Oral Submission on the Electoral Finance Bill
Well I’m just back from making my oral submission on the Electoral Finance Bill. Can’t complain at all about the treatment – all the questions were useful ones, and we went significantly over my allocated 15 minutes (mainly as I got long winded explaining how the bill wouldn’t even stop the Exclusive Brethren).
Anyway my oral submission is below. I was on one after Nicky Hager and got to very briefly meet him afterwards. I imagine his submissions will be the main part of any reports.
Oral Submission of David Farrar on the Electoral Finance Bill
I’d like to make just three points, and then move on to questions.
Firstly I think it would be incredibly unfortunate for this bill to pass into law without there having been a public policy process and debate, especially on the third party provisions. I am astonished that a law which seeks to restrict political speech of non parliamentarians can emerge from the Government without even a single public policy document on which is it based.
Minor areas of law such as digital copyright often have three or four rounds of public consultation, before a bill based on agreed policy emerges. And here we are not talking a minor area of law, but arguably our most vital constitutional Act. Where are the policy papers, the options papers, the forums, the consultation, the attempt at consensus? These are all meant to happen before, not after, a bill is introduced into Parliament.
To proceed without this process, greatly risks angering the public, which the April 2007 Colmar Brunton poll found to be against greater third party restrictions and in favour of banning anonymous and trust donations – the exact opposite of this Bill.
Secondly I wish to briefly talk about the Exclusive Brethren. Their activities are often cited as the rationale for this Bill. Well I have some bad news. While this Bill will make participation in the political process near impossible for most New Zealanders, it will still allow the Exclusive Brethren to spend $500,000 urging people to vote against the parties they don’t like. This Bill is so badly drafted it doesn’t even achieve its primary goal. I’ll be happy to answer questions in a minute on how this works.
Finally though can I address the most important issue for the Electoral Act – that of enforcement – and the area where sadly the Bill doesn’t make any significant change. If you do proceed with the Bill, then please please remove the Police as the enforcement agency for the Electoral Act.
There were massive breaches of the Electoral Act in 2005, and the Police investigation into them can only be described as abysmally incompetent. They got the most basic details wrong and made blunder under blunder. And the final result was a terrible undermining of the unsung heroes of elections – our specialist electoral agencies.
National effectively pleaded guilty to the $100,000 over commitment of broadcasting funds. They wrote to the Electoral Commission saying “We accept responsibility”. The Electoral Commission wrote to the Police saying Please prosecute them, and there is no doubt National should have been prosecuted. But the Police didn’t.
And even worse was Labour’s over spending. The Chief Electoral Officer three times warned Labour prior to the election about the pledge card being considered an electoral advertisement. His advice was ignored, and he asked the Police to prosecute. And they failed to even take the case to court. I can’t think of an action which more undermines the authority of the Chief Electoral Officer, than having his explicit warnings disregarded and no action occurring.
So please consider this. If the Police were not up to the job of even being able to decide if a pledge card “Encourages or persuades or appears to encourage or persuade voters to vote for a party, how on Earth do we think they would cope with this new Act, where they have to decide whether a particular proposition is associated with a political party or not.
The Police do an excellent job in many areas. But electoral enforcement is not one of them, and again if you proceed please transfer the power of enforcement to the Electoral Commission. It will at least ensure cases get to be heard by a Judge.
Very happy to now take questions.
September 20th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
You spent far too much time on the police NOT prosecuting which is a side issue on this Bill.
September 20th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
I agree that the police didn’t handle election issues at all well, but I can understand why they didn’t get involved. They would have had prosecute political parties, which would have been an intensely political move. In a sense, the power of determining who would govern could have rested with the polcie, totally destroying their political independence.
Which is exactly why your call for the responsiblity for prosecuting breaches of electoral law to rest with the Electoral Commission is a good one. We want our police force to be apolitical, just as we want our armed forces to be apolitical.
September 20th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Thank you David.
September 20th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Tim – not at all. Hundreds of other submissions have criticised teh spending stuff, and I did that in my written submission. Me using my 15 mins just on that would not have been as effective as my touching on an area where I have done more research than possibly anyone else, and make sure that gets elevated as an issue.
September 20th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
David -
can you explain further how the Exclusive Brethren would still be able to spend $500,000 on ‘urging people to vote against the parties they don’t like’ under the proposed legislation?
[DPF: Each of the Secret Seven, for example, could register as a third party and each could spend $60,000 on saying "Don't vote for Labour and the Greens", for a total of $420,000. Now there is an anti collusion clause but my reading of it is that it doesn't stop people spending their own money up to $60,000.
What would be illegal is if one person or group had $500,000 and gave it to 10 people to each spend $50,000. But most of the senior EBs are wealthy business owners who would have $60,000 cash in their own name. If they each decided to spend $60,000 from their own money, and each registered as a 3rd party, they could easily spend over $500,000.
They could also register as a political party which stood no candidates and tehn be able to spend $1 million]
September 20th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Thanks for your efforts regarding this Bill DPF, on behalf of all of us who dont have the time or the skills, or both, to make such a submission.
G
September 20th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
What questions did you receive David. From whom? And how did you answer? It will be interesting to say the least.
And well done.
September 20th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Why has every one gone along with the con? You should be scrapping this bill, not amending it.
September 20th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
julie said “Why has every one gone along with the con? You should be scrapping this bill, not amending it.”
In DPF’s defence, just about every thread he has published on the EFB has concluded “Kill the Bill”.
September 20th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Too late. H1 signalled her intention to direct police activity with the very calculated sacking of Doone. Since there we’ve seen repeated breaches of the law by Labour MP’s benefiting at best from impunity, and at worst from police duplicity.
September 20th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
And I suspect those dimbulbs on the SC just sat and looked at you as if they had nothing to do with the most serious illegal actions that they were responsible for.
Whats the point of having a Police force charged with up holding the law when that Police force decides which laws and which cases it will prosecute based on who it may or may not offend in the process.
Please will any of you like top defend the Police on this Thought not there is no defence.
And as for their behaviour in the current mruder investigation Keystone Ave where the family lived apylt applies to Plod
September 20th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
just got back from making my submission (at about 12) … David, if I’d known you were making yours earlier in the day I would have gone earlier
in addition to the objections everyone else is making, and which I also gave my view on and have blogged about, a further point occurred to me while waiting to make my submission, and listening to others making theirs:
the term “3rd party” is itself offensive … it implies that the primary participants in an election are the political parties and candidates, and that everyone else, including voters, is a 3rd party to the electoral process … that flies in the face of the concept of democracy, and I find it offensive
that said, the whole bill is repugnant and should be thrown out … rather, lets have a public policy process to obtain a consensus on the nature and detail of the changes that most people accept are required
David, thanks for your public advocacy on this bill, the associated research, and the assistance I have had of using your posts to help me crystalise my views into a submission
September 20th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Great effort David – keep up the fight. KILL THE BILL!!
September 20th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
David once the Free Speech (Abolition) Bill has passed you must write a “how to” blog that people can copy and keep on the various methods to get around it.
September 20th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
DPF: …..”remove the Police as the enforcement agency for the Electoral Act”.
Absolutely on target. They contaminated the whole of the last election process. Their actions were not only incompetent and negligent, but also set out to deliberately pervert and defeat the course of justice.
The Validation Act was the direct result of their cover-up and has resulted in this further Cover-up.
This prima facie evidence is in my submission awaiting deliberation by the Select Committee.
Before any further amendments to the Electoral Act 1993 take place, the whole of the previous election should be subject to a Royal Commission of Inquiry
September 20th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Inventory2 , thanx for telling me that others are against the bill. I would be very saddened if people were so blind. You are not letting the rest of us down. Thank-you.
September 20th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Well done David.
Don’t you just luv the name “Free Speech (Abolition) Bill”
Sonic, John D et al … where are you?
Waiting for your instructions from the Beehive perhaps!
September 20th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Did you get much reaction to the enforcement bit of it? I thought it was a good point to make.
September 20th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Yes, thanks for your work on this David.
Much as we might “want out Police force to be apolitical” they are are far from it and haven’t been since I was old enough to take notice and, I suspect, well before that.
The Police are a government agency which, along with every other arm of government, competes for favours and funding. In addition, what they want more than anything else is more power. The means to those ends is the political process and the Police are exceptionally adept at very subtle lobbying. After all, what politician wants to be seen as “soft” on law’n'order?
Certainly it has become far more blatant of late and extended into what is quite obvious interference (including interference by deliberate and inappropriate inaction) in the actual electoral process. But it’s always been there, and always will be – and will likely get worse – unless someone enters the political sphere with the guts to clean it up.
September 20th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
How did C T J Rickards, Assistant Commissioner, Commissioner’s Support Group, deal with this on 29 April 2003:
On behalf of the Commissioner I acknowledge receipt of your letter of 16 April 2003 concerning allegations of corruption against the New Zealand Police Force.
September 20th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Kudos to Mr. Farrar for his work in exposing this bill for the attack on the democratic process that it is. However, I’m sure he knows as well as I know and that anyone who understands how leftists think and plot and plan knows- this was all predicted by the Labour Party’s command center. They expected it from the day they released the detail on the bill and they have a strategy to deal with any outcome. Even if the gain is only incremental, they’ll be happy.
The Bill should be killed. It won’t happen. That’s the only result the socialists will not accept. To satisfy them there has to be some change. Even if the increment is small, they will accept it, because they know there is always going to be another time. They will not tho allow the bill to be killed.
Going through the motions and making these kind of submissions is great, and all who have done so deserve tremendous credit. But in the end, there is only one real way to protect freedom of political expression in NZ today, and that is to free the country from the vice like grip of the socialists.
September 20th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Thanks David, do not have the time or the skill to submit a submission. Keep up the good fight, this bill is so very wrong and must be stopped as these bastards will not be happy till all democracy has been snuffed out.
September 20th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Have the EB now struck in Manurewa?:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4207501a22376.html
If the EFB blocks democratic discussion at Parliamentary election time can the local body elections still be hot beds of political intrigue?
September 20th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Deborah: Police have a statutory obligation to police the Crimes Act 1961. Anyone can lay a complaint with the Police. It is their discretion whether they take any action or not on the complaint.
Bear in mind, Helen Clark responded 10 April 2003 to a question in the House by Rt Hon Winston Peters:
“All or any allegations of corruption will be investigated”. Another Broken “Pledge” that continues to be broken?
September 20th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
The politicisation of police at the upper administrative levels is inevitable in a small country.
Aust States each have a Director of Public Prosecutions who is typically appointed for 10 years and who has the confidence of the legal profession in general pre appointment.
This fellow directs police to prosecute/not prosecute when required so the Police Commissioner can’t be lent on by State govts.
Works well.
September 20th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
gavinknight, Your point about the offensive nature of being reduced to a third party status was part of my oral support to my earlier written submission.
The oral presentation took just five minutes this morning.
The relevant part was..
2). Now to the obstacles placed in the path of political comment.
The EFBill creates three party categories….
These parties are perceived by many NZ voters as :-
First Party = Upper class and implies privilege.
Second Party = Middle class and implies tax payer
Third Party = Lower class. Even the Lower Class citizen are further divided into legitimate and illegitimate with a slur implying that these “Barstards” are trouble.
In the EFBill a barstard becomes legitimate ONLY after :-
1. Obtaining written approval from the “beneficiary” First Party.
2. After applying to the Chief Electoral Officer “PRIOR TO” making a political statement.
3. Only after filing a statutary declaration with “trace back”. Name address and intention, prior to making a political statement.
4. Only after filing an auditors report of a valuation of expenditure..
Not actual expenditure but a valuation of commercially equivalent value ?
5. The voter will be unsure whether their Political Statement is classified as a Political Advertisment.
6. Unstated restrictions and time constraints to an appeal against an official decision as to whether the commentor is legitimate or illegitimate are a direct attack on freedom of speech.
7. This is daunting to the concerned voter and will drive the resistance underground.
All this to catch a wealthy voter who wants to “ RORT” the system.
Specifically triggered by hatred of the Exclusive Bretheren because of a scare in 2005
Prevention of these “RORTS” is important but is not over whelming.
There are two main groups to watch :-
The wealthy Exclusive Bretheren and other Capitalists who spend their own money.
And the Labour Party who are not wealthy but are embarked on a repeat of their “RORT” of the last election
With a larger bid to spend other peoples money on a greater scale in a “GRAND RORT” all of their own.
This action will be seen in history as a disaster.
There are abundant consequences that cannot be suppressed.
Is this what you want. ??
September 20th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
David (Baigent):
my point was that the term “3rd party’ is itself an offensive term
not just that the bill elevates parties and candidates to 1st class status … and makes the rest of us jump through ridiculous hoops just to get involved … and even then only if we don’t spend too much money (using a ridiculously low limit at that) … which I also discussed in my written submission
September 20th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Why dont you just get over it and wake up that the Socialists regard even their own supporters as voter fodder. They have nothing but contempt for us. Their attitude is if it wasnt for us bastards governing would be soooooo much easier. It written all over their ugly faces.
September 20th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
As it stands, the “Free Speech (Abolition) Bill” ( I like the wording too) appears set to provide the state and its police with all the kinds of checks and balances that repressive European States employed prior to World War One in Europe.
Just a matter of time before they are sent out to smash printing presses, seize computers and haul hapless ‘revolutionaries’ (advocates of free political debate) before the courts.
But that is soo much better than ‘people like John Key and the Exclusive Brethren rorting the election process’ (to quote Clark).
Good on you, for making this submission, I owe you a drink.
September 20th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Thanks a lot DPF. Greatly appreciated.
September 20th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Thanks david for speaking on our behalf
September 20th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Amusing how many Nat supporters believe
stealing a little money is okay if done by the Nats, but stealing $800,000 is wrong.
If you rob a bank no matter how much is taken
you are in trouble.
So should we get the cops to prosecute all
politicians over the last twenty years who have
taken taxpayers money unlawfully
Or should all politicians remain above the law
in issues like this in practice?
Oh,charge Brownlee and Benson with assault?
September 20th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Whilst reading the story on Myanmar in todays Herald I couldnt helping think the Dearly Beloved Heavenly Leader must wish she could impose the governance model of that country on NZ Come to think of it the EFB is but the first step in the Glorious Quest for Citizen Reform.
September 20th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
grumpyoldhori
They should have all been prosecuted. Sadly though Labour introduced and passed the retrospective validation under urgency because they didn’t want to keep their election promise in 2005 of a new standard of openness and accountability.
It was left wing supporters that took the “National did it too” line. Most interesting is the concept that the $800,000 stolen by Labour “didn’t effect the election outcome” yet they need to restrict party campaign spending.
They can’t have it both ways – but they will of course because as you say – they are above the law.
September 20th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
grumpy
Please read what David had to say in his submission about the fact that Police did not prosecute National. You can’t get any clearer than that and DPF doesn’t deserve to treated as partisan on those grounds at all. Apology called for I think
September 20th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
One more thing grumpy
The retrospective legislation covered 14 years. This is a pretty clear signal that this sort of corruption has been going on for a while.
Just as well they (Labour) covered it up with retrospective legislation or we might have got to find out the full extent of it… Openness and accountability – just can’t have that now can we.
September 20th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
OT
Poll @ Stuff
The government is unveiling details of its climate change policy today. Are you doing anything to help limit global warming?
Yes – I’m driving less
Yes – I’m using less electricity at home
No – it’s too difficult
No – I’m not convinced
Check the results…
The message is getting through, I’m upgrading to a bigger turbo as we speak.
September 20th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Grumpy, DPF was clear that he thought that both National and Labour should have been prosecuted. Going back into the past wouldn’t make sense – the ability to prosecute in these matters is time limited. But prosecuting all parties who were identified at the time would have made sense.
I suspect that DPF would also expect a competent judge to take the underlying situation into account. National inadvertently overspent, which is a question of competence but not one of malice. Labour deliberately overspent, after repeated warnings by the authority charged with making determinations on these matters. The amounts involved were also quite different. I suspect prosecuting both would have resulting in a slap on the hand with a wet bus ticket for National, and something more substantial for Labour.
September 20th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
PaulL
Well actually National could introduce retrospective legislation extending the time limit. This just might be a start to restoring public confidence that corruption will not be tollerated in NZ politics.
Currently – It’s validated. Plain and simple – not just tollerated but covered up and validated.
September 20th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Interesting how many Labour supporters want to make it look like National supporters did not want their own side held to account.
Funny that.
September 20th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Excellent effort DPF.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4208841a11.html
This hilarious the MSM have woken up from your efforts.
What is Labour going to do now????
The very people that they were trying to exterminate [almost Jew like] are not stopped by this bill at all.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha splutter ha h ah ah ah ah ha ha h ahaa
So Funny. ABSOLUTELY HILARIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!
After all that work the target was completely missed.
They will have to find someone else to blame for the reason of this bill perhaps it is Forest and Bird or more probably Greenpeace for hassling them about climate change.
September 20th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Bills like this do have one redeeming feature – it will bite labour in the arse when they become the opposition – which they will one day.
September 20th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Well done, DPF, your oral submission was *excellent*. Very punchy and on the money. I bet it got their attention.
My oral submission was earlier today as well. Benson-Pope asked me a question, which went something like: “Don’t you think something needs to be done about Exclusive Brethren and their influence at the last election?” My response was along the lines of: “they have a point of view and they expressed it, what is the problem with that? I certainly wasn’t convinced by what they said.”
I should have asked, rhetorically, why the Exclusive Brethren affair should translate to any kind of restriction on someone waving a placard under any circumstance, or why it should prevent unregistered organisations responding to criticism by politicians, or why unions should receive any kind of exemption, etc. etc.
I pointed to research which shows money doesn’t buy many votes, and argued that, therefore, the entire rationale for the bill is a red herring (Levitt 1994, available here if anyone is interested http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUsingRepeatChallengers1994.pdf)
I was asked by a woman on the committee whether 12 months is about right. I responded by saying if nothing else is changed, then 0 time is the right number. I said the Electoral Act in its current form has restrictions for three months and that is about right for that.
Overall, I was completely unpersuasive, completely ignored I’d say, but having been through the process will do a better job next time.
September 20th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Crappy article on Stuff – no analysis, and lots of “he said.” I’m OK with that for DPF’s bits (he actually thought it through) but Hager’s bits are basically providing cover for the govt to amend the bill by introducing state funding of political parties. Maybe RedBaiter’s latest conspiracy theory was right?
September 20th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
The socialist chant…..”something needs to be done about ….”
It’s sooo Kiwi.
September 20th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
You should have pointed out that the exclusive bretheren may have been the ‘reason’, but the real issue was that they attacked teh government. There was actually nothing wrong with their intent – to expose some very dubious policies.
September 20th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Great submission
If this bill does go through, how many people you think will just say b_gger the law and go and carry placards anyway. In fact, it might be good to organize some kind of march with everyone carrying anti-Labour placards stating that the law (if it passes) is undemocratic. The police couldn’t arrest everyone. Even if they did it would takes months and months to go through the courts?
September 20th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Fletch I like the way you think. Where can I get a ‘Labour sucks” bumper-sticker?
September 20th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
DPF: “They could also register as a political party which stood no candidates and tehn be able to spend $1 million”
What’s involved in registering as a political party? can any organisation thats involved in lobbying register with little hassle? And if they do do they then get a bucketful of money to promote their views?
September 20th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
got a call from the commission at 4:59 today. they’ve allocated 5 minutes for me, my wife and two teenage children to present next week. 5 minutes. ha! think we’ll help ourselves to 30!
September 20th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Lee: googled and found this tbumper sticker business.
September 20th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
“My oral submission was earlier today as well. Benson-Pope asked me a question, which went something like: “Don’t you think something needs to be done about Exclusive Brethren and their influence at the last election?””
DBP has been asking that question of just about everyone. People will say they want free speech and no limits. He will ask whether they agree with limits on political parties, if they say yes, he will ask if the only conclusion is that we should then have limits on third parties too (…to stop the rorts that happened last time where National circumvented their limit – which you’ve agreed they should have – by working with the EB…)
September 20th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
1) An acceptable party name (and any abbreviation).
2) Satisfactory evidence of at least 500 eligible members.
3) Statutory declarations from its party secretary concerning membership, intention to contest general elections, and advising of any component parties.
4) Party membership rules showing what is required for current financial membership, and candidate selection rules which provide for the democratic involvement of members in the process.
5) An auditor (or person who has agreed to be auditor when the party is registered).
6) A party secretary with a postal address (and ideally phone, fax and e-mail contact details).
7) Either the secretary, or a sitting MP who is a current financial member of the party, to make the application.
The party should also understand and be prepared to meet the ongoing compliance requirements of being a registered political party.
As per The Electoral Commission’s advice.
Time for a cross-political “Freedom of Speech (Kill the Bill) Party” perhaps? Anyone with something to say hands their treatise to the Party, along with the cost of disseminating it, and the Party undertakes to do so, regardless of the ideology expressed therein (obvious hate speech excepted). I’m up for membership. Who else?
September 20th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
Rex,
1. The Kiwiblog Party – NZ’s virst virtual political party
2. No Problem.
3. See http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/kiwiblogparty/Statutory_declarations
4. See http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/kiwiblogparty/membership_rules
5. An takers? Much be someone in the kiwiblogosphere?
6. DPF?
7. DPF
I’ll join tomorrow, or today if possible.
September 20th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
ooops, sorry david – should have used invalid URLs! !
September 20th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Brethren campaign not stopped by Electoral Finance Bill! (Stuff Story)
Grrrrrrrrrrr ! Grrrrrrrrr !
This is further embarrassment and my patience is wearing very thin.
I demand some explanations(and not from the hollow men right whingers.)
Why did this not get thought through before it got this far- This is another sign of our wary and tired party needing to bring some fresh leadership.
September 20th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Um, what was wrong with the EBs campaign? I accept that some folks didn’t like the message but I get pretty sick of folks claiming that they were doing anything other than exercising their democratic rights
September 20th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
The point, krazykiwi, is that some people would like to remove those democratic rights from them. They are only rights as long as the law says they are. That is the point here – this bill and the opposition to it are about things that should be democratic rights, that are about to be removed.
The logic as to why people don’t like the EB comes in a few flavours:
1. The EB are a bunch of weirdos, they shouldn’t have any rights. Therefore we need a new law removing their rights, but somehow magically Maharey thinks that won’t apply to nice people (like the Catholic church)
2. The EB colluded with National to effectively allow National to exceed the cap they were otherwise subject to. This argument has subarguments such as a) that it is OK for the unions to do this with Labour, but not OK for National and the EB because of reason 1 or reason 3; b) that somehow it is wrong for a third party to express an opinion unless it is one in support of Labour, or c) that no third parties should have opinions at all because the ruling class and the media have it all taken care of.
This particular logic of course is all predicated on collusion actually existing (the evidence is weak – a couple of meetings and suggestion that the EB not screw up National’s campaign by doing something that would end up with their costs attributed to National), that the campaign directly supported National (it didn’t) and that it had benefit for National (it didn’t).
3. The EB didn’t properly declare who they were, and this is inappropriate. You might read something and agree that it was entirely reasonable, without realising that a bunch of fruitcakes had written it and that therefore the message itself must be entirely incorrect. I note that most of the material was properly authorised, there were a couple of ads that omitted some information, and that the Electoral Commission dealt with those that were incorrectly authorised under the existing law (no need for change here).
September 20th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
That’s two of us krazykiwi, and I’ll be Secretary if DPF is too busy. He can be Leader. From what I observed of Winston this merely involves pontificating and drinking a lot, often simultaneously, skills which DPF has shown he already possesses
But seriously folks, we need 498 more of you. If you really give a damn, indicate your willingness here and if it looks like it has legs, we’ll do it somehow, probably via a website.
My suggestion for a slogan: For God’s sake whatever you do, don’t actually elect us
There’s no way anyone on the Select Committee will want to recommend reducing the cap on party spending because then they’ll cut their own throats. So the Kiwiblog (Don’t vote for us please) Party becomes the vehicle for free speech in an election campaign.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
I’ll be in. So long as the membership fees are not entirely unreasonable (less than $10). And there are some sort of membership functions on which those fees are spent (i.e. the fees shouldn’t be spend on promoting policies, only flow back to the members in some way – even a t-shirt would be fine for me).
September 20th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
4, and I’ll rope in a few friends.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Count me in! My accountant’s strongly anti-labour, so we might have an Auditor.
4 in, 496 to go!
Will “chinless scarf wearers” be allowed to join?
September 20th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
look if each of the first 50 members agree to find at least 9 more then we’re sorted. i can organise 9. guaranteed
September 20th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
krazykiwi+9; Rex+9; PaulL+9; AndrewW+9; Inventory2+9 .. there’s 50 already
September 20th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
“Thanks for your efforts regarding this Bill DPF, on behalf of all of us who dont have the time or the skills, or both, to make such a submission.
G”
Copy and paste, DPF.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
Target Missed……….Ouch …….Clark very angry!!!!!
Eb’s can continue their campaign.
What a fiasco , come on Sonic, Selma, Philu, Tane, Robinson and the rest of the trolls
Calling all trolls –
Red Doggy yapping and yelping!
What are you going to do about this now!
How do you feel
How gobsmacked can you get!!!
September 20th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Kiwiblog party? I’m in.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Re Paul at 8.55
Great summary Paul
My personal view is that ingrained left wing prejudices were inflamed by the perfectly legal EB campaign.
What they said was never debated-(Can any one remember what the EB’s actually said in their pamphlets) but the messengers were brutally attacked.
The proof that the EB campaign was legal is the EFB.
NZ citizens expressed a view point coming up to an election. The socialists were incensed by this and in a fit of irrational rage produced a bill that orders every one out of the playground in order to stop those nasty brethren boys playing in the sand pit.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
youre such a ‘richard’..casta..
i have written against/submitted to select committee against this poxy bill..
do try to keep up..!..eh..?
it is tiresome having to bring you up to speed all the time..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 20th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Interestingly on freedom etc, in the debate yesterday the speaker made a new ruling – it is now unparliamentary to challenge a member to ‘tell the truth’ – that might make things easier for the socialists!
September 20th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
if there is anything refreshing about this bill… it’s that there are people with entirely different world views who are united in their abhorrence of it. phil and I are probably as different as chalk and cheese but we both agreed that this bill sucks. majorly. Cool… eh?
September 20th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
Yes, everyone unites in loathing the weasels that support the bill
September 20th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Calling DPF… calling DPF…
If someone amongst your web buddies can offer some hosting I’ll spring for a domain name and even do a bit of web design. We’ll get people to register their interest in joining, then send them a proper form to fill in (as I’m betting the Electoral Commission isn’t quite ready for a cyberspace-only party just yet).
There are 464 registered commenters on this blog. If 50 of them find 9 people, or 100 find 4 1/2 (alright, maths was never a strong suit, I’m a wordsmith) we’re there.
Not to mention the “MSM” would be so transfixed by the sight of bloggers actually doing something other than venting we’d probably get a bit of publicity and maybe break the 500 barrier.
PaulL said:
$10 would pay for 20 letters to be sent out to prospective members with their registration forms. Or ten, if we include a reply-paid envelope. And that’s not counting the bottles of Perrier we’d need to supply DPF (stamp licking is an important Leadership function, David
) So each new member would effectively pay for the recruitment of his or her nine friends plus one more.
If you want t-shirts, that’ll mean a cake stall. And then we’ll have to have a thread on whether vanilla is better than chocolate, with multiple regressive insults from the usual suspects as to one another’s taste in baked goods.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
Rex Widerstrom: I’m in: What price Justice? I’m all for action along with words. Time we had an “Aux armes cityonnes”
September 20th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Feel kinda naughty doing this without DPF’s explicit approval….
Oh what the hell….. taking preliminary registrations of interest for The KiwiBlog Freedom of Speech Party now.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
disclosure: registrations of interest [obviously] expose your email address to me. i agree to:-
(1) never expose those addresses here or anywhere else without your express permission, and;
(2) make email contact with you to provide my full contact details, and;
(3) close this whole thing down from here if our rather impetuous actions displease our kindly landlord, Lord Farrar Esq.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
Reg:
The EB campaign was only legal because it was not convicted. Its campaign was outside the spirit of the law however, because:
It, in conspiracy with the National leadership, produced pamphlets attacking Labour and the Greens, worded by National, in a style to influence voting behaviour. This money, which in effect was free advertising for the National Party, was not declared as election spending, when in fact, it blatantly was. I still have the pamphlet delivered to me!
It did not comply with the regulation that all election advertising has to be registered to the residential address of its authorisee, using false addresses, and locations of various businesses owned by the EB.
It broke the rule, that those who donate or collaborate with a political party, are supposed to deal with the party president, rather than its parliamentary leadership, so that parliamentarians are not exposed to corrupt practises, or policy deals.
Maybe the Supreme Vassal, whose predecessors obviously were fans of South African apartheid, but not democracy, should tell his followers to leave New Zealand. We, like South Africa, like and respect our democracy and those who try to undermine it can bugger off.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
Philu,
Having been one of the trolls defending the main target of this Mugabe bill how do you feel now that the makers of this balls up have shifted the goal posts so both targets miss or do you genuinely feel that this is a mistake by the drafters and creeators of it THE NINTH FLOOR!
September 20th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
Policy Parrott another Trollop,
Same Question to you,
Having been one of the trolls defending the main target of this Mugabe bill how do you feel now that the makers of this balls up have shifted the goal posts so both targets miss or do you genuinely feel that this is a mistake by the drafters and creators of it THE NINTH FLOOR!
September 20th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
With the benefit of contemplation it appears the only answer to Benson-Pope’s
NO!
Why not…. Because Labour told the public after the eventual admission that they might have overspent $800,000 that it made no difference to the outcome of the election. By Labour’s assertion the amount of spending a party does during an election campaign makes no difference.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
I’m betting that philu does a pretty wild baked ‘cookie’
just saw the entire labour party caucus, passports in hand, boarding a flight to their exile in cuba.
Come on PP, words like conspiracy?!?. WTF – I mean… conspiracy to engage in democratic lobying, conspiracy to be heard….
Sure you hate the message (pro nats, anti labour, anti greens), but that such messages are permitted is the sign of a healthy democracy, while attempts to suppress those voices are just the opposite. And if you want that suppression then can i politely suggest that you head to Cuba with the rest of them.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
Spam: “You should have pointed out that the exclusive bretheren may have been the ‘reason’, but the real issue was that they attacked teh government. There was actually nothing wrong with their intent – to expose some very dubious policies.”
As far as I can see during the police investigation of the Chief Electoral Officer’s and Electoral Commission’s complaint, there is no mention of any investigation of the Exclusive Brethern. And why should there be? I gather they didn’t sign their flyer. Neither did anybody sign Helen’s pledge card. which if I recall correctly, in the House Helen referred to it as Labour Party Policy?
So where has Helen got this bee in her bonnet about them
September 20th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Hmm, equality for the EB, what a great idea.
So like other sectors of the community if called
upon they would have to carry a rifle in the
military.
Now, we cannot be prejudiced, no cult would have the right to special treatment, that
is a fair go.
National did not steal the money, they are just
imcompetant? I would prefer the Nats to steal
the money and be competant.
Change the law Nats, go back thirty years, any
politician who stole taxpayers money to go to
jail.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Policy Parrot: “It, in conspiracy with the National leadership, produced pamphlets attacking Labour and the Greens, worded by National, in a style to influence voting behaviour.”
Please print proof of this statement on DPF’s website
September 20th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
I have a copy of their flyer and it has an name and address on it.
And I recall the Press statement that the Policecommissioner put out was that they didn’t have a prima facie case against anyone accept the Labour Party and they defended not proceeeding with that case as they deemed it to be not in the public interest.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
I can here the floggings going on in the DPMC.
There will be blood on the floor on the 9th floor carpet tonight.
Heather Simpson will be visting Burton with a pistol.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Not in the public interest. Well the extra spending didn’t make any difference to the outcome of the election. That’s why we need to stop the EB doing it again…
Did I miss something or is there a serious logic floor in that argument?
September 20th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
The idea of registering as a political party has occured to me. It would be great to have on the ballot paper a party such as the “Protest against the Electoral Finance Act Party” which would remind every voter as they vote, what the Government and allies did.
I’d suggest holding off until we see what actually happens with the ERB.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
DPF
It’s an excellent idea.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
Castafiore: You are spot on as far as the prima facie police case against the Labour Party is concerned. Include Heather Simpson too.
Same prima facie case against Helen Clark and her paintergate. Again not in the public interest. The public are the judge of these cover-ups and they give them the thumbs down. Again it shows the Senior Police for the lapdogs they are.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
DPF: Now we are getting somewhere. We needed a bit of professional guidance. Great!
September 20th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
She hissed and he missed
She screamed and he dreamed
She aimed and he feigned
She cursed and he burst
and to quote Bill English yesterday with special amendments for EB’s
Can we now sum up the Minister’s and Labour’s position on “Exclusive Brethren” in the following way:
He said they could not and they would not,
Then he said they cannot and they shall not,
Then he said they could and they would,
And now they might when it is right,
And why does he not listen to those New Zealanders who are telling him he is wrong and he is gone, and his Labour colleagues who are saying that he is tired and should be fired?
September 21st, 2007 at 12:18 am
The Exclusive Bretheren. Who knew about these guys 3 years ago? They will forever be known now, and their legacy to our democracy will be this bill.
I still to this day cannot work out what it is exactly they did which was so bad. They spent their own money outlining to the electorate what was wrong with the Labour Government. That is freedom of speech. And, as DPF has shown, they can probably do it again. Specualtion that National wrote their pamphlets cannot be substantiated with any hard evidence in fact there is no evidence.
So their crime was opposing the government. Their sentence, nothing.
Everyone else pays through loosing some fundamental democratic rights.
Great work Labour and your poodles
September 21st, 2007 at 6:02 am
I signed the petition. I came to the Party. Thaks to Labour for this major shot in the arm for democracy. It has turned an apathetic IT browser into a potential lawbreaker. Can’t wait for the election.
September 21st, 2007 at 6:39 am
“Protest against the Electoral Finance Act Party”
How about
“Fight government corruption”?
September 21st, 2007 at 6:58 am
Or:
“Don’t steal (elections) – the Government hates competition!”
September 21st, 2007 at 7:51 am
or “The Beneficiaries Rights Party” while we have MMP (think about it… voting impact.. i wouldn’t vote for this party but, um, others might)
then
“The Electoral Reform Party” if we ever move to STV
September 21st, 2007 at 7:59 am
Anything to stop those 500 members belonging to a second political party of 500 with the resultant same spending capacity?
[DPF: Actually no there is not - exclusivity of membership is not needed under the law]
September 21st, 2007 at 8:23 am
Sounds like some would rather call it the “Have a great Party Party”.
If it goes ahead don’t lose sight of the reason for creating it which is to raise $1million and spend it legitimately furthering the aims and purposes of the party presumably as outlined in the Party’s Constitution and Manifesto. Simply put the purpose (IMHO) would be to expose the corruption which is the EFA 2007 as it may possibly be.
I will be good for both a membership and a donation if it comes to pass although we would have to be in quick before the registration of a new party becomes a problem. Is there anything in the Bill about the need to be registered before the commencement of Election Year?
September 21st, 2007 at 8:23 am
So all those kiwiblog Nats and Greens who have been holding off can join the new party (if and when).
[DPF: Note that while the law does not prohibit membership of more than one party, the National Party rules require membership to be exclusive. Not that enforce the rule greatly but it is there]
September 21st, 2007 at 9:05 am
Hey why not call it the “Stop the Exclusive Bretheren Party”.
Anyone stupid enough to vote for that has clearly skulled the Government’s EB demonisation Kool-Aid… and no party deserves to have the vote of such a moron.
September 21st, 2007 at 9:18 am
Noi one has suggested the
“TICK HERE’ Party.
Imagine the voting form that shows;
Joe Bloggs (Tick Here)
September 21st, 2007 at 9:19 am
david
In the late 80′s there was a prty in Canberra caled “The party party party”
It’s objective was to make sure that there is always a good party on somewhere.
It got 2% of the vote !
September 21st, 2007 at 10:11 am
Couldn’t resist, but is this what we are headed for in 2008?
The classic Monty Python skit “Election Night Special” – enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31FFTx6AKmU
September 21st, 2007 at 10:33 am
heh Im absolutely in for joining up As some of you have said It will give us something tangible to do instead of just bleating on There should be enough of us in Auckland and Wellington to get started with. Wouldnt be a laugh to have a protest match down Queen St and Lambton Quay. We could all dress up in our No.1s carry suitable worded placards and have a silent march.
Contrast the usual scruffy loud mouthed Socialists protests. I reckon we could get some real support from middle NZ if we got to explain how they are being raped pillaged and burned without even knowing it,
As Ive said here before Vive L’Revolution
September 21st, 2007 at 10:47 am
The trouble with revolutions is that everyone is revolting in different ways.
September 21st, 2007 at 10:58 am
Taking preliminary registrations of interest (ROIs) for an as-yet-unformed A Freedom of Speech Partynow. NZ’s first virtual political party!
Anticipating ROIs from people of all political leanings. The main (perhaps only thing) we’ll have in common is a desire for free speech to see our elected leaders held accountable for all/any attempts to pervert our democratic processes for their own gain.
I’ll just hold this list open until there’s a collective view of if/how to move forward.
September 21st, 2007 at 11:27 am
Great stuff krazykiwi – count me in. It’ll be interesting to see how it pans out. Sonic is all for free speech, so I’m sure he’ll be coming along for the ride!
September 21st, 2007 at 1:19 pm
fantastic I’m in too!
September 21st, 2007 at 1:26 pm
I take it we sign in using real names ?
September 21st, 2007 at 1:31 pm
doesn’t matter really. key info is a correct email addresss so if things do move ahead i can contact folks. i don’t have the bandwidth to run a party.. just happy to co-ordinate ROI’s
September 25th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
Let’s just be totally frank here. The Exclusive Brethren are just a convenient bogeyman for the Labour Party who are just really taking advantage of the fact that the group are secretive, private and therefore easy to exploit. That doesn’t say a lot for Labour’s championing of minority rights, but that’s another story. Labour also exploit the fact that National got burned by the EB experience last election and as a result have not exactly leapt to their defence in the last two years.
The real agenda of course, is Labour’s re-election-at-all-costs campaign. The party is now well into its third term and is looking very tired as a government. Still, Helen Clark wants to position Labour as the natural party of government, and with such delusions of grandeur, it’s natural for her administration to think that they have the rights to bring about such law changes as these especially when they can cite Canada and Britain having done it as well.
Another part of this is that it is very much driven by the hard left of Labour, all those power blocs or sectorial interest groups that have remained nicely in the background up till now. When things go to the wire for Labour, the hard left crawls out of the woodwork, and they don’t have much inherent respect for nice sounding words like democracy and free speech.