Law Society says Kill the Bill
September 27th, 2007 at 4:35 pm by David FarrarThis is almost unprecedented.
The Law Society puts in a submission on most bills before Parliament. But almost without exception they provide constructive suggestions as to how to improve the Bill. But in their own words:
“It’s very rare for the society to come to the view that a bill is bad and should not proceed further. But the Electoral Finance Bill is one such bill,”
They state:
“The rules regarding registration, disclosure, spending limits and related offences are so complex, vague and uncertain as to make participation in our parliamentary democracy a difficult undertaking for ordinary New Zealanders.
“The effect in our view will be to stifle debate on important issues at election time which is precisely when debate should be encouraged,”
Both the Human Rights Commission and the Law Society have said the Bill is so flawed that it should not proceed. If Labour, Greens, NZ First and United Future insist on pressing ahead, despite this, they should be made to suffer the consequences.
Related posts:
- Quotes from Law Society Submission on Electoral Finance Bill
- The Electoral Finance Bill and the Bill of Rights
- Institute of Chartered Accountants says Kill the Bill
- The battle against the Electoral Finance Bill goes legal
September 27th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Helen has waved away the Human Rights Commission. Presumably the Law Society doesn’t know what it is talking about. Both these organisations cannot understand the danger of the EB arising again or something similar.
Helen’s paranoia over any opposition is causing her to push this bill against all commonsense and against the opinion of people capable of understanding it and it’s implications.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Just heard Barry Soper talking to Larry Williams in NewstalkZB – not only was the Law Society against the Bill, but Andrew Little from EPMU was advocating a relaxtion of the spending limits, and the PSA wasn’t exactly fullsome in its praise! When your friends don’t like your proposed legislation, who needs enemies!
Soper also talked about the latest rumour doing the rounds – that the Government sent its officials away to come up with proposals, and they put together the most extreme they could, as a bit of a wind-up. Cabinet then, to everyone’s amazement, approved the wind-up!!
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
“If Labour, Greens, NZ First and United Future insist on pressing ahead, despite this, they should be made to suffer the consequences”.
Under MMP, Representative Democracy, and Party Lists that allow electorally rejected MP’s back into the big house – I am struggling to see what consequences these would be?
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
david, i spoke with a chap outside the SC today. he claimed to have read 500 of the submissions of which 85% are either requested that the bill be competely withdrawn or substantially modified and/or be open to a full public consultation process.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
For God’s sake, I wish everyone would stop harping on about this Bill. It’s fine. Anyone who criticises it is obviously doing so because it will stop National stealing the election. Sonic told me so.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Their oral submission was actually quite supportive of the EFB. A few tweeks here, and a few tweeks there. They started out by saying that their organisation was not affiliated with any political party and does not donate to any political party.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Can you elaborate on your dark and ominous… consequences?
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
Thank God for once the Law Society has stood up and shown a back bone It usually is so scared of offending that it just approves everything and anything.
Time and again it has touched its forelock to various Gumints when it should have been in boots and all defending freedoms.
Makes a change.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Seamonkey Madness: DBP asked what I though of the collusion between National, the Racing Industry Board and the EBs in an attempt to unduly influence the last election. I responded that I knew nothing of the RIB (and that that was mischievous speculation in any case) but that the members of the EB did not purport to represent their denomination, they were acting on their own initiative and were completely entitled to spend their money promoting their views, however ‘wrong’ others might feel those views were. I said that this was their democratic right and one that I want to see perpetuated for all NZ’ers.
He also asked my view on spending limits for political parties at about the time the chair suggested that I should wrap up. I responded that Labour didn’t set a particular high standard in term of spending limit adherence but I’d support some kind of limit depending on how it was measured.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Andrew Little from EPMU was advocating a relaxtion of the spending limits… When your friends don’t like your proposed legislation, who needs enemies!
Hardly, my friend. Read the EPMU’s press release:
“Our position on the Electoral Finance Bill is clear. When we have economic inequalities in our society that allow the very wealthy to spend large amounts of money to influence an election then it is entirely justified and appropriate for Parliament to pass a law to mitigate that imbalance.
“Subject to refinements, we strongly support this legislation being passed.”
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0709/S00377.htm
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
I presented via POTS hookup to the SC today. Three points:
1 – no widespread process etc
2 – drift-net wide definitions but narrow opportunity for ordinary citizens to participate.
3 – pointed to the fact that possessing a centralised ‘list of third parties’ or ‘list of Enemies of the State’ has historically not been a great idea. Making a list, checking it twice, seeing who is naughty and seeing who is nice – meant to sing it to them but wimped out. And it generally isn’t Santa Claus who comes a’knocking…
DBP tried the same question on me – what about trying to stop people buying an election. My reply – a plague on both your houses, and that I understood anyway that the Bill let the big fish through the net anyway, and caught only the tiddlers. Need a new net, just not this one.
And a couple of patsy questions from Nat members, but I was happy to let them grandstand so agreed with them.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
good on the law society. I hope labour doesn’t pass the EFB. If they do they deserve to loose big next election. AI don’t think labour will dump the EFB, because the real reason for it is to help it get re-elected by silencing criticism.
Also, if you like Labour, feel glad you don’t live in a country where the government will:
Vote:1) Steal $800 000 of taxpayers money for itself.
2) Use the stolen money for its election campaign, and not include it in its spending limit, so it can have an unfair advantage over other party’s.
3) Once re-elected, pass retrospective legislation to legalise all its illegal activities.
4) refuse to repay the stolen money until public pressure forces them to do so.
5) When your unpopular due to the 4 points above, try and win the next election by banning people from spending more than $60 000 crticising you.
September 27th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Tane – Soper quoted Andrew Little as saying that the spending cap $60k was too small, and should be doubled – I would define that as a relaxation of the spending limits – would you?
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Oh yeah, said that, it’s in the release. All I’m saying is it’s hardly damning of Labour, as you suggested, to recommend changes to a bill you ‘strongly support’ in principle. That kind of thing is exactly what the select committee process is for.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
I’m sure most NZers would put Mr Little in the 15% who reportedly stop short of damming the bill. No news there.
What gobsmacks me is the diversity of opposition to it. I mean… cannabis reform group, family value group, unions, churches, mums and dads, etc etc
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
I’m looking forward to it passing. Then maybe we can stop all advertising of everything just by getting some politician somewhere to talk about it.
Maybe we could get DBP to talk about fresh-up and put a halt to those really annoying ads…
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
“What gobsmacks me is the diversity of opposition to it. I mean… cannabis reform group, family value group, unions, churches, mums and dads, etc etc”
The reason for the diversity is that if it passes, all of us will loose our right to free speech.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Dr Muriel Newman New Zealand Centre for Political Research
gave her oral submission today.
Her on-line petition to oppose the government’s Electoral Finance Bill gained nearly 4,500 signatures.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Tane
I’m still struggling to get an answer from anybody who thinks Labour are doing the right thing with the EFB to this question – perhaps you can help.
Labour after being caught dipping into the tax payers pockets to the tune of $800,000 said that there was nothing undemocratic about the spending because the additional money didn’t effect the outcome of the election. Therefore how can Labour say that we need to limit spending in the interest of democracy?
Is this just typical lefty speak: It’s OK when Labour do it but it’s wrong for all other parties?
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
‘If it passes’…
Will it be necessary for Labour’s survival as the majority party for this Bill to pass, because the alternative might be a successful bid to declare ‘No Confidence’ in the Government?
Can the Green, NZ First United Future party (forget Winston, he is just a poodle) really hold any claim to political or ethical credibility if they continue to support this Bill?
Is their alternative to reject their confidence and supply agreemtn, rather than commit political suicide?
In constitutional terms, are there any other recourses for an opposition to htis Billl becoming Law, or is the present system just a handshake away from being a benign dictatorship?
Have the Maori party understood the implications of this or will hikoi be excempt on cultural grounds during an election year?
Fro example, in law, since a successful prosecution for unlawfully discharging a firearm last year, now, all Marae are deemed ‘public spaces’ – how will the EFB affect gatherings to discuss proposed measures that affect Maori? Will they be illlegal unless they meet the standards required of the EFB?
Or no longer open to debate if an MP has pronounced upon them?
Is this situation looking like the issue that might break the present government?
If it isn’t, it should be..
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Nicholas O’Kane “all of us will loose our right to free speech”.speech.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
Hell Tane, you may as well push shit up hill with a sharp stick, you on to a hiding for nothing. This bill is plain wrong and looks like a dogs dinner. Always remember Dear Leader talking about democracy being the bedrock of society, it’s right when they call her the beast, she’s got the fork tongue to prove it. Liarbours position in the polls would probably gain a few points if the bill went through the shredder. They are throwing away what little honour they once had.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Lee C asks:
The minor parties wouldn’t have to reject their confidence and supply agreements in order to oppose the Bill. They could simply say “withdraw the Bill and we’re happy to keep supporting you as per our agreements”. It’s not an issue of supply and it’ll only be an issue of confidence if Labour makes it such.
If the Greens, UF and NZF had shown any spine and started indicating an intention to oppose passage of the Bill, Clark would have had two options – withdraw it or try and bluff them by making it an issue of confidence: effectively saying “If this Bill doesn’t pass, we’ll take that as a vote of no confidence in this government and I’ll thus dissolve Parliament and ask the GG to call an election”.
In other words, they’d create a win/win situation for democracy but derail their own gravy train. So the chances of that happening are as likely as DBP publishing an autobiograhy that wasn’t shredded by the Indecent Publications Tribunal.
With no real opposition from her lapdogs, Clark is far too wily to make this a confidence issue.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
So, Rex, in plain language – the parliamentary system of New Zealand is perfectly geared to creating a tax-payer-funded trough for a bunch of spineless, gravy-sucking pigs.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Spineless retrospectively validated gravy-sucking pigs.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
So, essentially this can become law with no major impediments The other parties – do they have the numbers to scotch it?
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Lee C – If more MPs support the Bill than don’t then it becomes law. That’s kind of the way parliamentary democracy works.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Dead Duck Dux
Last time I asked you the question I asked of Tane a little while ago you didn’t answer, perhaps you can now?
Labour after being caught dipping into the tax payers pockets to the tune of $800,000 said that there was nothing undemocratic about the spending because the additional money didn’t effect the outcome of the election. Therefore how can Labour say that we need to limit spending in the interest of democracy?
Is this just typical lefty speak: It’s OK when Labour do it but it’s wrong for all other parties?
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
You’re on to it Burt – fine for Labour to rip off the taxpayer to the tune of $800k – not fine for seven private citizens to spend $600k of their own money. Does anyone else see the double standard?
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
Burt – I think Labour was wrong to spend taxpayers money on its campaigning. In fact, I think it is wrong for ANY political party to misuse it’s parliamentary funding in this way. I’ve seen National, Labour and New Zealand First misuse its parliamentary funding in this way. I am sure others have too. I just haven’t witnessed it first hand.
DPF might not want to tell you about all the trips National ministers needed to urgently make in the lead up to previous elections but I could. I am not particularly picking on National ministers or MPs – because they all do it. Haven’t you noticed how MPs suddenly become very interested in their electorates about a year out from an election. Suddenly you start getting sent little newsletters and other taxpayer-funded crap. They all do it. Labour just did it excessively and brazenly. I think they were completely wrong. I also think all the others are wrong too.
As I’ve pointed out before, I think the EFB is an abortion.
Don’t be so partisan on this crap. Politicians are politicians. The only thing you can rely on them to do is whatever is expedient and self-serving. Right, left, centre or Green – they’re all as bad as each other.
Does that answer your question?
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
I think DBP has a point. If people try to buy an election they should put put into manacles and given a good whipping.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
To continue to fly this piece of crapola in the face of the majority of NZer’s (apparently) is arrogance in the extreme.
Such arrogance has not been since ,since…well since the sect59 debate! That long ago. wow.
The government cares not one rats arse what the public, business or community groups thinks. They are just proving that point again.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
The majority of MP’s voted for the Budgets of Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson, and for the welfare and superannuation cuts. New Zealander’s felt betrayed (although I don’t think Ruth Richardson ever hid anything). As a result, we got MMP.
If MMP can’t stop the disgusting attack on free speech and the political process represented by the Electoral Finance Bill, then we should give it the flick too. What good is MMP if it fails to safeguard our democracy. We might as well move straight to a one party state.
Actually, a one party state has real merits. Think of all the money we would save, which could then be spent on cheaper GP visits !
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
krazykiwi Says:
September 27th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
and the PSA wasn’t exactly fullsome in its praise
Their oral submission was actually quite supportive of the EFB. A few tweeks here, and a few tweeks there. They started out by saying that their organisation was not affiliated with any political party and does not donate to any political party.
Vote:Dispel any notion you have that the PSA isn’t linked with Labour. They are through the public service partnership agreement and collective agreements that give extra payments to union members
September 27th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Lee C Says:
September 27th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
‘If it passes’…
Will it be necessary for Labour’s survival as the majority party for this Bill to pass, because the alternative might be a successful bid to declare ‘No Confidence’ in the Government?
Can the Green, NZ First United Future party (forget Winston, he is just a poodle) really hold any claim to political or ethical credibility if they continue to support this Bill?
Its immaterial to what this bill is intended to achieve which is to get Labour re elected. Labour needs these parties to help them get in a fourth term of office and has bought them off for support
Yes we have said that many a time but such is the moral corruption of the MMP system that minor parties can be bought off like this
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
# Lee C Says:
September 27th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
So, Rex, in plain language – the parliamentary system of New Zealand is perfectly geared to creating a tax-payer-funded trough for a bunch of spineless, gravy-sucking pigs.
Yes that is the electoral system called MMP
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
DDD
Yes. Thank you.
Where we seem to differ is that I don’t think the fact they were all caught justifies all of them getting away with it. Perhaps next time there is a riot and looting situation people caught will be let off because others were also doing it too. If that happened I might also agree that ‘letting themselves off’ wasn’t an abuse of power.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Swampy
Agree 100%. MMP is a crock.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Sorry David, but isn’t United Future AGAINST the bill? Peter Dunne in the past has said that constitutional changes including major changes to the electoral laws should go through a proper process of public consultation, and has spoken AGAINST ramming important laws through in the way that is being done with the EFB. Unless Peter Dunne has undergone a remarkable change in his political views, I would expect he’d be strongly against EFB.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
At the risk of attracting your ire I feel I should point out the fact that very few people care about the EFB. In fact outside of political circles – I include Kiwiblog in this – I’d be surprised if one in one hundred people stopped on the street could tell you what “EFB” stood for. I agree that it is a travesty but so is the idea of government full stop. I would suggest politely that if you don’t like this bill you do something about it in the real world rather than just complaining about it to each other on Kiwiblog. And I don’t mean select committee submissions because they only validate the sorry process that has got us here in the first place.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
greenjacket – here it is from the Journal of the House for Thursday 26 July 2007:
“4. Government orders of the day
Electoral Finance Bill
Hon Mark Burton moved, and the question was proposed, That the Electoral Finance Bill be now read a first time.
On the question, That the bill be now read a first time, the votes were recorded as follows:
Ayes 65 New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1
Noes 54 New Zealand National 48; Māori Party 4; Independent: Copeland; Independent: Field
The bill was read a first time and stood referred to a select committee”
And for anyone who doesn’t have anything better to do tonight, or for those suffering from insomnia, here’s the Hansard for the First Reading debate.
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/Debates/b/d/2/48HansD_20070726_00000789-Electoral-Finance-Bill-First-Reading.htm
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
More for you greenjacket – here’s the opening paragraph of Dunne’s first reading speech:
“Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) : United Future will support the introduction of the Electoral Finance Bill and its reference to a select committee, because it thinks there are, at the moment, issues relating to the way in which the financial treatment of elections occurs that need to be updated. I am one of those who think that laws relating to electoral finance and spending ought to be changed rarely, that changes should occur only when circumstances permit, and that they should occur on the basis of the widest possible consensus about what those changes might be. I am always wary of members of Parliament being seen to set out our own rules in this respect. I must say that as this debate has unfolded over the last few months United Future has been concerned that it is being conducted in an excessively partisan manner.”
Whether or not UF supports the EFB at subsequent stages is academic. UF’s two votes will not be enough to tip the balance against Labour. However if someone got to Winston and he had a change of heart, his seven votes would be enough to defeat the Bill. Interesting that no votes were recorded for ACT at the first reading.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
It gets better and better.
Dr Pita Sharples was on fire.
He concluded with.
“We cannot vote for a bill that has so much rhetoric attached to it and lacks real substance. While it is said that turkeys never vote for Christmas, it appears that the turkeys in this House will be voting for their Christmas, as they have the numbers at this time. Thank you.”
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
burt I’m still struggling to get an answer from anybody who thinks Labour are doing the right thing with the EFB to this question – perhaps you can help.
I guess Tane, like all other supporters of the EFB in one form or another, is unwilling or otherwise unable to answer that question, Burt. Answering it would challenge ideology, and you know that is not allowed.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
Hate to say it but Roark is right.
Vote:Perhaps I’m getting cynical in my old age, but is amazing how many intelligent people you meet who don’t have the foggiest idea that they are about to be deprived of some of their most fundamental rights.
I despair at times that the man in the street seems more concerned that he might have to pay an extra $2 when he visits his GP than the fact that cardinal features of our democracy are being dismantled before his eyes.
Alas many people reading a headline saying “Kill the Bill” would assume it was a death threat against Mr English.
The simple fact is the message is not getting through with adequate potency.
Please some one prove me wrong!
September 27th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
I heard most of it. A well considered and articulated oral submission. Didn’t impress DBP though – he appeared (or tried to appear) to be asleep while Nandor was only slightly more active. Questions concluded with request for preferred next steps – refer back to house with recommended modification vs discard and seek public consultation before re-drafting. Dr Newman – as with most others it would appear – opted for the latter
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
Look, all of you Right-wing National supporting hypocrites. Not everybody is rich. This Bill is the only chance poor people have a chance to have their say in elections – otherwise they just get outspent by all the big businessmen who are only in their CEO positions ‘cos they were greedy and unscrupulous in life, usually exploiting other people. I’m not poor myself, but at least I care about their rights and I can imagine what it’s like. I just want all of you to ask yourselves, is what you’re doing justifiable? Why not put yourselves in a welfare beneficiary’s shoes for once? Maybe it’ll change your mind. It might be hard to accept, but trust me you’ll feel like a better person later.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Inventory2 – one thing needs to be considered regarding United Future:
National 4 + Maori 1 + United 1 + Act 1
beats
Labour 4 + Greens 1 + NZF 1
If UnitedFuture decide they do want to stop this bill, they, along with the rest of those potentially opposed have the power to force the committee to report it in January.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
no reg – sadly you are correct. i think we’ve been conditioned to accept whatever is dished up to us. perhaps past advocacy efforts have been ineffectual, perhaps we are getting myopic and lazy. whatever, the frog-water is warming and we’re all comfy just now thanks. it’s a disgrace!
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
By the way, didn’t Dr Muriel Newman work at Michael Hill Jeweler? It doesn’t lend her argument much weight the fact that she is probably one of the big spenders in each election – all rich people do is bribe heartless, money-obsessed politicians (John Key, Don Brash – what a coincidence that they were both National party leaders) and screw up the rest of the country. Maybe if Right-wingers stopped thinking about the economy all the time and I don’t know, stop to think about other people (you know, selflessness), then the world would be a better place with no poverty and injustice.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
jesuscrux, the bill muzzles the democratic rights of all NZers, the poor and wealthy alike. in fact it probably disadvantages the poor more that the wealthy. either way, it’s a fundamentally nasty piece of proposed legislation. it must be stopped, and apparently most people across most parts of the social and economic spectrum agree.
and who told you that the wealthy are found ‘usually exploiting other people’? why have you swallowed the wealth-is-evil kool-aid? wake up!
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
Graeme Edgeler said “If UnitedFuture decide they do want to stop this bill, they, along with the rest of those potentially opposed have the power to force the committee to report it in January.”
Perhaps the “sensible” UF leader will hold his finger up to test the winds of public opinion – it wouldn’t be the first time. Maybe he’s the one that the blogosphere should be targeting with a “Kill the Bill” e-mail campaign – just a random thought at this hour of night – now, what’s his e-mail addy…..
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
JesusCrux
Enjoy your outbursts now, soon if the bill you hope passes actually gets passed advocacy groups for the poor will also be silenced. Oh except the Catholic Church. Rock on Jesus, the power of reincarnation rests in this bill and I’m sure your going to fight for it.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
Peter.Dunne@parliament.govt.nz i would have thought
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
What will happen when this goes thru? The search powers under Section 121 are straight out of Stasi East Germany and KGB Russia.
They even admit that these powers are over and above the Summary Proceedings act where search powers normally only apply to imprisonable offences.
1/The search warrant on suspicion of intent to collude with the ACT party could be used to search Nat Party HQ 9and therefore they would not need stolen emails!!)
2/The Maori Party HQ could be searched on suspicion of intent to advertise with the Ratana church to oppose the Foreshore and Seabed Bill and organise a repeal of it.
3/The EB’s could all be searched because they now have to wear yellow stars-No seriously their houses could be searched because some of their members were seen giving a parcel to Murray McCully in Wellington airport 9mths before the election.
4/The Kyoto Forest association offices could be searched on suspicion of collusion with the Laurel and Copeland Party.
5/Taito could be searched on suspicion of helping an immigrant apply for residency which is against current govt. policy. (Taito only got searched when he kicked over Labour previously)
Now Tane, Roger Nome, Sonic and trolls read the section(121) it applies to and tell us why this is not a very realistic scenario?
But all that aside:
Vote:The EB that are the target for this bill will not even be stopped by this bigoted Mugabe bill that is so defrauding the rest of us.
September 27th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
probably Peter.Dunne@ministers.govt.nz but the other one probably works too
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 12:15 am
Inventory2 Says:
September 27th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
Perhaps the “sensible” UF leader will hold his finger up to test the winds of public opinion – it wouldn’t be the first time. Maybe he’s the one that the blogosphere should be targeting with a “Kill the Bill” e-mail campaign – just a random thought at this hour of night – now, what’s his e-mail addy…..
Vote:Na
Pter dUnne used to be a Labour MP remember
And he supported the Validating legislation
United is another MMP Poodle Party one man band personality cult that will disappear whenits glorious leader retires.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:30 am
JesusCrux Says:
September 27th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
Look, all of you Right-wing National supporting hypocrites. Not everybody is rich. This Bill is the only chance poor people have a chance to have their say in elections – otherwise they just get outspent by all the big businessmen who are only in their CEO positions ‘cos they were greedy and unscrupulous in life, usually exploiting other people. I’m not poor myself, but at least I care about their rights and I can imagine what it’s like. I just want all of you to ask yourselves, is what you’re doing justifiable? Why not put yourselves in a welfare beneficiary’s shoes for once? Maybe it’ll change your mind. It might be hard to accept, but trust me you’ll feel like a better person later.
LOL
Im not rich but I oppose this bill because that is all rubbish
This bill is not to do with money
It is all to do with Labour getting re elected in 2008
It is all about Labour playing to some very well established prejudicies in their core voter base – thrashing big business, the rich and christians etc etc
It is all about labour being 36% in the polls and appealing to their core suopport base to get them re elected
All the time this bill is in the house they have endless oppirtunitity to keep on bashing out those prejudices attacking bogeymen like the National paryt and the Exclusive brethren yadda yadda
As we see Benson Pope is obsessed with the exclusive Brethren like a stuck record
Remember it was the EBs who hired private detectives to investigate the Labour party
It was probably these same PIs who found out about Benson Popes recreational activities
Hence for Benson Pope it is very personal and vindictive, not a great way to formulate a policy
But ever since Labour was exposed after the election campaign the gloves have come off and they are looking very prejudicial vindictive etc which appeals to the baser instincts of some of their hard core like commie unionists
Not a great way to run a country either but that is shabby and low our goverment has gone, that is where this Bill has come from, that is why it must stop.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 12:41 am
milo Says:
September 27th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
The majority of MP’s voted for the Budgets of Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson, and for the welfare and superannuation cuts. New Zealander’s felt betrayed (although I don’t think Ruth Richardson ever hid anything). As a result, we got MMP.
Unfortunately the distrust of major parties was perfect to be exploited by the Greens who are just another bunch of socialists but siezed the opportunity to bring in electoral reform on a whole bunch of mealy mouthed platitudes most of which have not been acheived
With the exception of Greens who are prepared to be political martyrs on the altar of the MMp God, every other minor party are poodles or have weak leadership or are personality cults or one man bands
When the actual long standing MPs who lead most of these partys retire from politics the partys will eithe rcollapse or become even more poodly than now
It is the core weakness of MMP that the minor partys can be formed and lead by people with almost no political experience yet wield disrpoportionate power effectively king or queen maker – straight off vote buying
As we can see when push came to shove the Greens have abandoned their principles because they are true socialists at heart which they should have not lied about to the public when they campaigned to bring in MMP
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 12:44 am
greenjacket Says:
September 27th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Sorry David, but isn’t United Future AGAINST the bill? Peter Dunne in the past has said that constitutional changes including major changes to the electoral laws should go through a proper process of public consultation, and has spoken AGAINST ramming important laws through in the way that is being done with the EFB. Unless Peter Dunne has undergone a remarkable change in his political views, I would expect he’d be strongly against EFB.
Vote:Well maybe
But for me it is damning that Dunne supported the Validating legislation
September 28th, 2007 at 1:05 am
Vote:First Reading Debate
Hon Mark Burton
The proposals are also in line with other comparative regimes such as the United Kingdom and Canada…
Umm are there any other countries apart from those two?
Both under left wing governments and I bet there was huge outcry
September 28th, 2007 at 1:33 am
Roark pointed out:
My sentiments exactly. Many threads ago on this very topic I questioned why there weren’t street marcheslike there were against s59 and several people talked about organising one. So there may be only a handful of people but done right (with a bit of suitable street theatre perhaps – why should the marxist anti-WTOers have all the fun
) it might at least get some media coverage and thus get people asking “What are those geeks getting so upset about?”
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 2:16 am
It’s true that people will put their own wallets before the concerns of the poor regardless of what socio-economic class or political party they identify with. I don’t see what’s so difficult about understanding that.
It seems the entry-level skills to viciously whacking out your political opinion don’t require basic human compassion.
None of the opinions I’ve read here say much apart from establishing each poster’s self-image and where they claim to hail from morally and financially. Nobody seems to give an actual shit about OTHER human beings even when it comes to showing civility in the shit they spew out in their comments.
If you did care you wouldn’t give a shit who won the fucking election. You would instead be supporting individual policies that laid groundwork for a better country in both the short and long term instead of the usual friggen’ pandering to self-serving dehumanised corporations, greedy and deceptive religious groups, whacko environmentalists, aggressive anti-establishment nutters and egomaniac politicians. MMP might actually work. Some of you assholes would consider it your life’s greatest work to make the country a better place regardless of how the job pays.
There’s no such thing as a compassionate New Zealander anymore.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 4:57 am
nih your heart is in the right place, but it is this kind of idealism that has enabled the Labour party to propose a piece of legislation and so far succeeded.
This leglislation will silence ‘those individual policies that laid groundwork for a better country’ bcause people like yourself would be unable, in fact breaking the law if you expressed them during an election year, if you hadn’t gone cap-in-hand t the government first, for permission to say them.
Read between the lines: people who argue against this Bill are argueing against a new form of tyranny, and in favour of democracy.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 6:04 am
Rex and Roark re ‘doing nothing’
PS this morning at about 5:45 I sprayed the words ‘EFB=RORT” onto a long piece of paper and went and attached it to the fence in front of Chris Carter’s (Labour) office in Henderson.
Hopefully in time for the rush hour traffice to get an eye-full. I have every intention of doing more of the same.
I don’t thnk it will make much difference ‘voice in the wilderness etc’ BUT what if we all were to start publicising this issue and get it out of what Clark contemptuously refers to as ‘the beltway’?
Come on what we need is an army of pudgy, slightly balding otherwise mild-mannered men to stand up for the rest of New Zealand! This might be the only way (as usual) anything will get done!!
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 6:23 am
I’ve been musing about this, and I think that one of the most effective ways to resist the progress of this Bill, (and spoil the good names of those who support it should it proceed) is to begin a campaign along the lines of:
‘Ask if your MP [insert name] supports the suppression of free speech for ordinary Kiwis…”
It seems that the only thing these gravy sucking pigs care about is their fat paychecks, so let’s try and hit them in the wallet, and threaten their job-security by exposing their corrupt little game….
It sholdn’t be too hard to design an A4 leaflet to put in windows or hand out to people, should it? I would do it myself but lack the IT smarts to make one all here might access: I would have loved to download a pic of my little venture this morning, but the digital camera was out of power – like I said IT smarts… both now and after they pass it.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 6:52 am
Righto – no consequences then to minor parties supporting this bill (please see 3rd post of this thread).
Steve Taylor,
Vote:Deputy Leader,
Direct Democracy Party of new Zealand
http://www.ddp.co.nz
September 28th, 2007 at 6:56 am
Swampy said “First Reading Debate
Hon Mark Burton
The proposals are also in line with other comparative regimes such as the United Kingdom and Canada…
Umm are there any other countries apart from those two?
Both under left wing governments and I bet there was huge outcry”
I’m not sure which is which Swampy, but from questions in the House I’ve heard it’s a hybrid of the UK & Canada provisions – Labour’s “vision” for free and fair elections in New Zealand uses the LONGEST time period from one of those jurisdictions, and the LOWEST dollar value of electoral spending allowed by the other! Free and fair? I feel a Tui billboard coming on!
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 6:58 am
Lee C said “Come on what we need is an army of pudgy, slightly balding otherwise mild-mannered men to stand up for the rest of New Zealand! This might be the only way (as usual) anything will get done!!”
Where did you get my picture from? Pudgy, middle-aged, balding…….
Well done on your sign though Lee – did you include the name of your electoral agent?
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 7:02 am
JesusCrux: This Bill is the only chance poor people have a chance to have their say in elections
I am never sure if you are real or just a pistake of a lefty. For the sake of debate, I will assume that you are real. I’m also going to play along with your 1873 views on capitalists and entrepeneurs, although that is SO last century dude.
Would you say that a rich person has more money to spend than a poor person? If the answer to that question is yes this bill favours rich people more than it favours poor people.
I’ll tell you why. A rich business man can register and spend up to, what was it, $60,000 per year on any such matters that he feels compelled to voice his opinion on. His rich businessman friend will be able to do the same. And his other rich friend too.
Can a poor person do the same?
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 7:07 am
Swampy – Burton was lying when he said “the proposals are also in line with other comparative regimes such as the United Kingdom and Canada”. You foolishly believed him because you assumed that when Ministers make speeches in Parliament about their own legislation they tell the truth. Under this Government, that is not a safe assumption to make.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 7:08 am
That’s a start Lee. Good stuff. As I understand it David Farrar has experience in campaigning. Perhaps he could supply some downloadable campaign materials and suggestions on how to use them. It strikes me there is a lot of political energy amongst people on this blog – perhaps David could work on mobilising them? This is after all an issue that should be in the hands of a properly led public rather than of the hands of politicians (of any ilk).
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 7:31 am
Inventory afraid I bottled out of including my name and address didn’t want the brown-shirts coming over and puttting my shop window through!
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 7:44 am
I started a quick list of anyone interested in being part of a new political party in the event that this bill is rammed though.
I’m also working on some self-print leaflets and will post these up to a facebook group
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 7:54 am
Do you guys even read what you’re reading? I’m sick of all this conspiracy theory bullshit – I mean come on, comparing this to Stalin? You Righties will do anything to try brainwashing the masses for your own selfish purposes, whether through making ridiculous comparisons or scare-mongering. Get a life. Oh that’s right, your rich mummy and daddy’s allowances allow you to surf the internet talking political crap all day instead of, I don’t know, working in a real job perhaps? The reason the only people that have been criticising this Bill are against it is because us Labour supporters are actually spending our days working at our blue collar jobs and feeding our families, we don’t have time to find obscure, irrelevant statutory points in every piece of legislation to slow down the progress of democracy.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 8:00 am
What crap! The Human Right Commission has slayed this bill, summarising their submission thus:
The HRC is joined by greenies, social services groups, interest groups, churches, businesses and ma&pa NZers. It is fundamentally anti-democratic. Period.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 8:04 am
“to slow down the progress of democracy.”
No, we’re trying to slow down the progress towards totalitarianism
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 8:04 am
Pascal said “I’ll tell you why. A rich business man can register and spend up to, what was it, $60,000 per year on any such matters that he feels compelled to voice his opinion on. His rich businessman friend will be able to do the same. And his other rich friend too.
Can a poor person do the same?”
Point well made Pascal – the other thing is, come election day (and the next election day can’t come quickly enough for this fella!), the rich man has one vote, the poor man has one vote.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 8:07 am
Yes.
You?
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 8:22 am
JesusCrux
Vote:All I can is:
“No wonder Hitler got away with it!”
September 28th, 2007 at 8:35 am
Jesuscrux: You’re either blindly stupid, staggeringly naïve or a product of our current education system
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 8:36 am
JC is a piss take – surely.
Vote:G
September 28th, 2007 at 8:47 am
JesusCrux:” we don’t have time to find obscure, irrelevant statutory points in every piece of legislation to slow down the progress of democracy”.
There was no obscure or irrelevant point in the Validation Act now on our statutes as the most shameful Act in the history of our law making processes. This supposedly legalised a criminal act.
It was a criminal act in that Members of Parliament were advantaging themselves to the disadvantage of Bernard Darnton who was taking Helen Clark to the High Court to settle once and for all, the matter of the theft of Helen’s Leaders funds.
In my view the EFB has the same ingredients. It is a proposed legislation with the intent of disadvantaging the voter and stifling democracy and advantaging the Government. If the intent was not there, then the Bill would never have been drafted. It has criminal connotations
The whole matter, including the EFB can be laid at the door of the Police Commissioner, whose Officers failed their statutory obligations in investigating Electoral Commission complaints, and buried other complaints of criminal offending during the election.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 9:04 am
You should all launch a radio station to help stop this government plan to bring in Stalino-Mugabist-Hitlerism
Oh too late, I see you
Vote:already have!
September 28th, 2007 at 9:25 am
So lemme get this right… we have
- social workers
- politicians
- churches
- unions
- businesses
- legal experts
- drug liberalisation organisations
- human rights organisations
- historians
- and green, left, right, liberal and conservative NZers …
all opposed to this bill… and yet we still have posters here lamely supporting it ?!?!
Hilarious!
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 9:28 am
Don’t need to sonic – have you listened to Larry Williams or Justin du Fresne on Newstalk ZB – they’re both expressing plenty on contrary opinions – while they are able to!!
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 9:29 am
krazykiwi said “So lemme get this right… we have
- social workers
- politicians
- churches
- unions
- businesses
- legal experts
- drug liberalisation organisations
- human rights organisations
- historians
- and green, left, right, liberal and conservative NZers …
all opposed to this bill… and yet we still have posters here lamely supporting it ?!?!
Hilarious!”
Ah yes, but Labour thinks it’s a good idea; and there the matter ends!
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 9:41 am
“Didn’t impress DBP though – he appeared (or tried to appear) to be asleep ”
Didn’t get any photographs of that did you? It would seem to be a gross dereliction of duty.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 9:48 am
Sorry – no photo. but he would have looked more lively if i’d let my 17yr old son – who also spoke – casually put a tennis ball on the table before reading his submission. he asked to do this. i should have let him …. !
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 10:12 am
kk
Vote:Tell your son the tennis ball idea was a deft touch!! Would’ve probably made the news.
September 28th, 2007 at 10:17 am
JesusCrux Oh that’s right, your rich mummy and daddy’s allowances allow you to surf the internet talking political crap all day instead of, I don’t know, working in a real job perhaps?
By the time my second job is finished tonight it will be 22:00. The end of another ~16 hour working day for me. Luckily most of it is desk bound, so yes, I do have the time to surf the internet occasionally.
Now ask yourself – why do I need to work 16 hours a day? It’s simple, really. Because of braindead socialist policies that target everything EXCEPT the middle class ($65,000 – $90,000) I’m forced to work two jobs to stay afloat. I need to pay for my own healthcare because my only other choice is waiting lists, thanks to socialist policies. The property market and economy is fucked thanks to socialist policies and the beloved history teacher’s management. Thus what was a reasonable home loan has now turned into a millstone. You know, the list is just about endless.
Labour has screwed this country from the South to the North for the last 8 years. They’ve made it impossible for good, honest Kiwis to get ahead as generations before us have done, through simple hard work.
And you have the gall to toss work in my face? You ignorant dimwit.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 10:23 am
Well said Pascal. Shame is that the Nats can’t seem to confront the socialists with these kind of simple truths and then offer the electorate a solid alternative. I can see the negative outcomes of socialism. You can see it. The socialists will deny it, and with the help of their media plants try and distract from it. They can’t defend it. Yet all we get from the Nats is Labour lite…!!! WTF is wrong with that outfit??
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 10:44 am
I have no idea. They’ve not managed to capture my vote as of yet, not enough policy. Simply relying on Labour to self destruct is not a policy.
It seems so sensible. There are a few basic tenents that made New Zealand great. All we need is for a party to come up and say those are their basis. And away we go.
Too much politics. Not enough Kiwi.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 10:44 am
JesusCrux said “Oh that’s right, your rich mummy and daddy’s allowances allow you to surf the internet talking political crap all day instead of, I don’t know, working in a real job perhaps?”
Normally I wouldn’t feed this particular troll, but he’s hit a raw nerve. My parents are both dead, but whatever they accumulated in their lifetime (not much) was the result of hard work and bloody-mindedness. My father was made redundant in the mid-1960′s when the business he worked for was taken over – long before it was fasionable or profitiable to be made redundant. My wife and I own and run our own business, and we work long hours to make it viable – our primary source of income is from the Ministry of Education, so it’s essentially capped. However, compliance is a huge part of my job in particular. I’m enjoying a cuppa at the moment, but will be back to work very soon. I finished working at 11pm last night, and logged on to my computer again around 6.30am this morning – pretty much par for the course over the last couple of months. I have NEVER in my working life been in receipt of any social welfare benefit, despite having spent periods of time “between jobs”. Oh, BTW, as a Christian, I find your pseudonym offensive!
There – I’ve had my rant, and I feel much better!! Back to work I go……
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 11:18 am
JC professes the righteousness of Labour supporters just because they are Labour supporters…………………..
Braaa haaa haaaa haaaaa haaaa
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
I sometimes wonder that some of the bills the establishment is trying to put through (e.g. EFB, or Cindy Kiro’s latest masterpiece) would require some sort of Marxist revolution to get the mandate….
What does one need for a Marxist revolution? An increasingly large and unhappy “lower” class.
Where is NZ heading? Hmmmmmmm
How’s that one for a conspiracy theory
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
adc don’t go there bro, you’ll get Tane replying with those immortal words:
‘If you’d actually read any Marx….”
He’s quite snooty about his left wing philosophers.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
I quite like JC he makes me laugh. He is a very good comedian, I asume he gets a lot of his material out of the Liarbour handbook for dummies.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
“Oh, BTW, as a Christian, I find your pseudonym offensive”
Oh, brother. The words JesusCrux are offensive? Fuck me: not content in believing in magical fairytales – Inventory deigns to elevate certain words to magical status.
So, if I say something like “Jesus is a dirty child molesterer” – you’d be offended? Fucking precious prick! I might be talking about Jesus Gonzalez-Castellanos or any of the other Jesus’s convicted of nasty child offences. Look Inventory, you keep your child-like belief in a special invisible friend to yourself. Let JesusCrux use whatever nom de plume he wants.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
DDD there might be very little that offends you. That’s not a problem until you expect that everyone else should have the same tolerance. Part of being civilised is realising what impact our words and actions have on others and being sensitive to those. IMHO the f*ck-you-ill-do-whatever-i-want attitude is something NZ would benefit from seeing less often.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
Silly me…I thought freedom of speech might be important. No one’s suggesting Inventory give up on his fairy stories. Whatever floats his boat. But the “you offend me” crap is just sniffy. I called it out. So what? I see lots of people on this thread saying some stunningly awful things about people’s political beliefs. But, hey, that’s kind of the cut and thrust. By the way, I actually think JesusCrux is a believer. But who cares? By the way, Krazy, I expect you to model your new found belief in respecting others’ beliefs and being sensitive to others. We’ll see if you’re genuine or if you are a friggin hypocrite.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
DDD – no, not silly at all. you are right on target to say that freedom is speech is important.
so is playing the ball not the player. there’s lots of the latter around here which isn’t overly good for constructive debate.
as for my new found belief, well it’s not really all that new, but always looking for constructive criticism and I expect that you won’t be backwards in coming forwards on that score.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
Nice response KK
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
Flippin’ heck DDD – just as well I’m not a chinless, scarf-wearing EB isn’t it. Freedom of speech means being free to express one’s opinion. I don’t like JC’s pseudnym, so I said so – plus I was snotted off by his/her arrogance and presumption that many of us here are wealthy, silver-spoon types. Then again, as sonic said very early in another thread today, it’s Friday, it’s been a long week, lighten up! Now, which epistle shall I read before bed tonight………….
Vote: