More on Electoral Finance Bill
A testy exchange in Parliament yesterday over a section which has had little attention – the protecting of incumbent MPs.
The current limit of $20,000 incl GST for the last 90 days is already incredibly low. If you decided to do one direct mail letter to every voter, then your entire budget is gone. This money has to cover your campaign launch, your hoardings, your publicity expenses, your advertisin, your car branding etc etc.
Now by extending the period you can spend $20,000 over, back to 1 January means that defeating an incumbent MP will become near impossible. Because said MP has a taxpayer funded budget of $60,000 to spend to swamp the electorate with newsletters and adverts all talking about the good job he or she is doing.
Incumbents always have a huge advantage anyway. This just makes the job of challenger even harder, as in Parliament Bill English asked “Is this a shoddy attempt to protect useless Labour MPs who are expecting to get rolled from their seats?” to which Cullen responded “stop National Party candidates with extraordinary deep pockets and who have been running around the business sector getting very large donations, spending vast sums of money getting their useless backsides back into this place”.
$20,000 is hardly a vast sum of money. Hell an MP can cover their own campaign with just a 3% tithe on their salary over three years.
Also of interest is these reports from teh hearings yesterday:
Also at the select committee hearing, former Electoral Commission chief executive Paul Harris picked holes in the bill, arguing it is too wide in its definition of election advertising and that it will likely catch activities not intended to influence an election. He also criticises the $60,000 spending cap on third parties as too severe. Dr Harris believes it should be benchmarked at a percentage figure of spending limits allowed to political parties. Dr Harris says another major failing of the proposed legislation is that it does not address anonymous donations to political parties. He says more transparency is needed.
He accepted there needed to be limits on how much third parties could spend but suggested a cap of $240,000 — 10 percent of what a political party could spend.
In my submission I suggested $250,00, so quite nice to see I am in the same ballpark as Dr Harris.
Business New Zealand has also taken a stand against the bill, with the lobby group’s economist, Stephen Summers, telling the Electoral Select Committee hearing it will affect the body’s ability to comment on policy. He describes the bill as restricting free speech. Mr Summers also condemned the way the bill has been presented to the public, saying consultation has been poor. He says the bill should not proceed, or should at least be delayed until after the next election so it can be improved to a satisfactory level.
Business New Zealand told the committee the “draconian” bill curtailed freedom of speech and should be thrown out, but if it wasn’t the cap needed to be raised and the election campaign period reduced.
Consultation has not been poor. It has been non-existent! In fact it has been even worse than non-existent – the Minister has written to groups and lied about the Bill.
September 14th, 2007 at 9:16 am
“Business New Zealand has also taken a stand against the bill”
Now that is a surprise! I wonder who they were planning on spending $250, 000 supporting, the Greens?
September 14th, 2007 at 9:30 am
If the greens were speak good business, they probably would – As a shop owner who makes things here in New Zealand, I support the Green’s ‘New Zealand Made’ initiative, for example. Read the final chapter of ‘Collapse’ by Jared Diamond about the new relationships that have developed between global corporations and eco-friendly industries in the developing world, contrasted with the rather racist attitude of the Green movement which would love to keep Africa in the middle ages.
September 14th, 2007 at 9:35 am
Sonic just read the EFBill as tabled, then re read it clause by clause.
By that I mean read a clause as a stand alone entity and then ask yourself if you could see any way for it to work.
I mean ‘work’ in either a left or a right bias, or simply can it work in any sense at all.
Finally if you have balance in your thinking can you say that you would sign your name to it and present it to the voting public??
September 14th, 2007 at 9:37 am
good to see you feeling well sonic. Where would we be without your morning sneer?
September 14th, 2007 at 9:38 am
Now that is a surprise! I wonder who they were planning on spending $250, 000 supporting, the Greens?
Traditionally it has been a choice between the 2 mainstream parties – National or Labour.
September 14th, 2007 at 9:47 am
I used to love rugby,but during this world cup, the judiciary has tried it’s best to water it down and take the tough aspects out of the game. However just recently a new and more brutal sport has been developed.
Called “tear the scotsman a new asshole” and it happens right here every morning.
Best of all there are no ads, it’s free to air and each game starts just after 9.oo am and lasts until 5.00pm exactly.
September 14th, 2007 at 9:55 am
We all know this bill is an ass. I have to admit to not submitting; I was too busy getting the governtment to take Oz to the WTO over the apple thing..but I digress.
I was speaking to an MP last night and asked why he thought that the MSM had not picked up on this; his response? “Because you have to explain it”.
I have to agree, it’s really complex, however it you break it down to its base level, you know, forget the spending limits, who it benefits in parliament and who it doesn’t etc what it comes down to is that I, as a citizen on this country, have to register to speak. I’m sure we can get an attention grabbing headline out of that.
September 14th, 2007 at 9:56 am
I am staggered that Labour are still strongly supporting this crap. I guess they have little choice, but really, does Cullen want statements like that on the history books?
Oh, you can raise more money than we can, so we have to give ourselves exclusive rights to taxpayers funds to make it even.
What a load of CRAPOLA! This is socialisms idea of equality?
Someone pass me a gun.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:03 am
It’s the little local community groups who cannot now spend a quarter of a million dollars that I feel sorry for.
What about my local boy scout troop? what are they going to with that $250,000 they were saving up for the election?
September 14th, 2007 at 10:17 am
With all due deference & respect to JRRT.
“one bill to rule them all, one bill to find them, one bill to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.’
The man was a prophet.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Have I got this right?
A sitting MP can spend $60,000 ot taxpayers’ money on posters and ads saying “Joe Bloggs – Working For You” and then giving their electorate office phone number. They can then spend another $20,000 of their own money on similar posters and ads saying “Joe Bloggs – Working For You” and giving their campaign headquarters phone number – for a total of $80,000 on the “Joe Bloggs – Working For You” campaign from 1 Jan to election day – nearly $10,000 a month.
But the challenging candidate can spend only $20,000 (of their own money) saying “Jane Doe – Committed to Working For You.” This is less than than $3,000 a month during election year.
And, of course, in any given election year, there are always slightly more government MPs than opposition MPs, so overall it biases the ruling party.
HAVE I UNDERSTOOD THIS RIGHT?
IS THIS REALLY HAPPENING IN NEW ZEALAND???
September 14th, 2007 at 10:32 am
Opinion on the EFA is divided. Sonic says it is good, everyone else (and I mean everyone) says it is bad.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:33 am
HAVE I UNDERSTOOD THIS RIGHT?
IS THIS REALLY HAPPENING IN NEW ZEALAND???
yes you have and yes it is.
Welcome to our reality.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:37 am
AAAAHHH sonic – right on, pleased to see you are finally realising the injustices that this Bill would propagate but sssshhhh a boy scout troop with $250,000 would attract a goodly bunch of socialists who would try to redistribute such wealth.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:45 am
Ahhh But what you must understand is that sitting members of parliament are a different breed to the rest of us. Our job to earn the money to keep these morons in the style to which they have become acustomed.And of course they mustnt be suject to the same laws or rules as we citizens Oh no They have much more important station in life (tugging forelock as he speaks)
September 14th, 2007 at 11:11 am
I still fail to see why the government wants to control the amount that someone who wants to run anti-National campaigns spends. If they want to spend $10 million saying National Suck, Vote Labour then why shouldn’t they be able to.
September 14th, 2007 at 11:33 am
Easy answer Whale old bean.
There are those who cannot judge a message on its merit and can only believe what they are told from “approved” sources. They attribute this total lack of intelligent thought to all other possible voters as well hence the call for Transparency, transparency and more transparency.
The bit about spending millions is the other facet of this personality type. Control of money is inherently EVIL unless it is the state that has the control (which is code for the “correct party pulling the levers of the state” in which case it is inherently GOOD) ergo any message distributed in such a way that it cost $10 mill must be inherently evil and thus a threat which must be stomped on from a great height preferably by using the powers of the aforementioned state.
September 14th, 2007 at 11:47 am
At APEC Sydney there was a peaceful protest held drawing from a variety of groups (including our own Green MP Kieth Locke), mostly opposed to the Liberal government. There were 5000 people in attendence, some of them minors. The protest cost the participants and supporters more than $60,000. This is in an election year in Australia. This protest was legal in Australia.
The Labour Party (supported ironically by the Greens) wish to make such a protest in New Zealand illegitimate. The EFB would enable the state to ban such a protest.
September 14th, 2007 at 11:48 am
How can an election be bought through money spent on advertising. People are not dumb or does the Labour Party assume they are. As the Government they can do something much more sinister by buying the election through direct bribes to voters using tax payers’ money. They are doing nothing about that. This whole exercise is the Labour Party writing the rules to suit its-self.
September 14th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Tim –
Labour knows that people generally have to be dumb to vote for them,
They also know last three elections they have managed to form a Government.
Ergo – yes, generally NZ voting public are that dumb.
September 14th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
If everyone who disagreed with the biill were to put a placard outside their local Labour Party office with the words ‘EFB=RORT” it would be a start.
September 14th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Can any of you tell of a single nation in the world that does not have campaign finance limits?
Thought not.
September 14th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Sonic – Australia
September 14th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Wow sonic great argument.
Can you tell me which other countries have anti-nuclear legislation that prevents nuclear powered vessels from entering their territorial waters and prevents them from having nuclear power stations
September 14th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
And:
The United States, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria, and Switzerland.
Want more?
September 14th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
david – we have no law prevent us having nuclear power stations.
September 14th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
We are also not Nuclear free….. Just anto American.
September 14th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
oops: That was going to be … anti American.
September 14th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
I understand the NZ Navy will be exercising with the Chinese Peoples Liberation Army (Navy) shortly. Forgive me if I am wrong, but don’t the Chinese have Nuclear Weapons!
The blatant Hypocracy of this Government is astounding!
September 14th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Well the select committee called me up and gave me less than 7 working hours notice of my time to arrive at the said venue to do an oral submission on the EFB. Such short notice. They rung me while I was in the car and wanted mto know NOW if I was going to attend. They werent going to write to me with the date/time/venue – until I insisted that they emailed me. Arent there standing orders around this sort of communication?
September 14th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Breaking news: Business New Zealand say that its members should be allowed to buy elections if it want.”media commentator” David Farrar is happy that there’s a lobby group out there that’s as extremely right wing as he is
. “By using third parties, we were able to launch parallel campaigns in the 2005 election, effectively doing away with the electioneering spending cap” Our argument is that is if there has to be a third party spending cap it should be so high as to make it meaningless” – Mathew Hooten, another “media commentator, reportedly high fived Mr Farrar, exclaiming “fuck we’re good mate”!
September 14th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
The USA has very strict rules about federal campaign finance Graeme
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_in_the_United_States
Australia does not have as severe a regime, but still has rules.
Care to take anothe look at your list?
September 14th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
nome, is that a statement about your intellectual stature? if it is you spelled it wrong, it’s got silent ‘g’
September 14th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
my error over nuke power stations.
still the point I was trying to make was that just because everyone else does something doesn’t mean that we should and vice versa.
Graeme depth charged sonic quite satisfactorily with conventional shot in any event.
September 14th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
dave, my family have had the same sort of thing. we’ve pushed back and asked for a meeting time all four of us together. they were very appreciative of this… as there are huge numbers of folks wanting to appear and organising things is “a nightmare”.
oh, and they lost my original web-supplied submission. i had to email it in again. that’s a worry. i wonder how many other are in the same boat? how many will have no contact only to be told that the committee is finished hearing submissions and ‘we didn’t receive a submission from you sir…”
September 14th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Lee – the leaving out of the G is purposeful. Do I have to spell it out to you? you know? “rogernome” as in adherent of “rogernomics”?
September 14th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
roger, your breaking news is broken. it’s now well known that Labour stole the last election with stolen money. the EFB is just their way of ‘improving’ their rort skills. progress~!
September 14th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
KK – Labour’s dirty deeds have been done to death here – and there’s nothing wrong with a little balance no?
September 14th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Bill English describes “useless Labour MPs who are expecting to get rolled from their seats” and Michael Cullen retorts about “National Party candidates… getting their useless backsides back into this place”.
Extraordinary to see them both being right while being diametrically opposed on the issue they’re debating.
Of course strangling democracy with the EFB won’t help reduce the prevalence of mindless drones on either side of the House, so English happens to be on the right side of the issue insofar as the Bill is concerned.
National has always been slightly ahead of Labour in that it would occasionally permit its Members to cross the floor, or abstain, without reacting like a tribe of mountain gorillas, beating their chests and casting out the offender.
But where’s their commitment to real Parliamentary democracy on anything other than the EFB? To greater accountability (particularly of list MPs)? To recall for electorate MPs? To binding referenda where appropriate, without ridiculously high barriers to initiate? To a myriad of other reforms which have the potential to put power back in the hands of the people?
I’m afraid I can’t convince myself that if the shoe was on the other foot and we had a tired, discredited and unpopular National government in power, the roles in this debate wpuldn’t simply be reversed.
September 14th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
sonic Says:
September 14th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Can any of you tell of a single nation in the world that does not have campaign finance limits?
Thought not.
Sonic…..
You miss the point old bean.
Most posters, DPF included, are not against limits to financial spending per se. The problem is the limits suggested by the Labour Party are ludicrous.
$60,000 over 11 months is a joke. Canada, who has similar legislation, has a $150,000 limit over a MAXIMUM of 12 weeks. The UK has a similar length of election period, but a spending limit of 250,000 pounds!
I have yet to see what the UK or Canadian legislation regard as “election spending” but I doubt the definitions are as all encompassing as the EFB currently before parliament.
September 14th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
krazykiwi; There are 200 written submissions and I have started reading them.
There seem to be any number in favour of the Bill and want the period of election advertising to be extended to 12 months. There are no submissions from politicians.
It is good to see the Electoral Commission getting into the fray, as well they might. They dragged the chain 2 years ago. National laid complaints
early September 2005 about S 214 of the Electoral Act 1993 (Helen’s Pledge Card). The Electoral Commission complained to police 5 month’s later about Helen’s Pledge Card, but did not include complaints re breaches of the Crimes Act 1961 in the use of this card. Why not?
It is to be wondered if The Chief Electoral Officer, Bill English and the Police are going to have a say. The latter, if I recall correctly, were going to make recommendations for the next election.
September 14th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Yesterday I was apparently outed as D4J so I might as well continue to speak freely if that’s who the rabid left think I am at least until the EFB is passed!!
What is the precedent for a Govt bill being scrapped by the Select Committee?
September 14th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Rex – I am not sure National would ever dream of introducing such democracy corrupting legislation no matter what. This legislation is typical of something that only an all powerful socialist state would introduce. Do not forget much of the Labour caucus are die hard Marxists.
On the other hand national as a party of capitalists and freedom of choice would always be so ideologically opposed to anything which limits freedom of expression and association.
The question that should be asked is what would Labour’s reaction be if National hypothetically did introduce such legislation. In that instance Labour would be screaming blue murder and killers of democracy. The unions would be organising protest marches, and there would be threats of civil unrest.
I believe even staunch labour supporters should be evaluating whether or not in the 2008 election the Labour party deserves their precious piece of democracy – because from my perspective Labour have not earned the right.
September 14th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Castafiore:
I’d say the person who “outed” you as d4j was taking the piss – i.e. you, as far as I know, haven’t used “screeching sisterhood” or “dykocracy” in your comments.
September 14th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
I continue to amazed and saddened that it is left to National and National alone to oppose this Bill in Parliament. From all other parties there is a deafening silence … clearly they have been bought off and perhaps that payoff is the proposal by H2 that parties be allowed to divert monies from their leaders fund to the campaign … pledgecardgate repeated.
Particularly odious is the stance of NZ First. No silence there; just total support for Labour … ‘Where they go we go; where they stand, we stand’. Well, methinks they are going to learn bigtime ‘Where Labour falls, we fall’.
A serious question and i would appreciate some informed comment. The Cabinet Manual and convention has it that during the election campaign the Government should hold off making appointments unless absolutely necessary nor should it attempt to enact new legislation. In effect it assumes a ‘Caretaker’ role.
This Bill if passed in its present form prescribes I January as the start of the election campaign. Are we to assume then that effectively we have a non-government from 1 January?
If not, why not?
September 14th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Roger Nome,
I thought it would be fun trying out the D4J line for a while!
also what does your “dykocracy” reference mean or refer to?
September 14th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Castafiore: essentially it refers to an idea that the rabid (and I mean frothing rabid) right propound – that NZ is run by some kind of lesbian cabal. I think loons like redbaiter and whaleoil and also partial to this term/idea.
September 14th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Sonic – I am aware of the United States’ strict campaign financing rules.
However, those election rules, along with the rules of the other nations I named, do not extend to spending limits.
The US does not have spending limits, nor does Australia, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria, or Switzerland.
If you wanted an answer as to which countries have no election rules, you should have laid that challenge. You asked which countries lacked limits. You got a list of such countries. Do you want more?
September 14th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Frank, thanks for the heads-up on submissions being available.
I note mine is there but there is no sign of dpf’s masterpiece. Perhaps they have only put up the ones where people can’t make it to appear in person.
September 14th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
call me a loon too then. i believe that the interests of gay/lesbian minorities are disproportionately represented by and within our current government.
back on topic.. only 200 written submissions? i guess the other 4 million new zealanders and happy to see us edge towards a democracy-crippled pseudo-totalitarian society. shame really…
September 14th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
krazykiwi some of the submitters support the Bill ( so you are light on the 4 mill) but, judging by the content of many of the submissions, I doubt that they even read let alone understood the Bill.
September 14th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Monty got it in one, the EFB is not a party political issue, it is an issue about constitutional democracy. Sadly, the EFB is supported by myopic minnions who appear to have lost the will to properly analyse what our political masters are doing, because they are cheer-leaders for ‘the end justifies the means’ thuggery and are from intellectually lazy.
September 14th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Is it just me that thinks be may be harping on the lesser points here. While the money i.e. who gets to spend what where is very very important, is not the fact that we have to register before we can speak even more dire. Is that not an afront to basic human rights?
I for one WILL NOT register and if I have something to say, I will.
P.S. Goodish editorial in the dom today
September 14th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
nome, sorry it took so long to get to you, yeah I knew that ‘rogernomics’ was the actual origin of your name, I was jsut teasing you, you big bundle of fun, you! I just thought your name conjured up a vision of a gnome with special needs; ie you ain’t big, and you ain’t clever.
September 14th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
“nome, sorry it took so long to get to you, yeah I knew that ‘rogernomics’ was the actual origin of your name, I was jsut teasing you”
oh well excuse me for thinking that you’re just a bit intellectually challenged Lee C- you don’t exactly give us much reason to believe otherwise.
September 14th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
ah, think the 200 submission may only be those who have actually appeared. so more still to come – yes?
it’s interesting to read some diverse views. i like that, but ironically those that support the EFB are supporting restrictions on free speech. In other words i argue that their views are important while they argue that that my views should be suppressed. it’s a strange world.
September 14th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Monty: Yes, you’re dead right (no pun intended) there. Thir hypocrisy would know no bounds. And you may well be right that National’s belief in the free market would extend to a free market in politics, at least insofar as spending.
But despite what unaha-closp says above re the APEC protests the Coalition government brought in draconian police powers and effectively fenced off a large part of the Sydney CBD from people who had every right to be there. Such protests as there were were kept well away from the obviously easily offended APEC leaders. Which is probably why only 5,000 people bothered to turn up to protest (if you believe the police, more like 3,000) – they were corralled, controlled, and permitted to let off steam far from the actual event, so their rulers needn’t actually be bothered with their trifiling concerns. Perhaps that would be more National’s style.
This iniquitous Bill provies the perfect opportunity for a party to style itself as “defenders of democracy” and not just oppose this particulr piece of legislation but introduce a raft of policies aimed at open government. No one has, or is likely to do so.
And I wholeheartedly agree with Ross Miller. NZ First was founded on 15 “Fundamental Principles”, several of which promised open, accountable government. Winston’s pitch to me (and many others whom he inveigled into joining) was that these were effectively a defacto constitution for NZ in the (admittedly unlikely) event of an NZF government. The 1st principle is “Open accountable government with less government”. Why doesn’t a single journo ask Winston how the EFB will bring about “open, accountable government”?
The 15th Principle states “Towards a Better Democracy: All policies not contained in the party manifesto, where no national emergency clearly exists, will first be referred to the electorate for a mandate.” If ever there was a subject which justified a referendum it’s a change – of any sort – to electoral law.
September 14th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
The 197 submissions currently on the website are those received by the committee before its meeting last week, and published at that meeting.
Public submissions received in the last few days they were open, and those submissions where the submitter will present an oral submission aren’t yet up on the website.
I understand there will be 130 or so oral submissions – a substantial amount.
September 14th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
what is the URL for the submissions?
September 14th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
rex, thanks for the NZF link.
why the hell don’t the MSM put the acid on these poodles?
the extent of their publicly-visible hypocrisy is breathtaking !
September 14th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
george – you can download them here:
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/Search/Results.htm?ps=0&search=-1037784043
Unfortunately, only as individual documents.
September 14th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Sonic,
You say the reference refers “to the rabid right that NZ is run by a lesbian cabal.”
Is it not?
The question remains unanswered from the other day.
Stop beating around the bush.
Mike Moore knew it.
Davis was caught out,
Prove to me when Klark has ever denied that she is not lesbian.
Ian Wishart published that the Prime Minister is gay and he said in the Feb 2004 Investigate “If the Prime Minister thinks we have defamed her then I invite her to sue me and prove me wrong”
A/ She had the money to sue and never did.
B/ She could have denied it publicly but didn’t even do that.
Case Proven.
September 14th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
george, try here
click ‘view evidence’, then click a person’s name, then use the ‘downloads’ panel on the right to view an individual sumbission pdf
September 14th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
My mistake roger nome said it at 3.10pm not sonic even though they are very similar types.
September 14th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
“Why doesn’t a single journo ask Winston how the EFB will bring about “open, accountable government”?”
Because Winston is a pratt, known to inveigle at the drop of a hat.
September 14th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Can anyone tell me if 200 submissions is:
Normal
a lot
less than normal
in regards to important bill’s that have gone to select committee in the past? 200 sounds like sweet fa, but I’m hoping that it is some kind of record!
Very dissappointed that people actually support this crap. Are there so many in NZ who are prepared to give up their right to free speech one out of every three years?
September 14th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Lee C, I prefer to think of him as a “rogered gnome”.
Don’t think I need to get into the detail but it conjures up another image altogether.
September 14th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
“Lee C, I prefer to think of him as a “rogered gnome”. Don’t think I need to get into the detail but it conjures up another image altogether.Lee C, I prefer to think of him as a “rogered gnome”.”
Hey, what ever “does it” for you eh David? Go for broke I say. I’m just glad that you don’t know what I actually look like – now then I would have cause for concern.
Marc – Sure take NZ’s most notorious panty sniffer’s word at face value. whatever fills your “wank bank” mate.
September 14th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Sorry gnome, was talking about you, not to you. Run along and mark some papers.
September 14th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
I see Jack Vowles Peter Aimer and Barry Gustafson submission asks for money money money to fund their research into election reform Go for it guys Nothing like a bit of Oliver Twist stuff Priceless.
September 14th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Roger knows alot about smelly gussets being a hollow headed acolyte of NZ’s second most notorious sniffer of crotches, Nicky Hagar.
September 14th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
nome, do you have a little red cap and a fishing rod? David thinks you got a purdy mouth. Me I love it when you talk durdy. If this were real life I reckon we would be fixin to give you a wedgie about now.
And yes, I admit that I am intellectually challenged. Unlike some who never question themselves. To paraphrase Black Adder “I’d rather be intellectually challenged, than be a ….git.”
September 14th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
Many more submissions have been posted on the govt website now. The 200 estimate was far too low. Almost all are strongly opposed to the Government’s attempt to destroy democracy and free speech in New Zealand (surprise, surprise).
Obviously, under the Clark regime, the submissions will be ignored, then burnt.
September 14th, 2007 at 11:55 pm
It is absolutley inevitable that Labour will one day in the future be in opposition. As sure as the sun coming up tomorrow, Labour will be booted out of the Beehive one day. Maybe not next year, but one day they will.
Now Sonic and Co, lets jump forward to that day, Spetember in election year. How good is the EFB when sitting on the other side of the fence. The nasty National Party as government can promote its policies about how the tax cuts have benefitted the country and the great success of competition in Accident Insurance. But Labours supporters cannot argue against these claims because they have already spent their $20,000 on the Full page add back in January propmoting higher taxes.
Just think about it for a second.
September 15th, 2007 at 8:22 am
george – the 200 wasn’t an estimate, it was a count. Those were all that were there at the time. I stated above that the committee would only release them once it received them – those filed on or after the sixth, but before submissions closed, were only received by the committee on Thursday. It has now made them available. There appear to be (including a very small number of double ups – Andrew Geddis has supplied five items of additional information for example) 579. I should apologise for saying above that the committee would only release those of oral submitters once they’d submitted orally, which apparently isn’t the case – mine’s there, and I’m not up until Monday.
September 15th, 2007 at 9:09 am
RazorLight – ‘just think about it for a while’ I fear you might be wasting your time on some with that approach….Like if you teach a parrot to speak, it doesn’t follow that it knows what the words mean…. it merely ‘parrots’, without thought.
September 15th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Sonic: Care to take anothe look at your list?
According to what I could find online there are no limits on spending. Donations above $10,000 require disclosure and anonymous donations are prohibited. Both of those are measures that David and many commentators here have indicated the support – i.e. the crack down on anonymity which should give us a fair and transparent election campaign. Neither of them are particularly onerous.
So. Your question was: “Can any of you tell of a single nation in the world that does not have campaign finance limits?”
Australia has been raised as one example. Now what? What was the point of your question, or was it just a meaningless attempt at diversion?