarring any one who argues against it as a reactionary or a National drone, etc. It’s not that simplistic.
This is an issue in which all people regardless of party affilliations should be united in getting sorted out. Most of those who have contributed to this blog are genuineley worried. Not partisan, worried.
Like I said to Tane (or inferred) it’s time to get off the soap-box and get real. If this law had been proposed by National, would you be so blase about the few issues that can be sorted out at select committee stage, or would you want to seriously expose it.
A whole generation duped by the Labour branding exercise. There used to be a saying in Yorkshire England, ‘If you stuck a red flag on a pig, people would vote for it.” I never really liked the idea, but am beginning to see the truth in it.
Get past the Labour branding and see corruption for what it is. Take off the blinkers, use your brain. It’s for the kind of political constituion you want your kids to grow up in…
…..You appear very good at detecting corruption when it supports a different view to your own, why are you so blind to it when it comes from the Labour Party?
As far as I am concerned this lot of deadbeats are a complete sell-out. Shameful negation of the socialist ideal. Pathetic, power-blinded elite. Vanguard of the proletariat – my arse!
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
“Tee, hee.”
That’s rabbit-speak right?
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
ps you are hung like a pistachio
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
POC
(1) – Plenty. In fact I’ve calculated that National had around twice the funding of Labour during the last election campaign.
(2) – Only idiots think that the amount of money behind a marketing campaign is irrelevant.
(3) – Plenty of righties here to do that – I merely try to provide some much needed balance.
(4) – Absolutely – govt funding behind the promotion of obviously election focussed issues should be capped during the “restricted period” (I’ve said this before here).
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
POC – I can tell you I have evidence of the disparity you’re talking about but I am not about to release it on KiwiBlog. As for proof they “can” purchase an election? No. But proof they have tried and are continuing to. Yes. Again not for release on KiwiBlog (wait ’til a couple of weeks before election day mate.)
And “well heeled union influence”? You’re showing how little you know about the game there bro but yes a govt can influence an election but “I’m voting for the government that has helped me feed my family” (for example) is a lot different from “I’m voting against a government a multi-million dollar campaign outside of the funding rules has told me is corrupt”. No?
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Roger:
“(4) – Absolutely – govt funding behind the promotion of obviously election focussed issues should be capped during the “restricted period” (I’ve said this before here).”
Good, we’re agreed. Shall we limit their spending to $60,000, or shall we raise the third party spending limit to the Governments limit?
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Lee, hopefully those issues can be dealt with, and I would hope there would be a cross-party desire to fix it before the next election.
Oh and nice try to appear reasonable, pity you couldn’t keep it up and ended up souding like our muppet chum.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
I must say I’m really proud of how Lee and Baiter are coming along. I mean “hung like a pistachio” and “that’s rabbit speak” – classic Trolling. If I knew who you were I’d invite you round for a beer. Seriously.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Obviously those nipple-clamps aren’t on tight enough, Robinson
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Fuck Lee you’re getting me hot! Are you sure you’re a guy?
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
And sonic, there you go again thinking I give a shit what you think, you guys are like little yo-boys, pretending to be ‘left-wing’ gangstas, when in fact you live in nice suburban houses and hold down nice jobs, while the poor suckers in the unions work every hour God sends to keep your little oligarchy in power.
Who is trying to sound reasonable, is your ego so inflated that when I talk common sense it is some kind of plea for you to come to yor senses? You gotta have some sense in the first place.
Now get back to your cushy little job Mr ‘socialist-lite’.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Phillip John/Roger Nome
Thanks for your answers. Just to advance the debate further:
“(1) Plenty. In fact I’ve calculated that National had around twice the funding of Labour during the last election campaign.”
Could you explain your basis for calculation and quantify this? And are we talking here about the private funding component?
“(2) Only idiots think that the amount of money behind a marketing campaign is irrelevant.”
A qualified yes from me. A marketing campaign is only effective if it “sets the agenda”. National’s campaign at the last election was widely seen as more effective than Labour’s. But (hence the qualifed yes) I think you over simplify matters. The Maori Party could spend as much as they like, hypothetically, and I wouldn’t be influenced by their campaign. Why? Because I fundamentally disagree with much of their policy portfolio. So it’s not the amount of money that matters – the target audience has to be receptive to the message.
We’ll skip over (3).
“(4) Absolutely – govt funding behind the promotion of obviously election focussed issues should be capped during the “restricted period” (I’ve said this before here).”
So what happens if Labour push their “messages” in televised election debates? You’d presumably see that as acceptable (the TV network effectively funds the “message” – not the political party). Peter Dunne tamed the worm with his bleatings about common sense. Do you agree that left-wing parties can easily tame the worm (the general public with, as you say, a limited attention span for politics) with “taxpayer-friendly” policies – more money in your pockets?
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
“And sonic, there you go again thinking I give a shit what you think”
Sorry, I got confused by you asking me what I thought.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Robinson:
You claim to have evidence of a disparity in private election campaign funding. Are you working off public filings? If so, how do you account for anonymous trust donations?
And you invite us to wait until a couple of weeks before election day. But do you remember what happened at the last election? You know, that “filthy rich” foreigner who showed his love and affection for Labour?
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Copy of letter to Secretary General United Nations
Greetings Secretary General
I have attached a copy of the Electoral Finance Bill currently before the New Zealand Parliament and a submission from the New Zealand Human Rights Commission a government agency.
I am sure you will be interested to note that the Bill is being promoted by a government lead by The Right Honourable Helen Clark Prime Minister of New Zealand.
Your officals will also note that the Bill proposes to breach a number of provisions of international Human Rights agreements and accords including those of your organisation.
I would respectfully suggest that you consider undertaking an appropriate investigation of this matter to detemine whether the current New Zealand government should be subject to United Nations sanction on the ground that it proposes to breach the rights of its citizens and further whether New Zealand should be accorded a place at the United Nations whilst its government seeks to undermine international human rights.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Brilliant!
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
heh Frank I know the wording wasnt up to your standard but what do you reckon. That little Sth Korean fella will have a laugh when he finds out Helen the defender of all freedoms is just a 2 faced bitch
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Frank can I be that immodest and think that your post was directed at me
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
The message is understandable in anybody’s language
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Yes, but you neatly refused to answer that question (as usual) instead you decided to award me some kind of mark for my effort like this is ‘popstars’ or something. Which one are you, are you the nasty one, the soft one or the eye-candy?
As ususal you want to have your cake and eat it, want the moral high ground, but can’t actually stay on it because you constantly disqualify yourself.
Actually I wanted to amend that to ” … actually give a shit what you think of me…” so apologies for the confusion.
It is however major step forward in my opinion of you that you admit to confusion about anything. Usually it all seems so cut and dried. Is that a rogue thought entring your pantheon? (ps You don’t need to care what I think of you.)
Uh uh next thing you know you’ll be voting National. Never forget that Hitler started out as a socialist…..
That should be tatooed on everyones’ arse.
except mine, cos I said it first.
socialist lite – ‘half the calories twice the bubbles.’
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
gd said “That little Sth Korean fella will have a laugh when he finds out Helen the defender of all freedoms is just a 2 faced bitch”
Not to mention how impressed the NORTH Koreans will be! Hell, they might even ask Winston for some tips on how to screw the populace when he visits them!
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
(2) – Only idiots think that the amount of money behind a marketing campaign is irrelevant.
Yes, but only a facist could believe that the state (or the statist parties) need uncontested marketing access. This bill illegitimises dissent from state propoganda.
4) Absolutely – govt funding behind the promotion of obviously election focussed issues should be capped during the “restricted period” (I’ve said this before here).
Obvious to whom? Only an idiot could suggest that limitations to free speech become acceptable if the government “promises” not to promote itself. That displays a level of empowerment of government over infomation that is unacceptable in any democracy.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
gd: You have shown the Wisdom of a Solomon. 10 out of 10 for action in words and deed! You will be in line for New Year’s Honours from a grateful nation.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
“Sorry, I got confused by you asking me what I thought.”
..and he was right. What you think aint’ worth shit…
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
GD
I agree with Frank.. Brilliant
It would put the cat among the pidgeons for Helens UN aspirations
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
After the verbal beating I took when DPF was tarred with my rantings and ravings on national TV I am pleased to atone (at least to the Right sort of people)
Roger and Sonic I take it will you both be writing letters to the Sec Gen in defence of your beloved Leader.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
well done gd. please follow through and do it. And make sure it is highly publicised.
Its a bit like the retrospective repeal of the retrospective validation legislation as suggested by burt. Play the system against itself – it exposes its ridiculosity
I got my fingers crossed.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
This really is a bitter peice of legislation.
Another question to Robinson, or Sonic, or Roger.
Mark Burton has stated that the purpose of this legislation is to restrict politiacl debate to “legitimate parties”.
Given that we have had universal sufferage for longer than any other country, and that our bill of rights enshrines Freedom of Association, could any of you define what would be an “illegimate party” in the context of this bill?
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
Has anyone else read the “script” for the new 0800 health line that was brought up by John Key at questiontime today?
Here it is guys and girls
http://www.national.org.nz/files/__0_0_Ryall_PHC_Comms_campaign_QAs.pdf
If this is not thinly disguised taxpayer funded electioneering, I don’t what what else to call it.
This is the sort of conduct that this bill will allow while dissenting opinion is reduced to a whisper.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
It’s interesting that Roger Nome has suddenly gone quiet. He normally has a lot to say for himself. Where could he be? He usually tells us when he’s off to bonk his girlfriend.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Haven’t the trolls had a field day today.
Vote:What a joy it is to take a break from one’s labours and peruse this blog and read the deep, meaningful comments from the usual gang of bludgers.
It truly is wonderful to revel in the witty repartee from sonic as well as to revel in robinson’s saucy bandinage.
I only hope your employers got as much out of the time you people have spent on here as we all did.
My view, is that you guys are only here to take the piss. No one seriously believes that you morons take your orders from the ninth floor though it’s hard not to come to the conclusion that to be doing so would be part of your wildest wettest dreams. Perhaps you see yourselves as valiant defenders of the left, blogging away bravely in the face of the assualt from the conservatives, all the while ready to hit the alt tab keys so the boss doesn’t catch you out. Why anyone takes you, or anything you say, seriously is beyond me,but keep it up anyway boyznberries, the entertainment value is huge
G
September 18th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Grant has prompted me to categorise the trolls – and to raise some random questions:
Is Phillip John/Roger Nome a Wild Green or just your average Green-leaning Marxist?
Why did Sonic speak about Scottish socialism at the last bloggers drinks?
Redbaiter professes to be a libertarian of the nth degree – but why does Redbaiter refuse to recognise Andrew W as a libertarian?
Why do Tane and Robinson share the same IP address – and consistently share Labour messages with us?
And let us not speak of D4J…
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
And what might POC be?
God knows – has anyone ever seen him/her profess a political view? BTW You’re way off the mark there POC – I’m a Liberal Social Democrat – but keep on with your conspiracy theories, they’re very entertaining.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Phillip John/Roger Nome:
I see you’ve gone back to your hostile roots.
Liberal Social Democrat?
You’re liberal? Well, I suppose you support pork-barrel politics from Labour when it suits you.
And you’re a social democrat? How can you be a democrat of any description? If you had your way, we’d be ensnared with red-tape, restrictions on free speech, not to mention limits on campaign spends.
Is “Liberal Social Democrat” a buzzword taken from that first class honours degree in political science that you keep telling us about?
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
You seem to be confused POC – is it really that hard to understand what the word liberal Social Democrat mean?
” you had your way, we’d be ensnared with red-tape, restrictions on free speech, not to mention limits on campaign spends.”
At least you’re living up to your name. Are there any other conspiricy theories you’ve dreamed up of late? Do tell please. I’m dying to hear them …..
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Phillip John/Roger Nome:
This is a conspiracy-free zone. We’re dealing in facts – Wikipedia isn’t going to help you out here.
I happen to see the Electoral Finance Bill as a direct attack on democracy. That you support it, albeit in a modified form, shows that you support red-tape (reporting requirements), restrictions on free speech (you’ve advocated this), and limits on campaign spends (again, you’ve advocated this). And you claim to be a social democrat? The very fact that the EFB is a direct affront to democracy, and you can’t see this, suggests that you need to read more academic texts.
Disagree? Then why not take up the New Zealand Law Journal’s challenge of finding how the EFB advances its purported purposes? I hear Bernard Robertson was offering a prize – so it could be worth your effort.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
You still don’t get it do you? It’s all in your head POC – knock, knock – is there anyone in your wild conspiracy advancing head home? I’ve said on many occasions that there are many aspects of this bill that I disagree with. Yet you continue to dream up these rather silly conspiracy theories.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Are you sure that wasn’t Domestic Science Roger?
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
Oh and Phillip John/Roger Nome:
How are you getting on with my 3.18 pm post? Any chance of you responding before your girlfriend arrives? Judging by your pattern of “rapido exodus” in the past few days, she seems to have an uncanny ability to get you out of sticky situations.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Not good enough.
“I’ve said on many occasions that there are many aspects of this bill that I disagree with. Yet you continue to dream up these rather silly conspiracy theories.”
Read my post again. My exact words were “you support [the Electoral Finance Bill], albeit in a modified form”. Do you favour a new purpose clause for the Bill that doesn’t talk about promoting democratic participation? Or are you going to take up the NZLJ challenge, and show us how the existing purpose clause is served by the many aspects of the Bill that you DO agree with?
On this assignment you get a C-.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
You are rather thick aren’t you POC? I’ve told you that the bill needs to be modified – it’s not desirable in its current form. Let’s start with you telling my how the a bill, with the alterations I have advanced, will be a piece of marxist legislation. Common idiot – I’m waiting, and I’m losing my patiance …..
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Phillip John/Roger Nome:
“You are rather thick aren’t you POC? I’ve told you that the bill needs to be modified – it’s not desirable in its current form. Let’s start with you telling my how the a bill, with the alterations I have advanced, will be a piece of Marxist legislation. Common idiot – I’m waiting, and I’m losing my patiance …..”
I’ll pass over your misspelling of “patience”. Well done. Once again, you attack others based on your perception of their intellectual ability. All too often, you’ve labelled other posters as thick, idiotic, stupid, moronic, or (insert other Wikipedia references here). I’ll have you know that I have TWO first class honours degrees. And I earn more money in a year (though not in the “filthy rich” category) than you’ll earn in 3 years as the “highly-paid academic” you aspire to be.
I have a better suggestion. Let’s start with you telling me, in a complete list, how YOU would modify the bill. And, given that your list is likely to be extensive, why do you think the bill should be rammed through in its existing form before year-end (as is rumoured to be the case)? Wouldn’t democracy be promoted by – ahem – allowing more considered comment/submissions on a redraft?
And where have I said it will be a piece of Marxist legislation? This is at least twice now that you’ve quoted/paraphrased me incorrectly. Your academic standards appear to be slipping.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
Well – I do have better things to do than sit here and tear apart you woeful arguments POC. No doubt you’ll be sitting here all night trying to tease someting out of that stunted brain of yours. adious.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
I don’t think the Bill needs to be modified, so much as thrown out altogether and rewritten after the right kind of public consultation and cross-party consultation.
Some might accuse me of trying to stop the Bill so that National can buy the next election, but that is a silly argument formulated by those who have realised that Labour is broke because it had to repay the 800,000 it overspent at the last election.
I suspect that all this talk of ‘the bill needs to be modified at the select committee’ is just a tactic to get it through and to sneak through a ratifiation of the retrospective election-spending Act. It sounds very reasonable though soesn’t it?
“If we could all just sit down together, I am sure we can sort this out over a cup of tea.” But wait, Haven’t the Labour Party indicated that they have litttle intention of seriously changing the main intentions of the Bill?
Why, because its passing would get them out of the financial shit they got themselves into at the last election. They are broke. They tried the public-funding of election ploy and it got thrown out, so in a act of spite and desperation, they have decided to foist this shallow attempt to further rob the public coffers for their election cash on the tax-payer.
Of course they left the ‘secret-donations’ bit in, it enables them to use parallel union funding to finance their election, because if they had to rely on Party subscriptions, they would be screwed, given that peopl are abandoning them in droves.
Just bear that in mind when you hear the words,’It just needs a bit of alteration at Select Committee.”
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
What a joke you are – you’re running away?
You mention something about a “stunted brain” – yet another personal attack based on intellect. How many first class honours degrees do I have again?
You can’t “tear apart” my “woeful arguments”. Why? For a start, you can’t even quote me correctly. Let alone address simple questions put to you. I’ll leave others to judge your performance for themselves, but in my assessment, your grade should be revised down to a D-.
Vote:September 18th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
Lest we forget: “New Zealand Law Journal: This bill is fundamentally obnoxious and should be scrapped. It will penalise private citizens who have the temerity to interfere in politics, while doing nothing to deal with the major electoral funding issue we face: the misuse of taxpayers’ money on a huge scale to ensure the re-election of the incumbent Government.”
Miss Clark has said changes will be made during the select committee process?
What we have to remember is that this “obnoxious” piece of proposed legislation was dreamed up by Helen Clark with the obvious intention of ramming it down our throats!
Remember also that this proposed “obnoxious” piece of proposed legislation was knocked into shape by the Law Drafting Office of Parliament. The drafters are a disgrace to their profession. They are worse than a firm of Artichects proposing draft amendments allowing more departures from the building code, thus ensueing more leaky buildings.
Vote:September 19th, 2007 at 10:23 am
“Redbaiter professes to be a libertarian of the nth degree”
Sorry. I have never “professed” this. Please do not misrepresent me. As for Andrew W, I regard him as a preaching narcissistic attention seeking infant with immature political perceptions, and also a cowardly liar who frequently deliberately misrepresents me. I don’t care what he may “profess’ to be, I’m just not interested.
Vote: