Quotes from Law Society Submission on Electoral Finance Bill
September 28th, 2007 at 9:06 am by David FarrarI’ve found the Law Society submission online. Some quotes:
The bill has serious defects, which mean it will not achieve its stated aims. Moreover, it is likely to curtail the legitimate expression of opinions while failing to curb (and potentially even incentivising) clandestine conduct in relation to the electoral process. The bill as a whole represents a backward step in the integrity of democracy in New Zealand.
Okay not too positive.
The fact that redrafting and brokering is going on amongst political parties as to changes that will be promoted by the Government at the same time as submissions are being sought, excludes public participation and is an anathema to the Select Committee process.
It would be inappropriate to repair such a measure with a complex, negotiated Supplementary Order Paper even if this were referred to a Select Committee. A Supplementary Order Paper would not usually be subject to Bill of Rights Act certification by the Attorney-General. This is particularly important given that the opinion on Bill of Rights Act consistency given by the Crown Law Office in relation to the present bill does not seem to engage with the points raised in this submission.
That puts paid to the notion of lets just amend the Bill and all will be fine.
Withdrawing the bill and starting again would enable a Regulatory Impact Statement and a list of those consulted to be added to the Explanatory Note. Both are notably absent from this bill.
Accordingly the Society submits that the current Bill should be abandoned and a process embarked upon whereby:
the principles to which New Zealand aspires in terrns of its democratic process are identified (clause 3(a) to (e) may indeed identify these);
the areas where current law fails to embody and protect these principles are determined; and
fair and practical solutions to these problems are formulated.
This is polite lawyer speak for “Kill the Bill”.
They also have a good analysis of the problems of extending the regulated period:
Informing people about the services available to them from their government is a necessary, important and proper function of government. However, when a restricted period (during which any criticism of government initiatives is a regulated election advertisement) is too long and spending limits are too low, the dissemination of information about government services provides an unacceptable advantage to the incumbent government. This is so even if used in good faith, though the advantage is easily amenable to abuse.
An unacceptable advantage to the incumbent Government says it all. Of course that is the unwritten primary purpose of the Bill.
They they deal to the regulations on issue advocacy:
The primary issue with this restriction is the potential for it to be used as a weapon for shutting down debate. Bizarrely, the regime seems to mean that the best way to take an issue off the table is to take a position on it. By taking a position on an issue a party or candidate ensures that any person or entity wishing to take the opposing view publicly will be required to go through the strict process of registering as a third party and then be limited to $60,000 in its spending. The net effect is a stifling of debate on important issues. Furthermore, the basic fact that collectively parties and candidates will be found to have “taken positions” on almost everything, entails the financial regulation of speech on almost all relevant issues at election time. The net effect is a stifling of political debate.Of course we are sure the Government never wanted to shut down debate on unpopular issues. No no the “haters and wreckers” are embraced by Helen.
Then again the conclusion:
The broad purposes of the bill may well be admirable. However, it appears that its operative provisions have been formulated in a manner so divorced from these purposes that the bill will have the opposite effect to that which is intended. In this case a political compromise has resulted in a compromise of principles and this cannot be accepted in an area as important as regulation of the democratic process.
The Society considers that the bill goes no way towards increasing transparency or accountability in the democratic process. Conversely, it risks encouraging large anonymous donations to political parties and candidates in preference to open participation in public debate. In this way it promotes rather than prevents the undue influence of wealth.The rules regarding registration, disclosure, spending limits and related offences are so complex, vague and uncertain as to make participation in our parliamentary democracy an arduous and perhaps even legally dangerous undertaking for ordinary New Zealanders.
In conclusion, there is no one part of the bill that is problematic. Rather, the bill in its current form is a flawed attempt to achieve a legitimate social objective. Its cumulative defects make it irredeemable: the democratic deficit associated with use of the Supplementary Order Paper procedure (even if that were referred to the Select Committee) means that redemption ought not to be attempted in that way. Hence the bill ought not to proceed.
I’m not quite sure what irredeemable means (okay I do know) but it doesn’t sound like a good thing for the New Zealand Law Society to say about a proposed law.
The Select Committee has an easy job. The oral submissions have now concluded. All that is required is a half hour meeting to resolve that the Bill does not proceed. Just do it!
Related posts:
- 30 hours left to make your submission on the Electoral Finance Bill
- Law Society on Electoral Finance Bill
- Electoral Finance Bill submissions
- Law Society submission on electoral finance
September 28th, 2007 at 9:13 am
what are the odds..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 9:16 am
Another National party blogger is pictured campaigning hard against the bill
Photo here!
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 9:30 am
Sonic – are you really that naive to think that this bill will assist the democratic processes in NZ? Or is it just a case of ‘National bad, Labour good’?
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 9:30 am
A damning indictment, couched in legalese, but right on target.
It brings the authors, the supporters and the law drafters into disrepute.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 9:31 am
Get these jabs in quick sonic. Next year if this Bill passes and you printed that image out on your printer and stuck it up in public you would be breaking the law. If you wanted to hand them out at a rally and went to a printers you would have to sign a declaration to get them printed. Pretty funny?
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 9:40 am
Piss off sonic! This is a serious thread – go and thread-jack somewhere else!
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 9:49 am
Sonic:
Got a link to anything that’s actually amusing and/or insightful? Anyway, looks like Labour still needs all that cash from A. Nonymous, ay?
PhilU:
I think the odds are remarkably high that the Law Society has some experience – and considerable expertise – in analysing legislation and a thoughtful and well-informed manner.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 9:50 am
Oh for goodness sake Craig, it’s Friday, lighten up.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 9:51 am
sonic
What do you think – The law society just want a tax cut ?
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 9:57 am
Ah well, even if this Bill dies a death they got their anti Spam bill through while we were not thinking properly which is one great blow against free speech leading up to the election.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 9:57 am
According to David Murphy, Vice-President of the NZ Law Society (Submission 14 Sept 2007)
“The (EFB) Bill seems to be inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill or Rights 1990 as it limits freedom of expression in a way “that cannot be justified” in a free and democratic society”
This decision of the NZ Law Society is contrary to the Crown Law Office opinion provided at the introduction of the EFBill to the House at first reading.
What is the realitive standing of Val Sim, Crown Counsel, who wrote the opinion for the Attorney General.
Vote:What is the standing of Joanna Davidson, Crown Counsel, who peer reviewed the Sim opinion.
What is the standing of David Murphy who signed the Submission of the EFBill on behalf of the NZ Law Society out in the open.?
September 28th, 2007 at 9:59 am
Along with my submission I enclosed my complaint 21 August 2007 to the Police Commissioner.
Abridged: “I allege that the action of the Police in “burying” my complaint 10 02 2006 to Acting Police Commissioner Steve Long of: “In my view this is misuse of Public Funds (Parliamentary Services) by the Labour Government on behalf of the Labour Party and constitutes an offence under the Crimes Act 1961”, along with subsequent allegations, prevented and denied the course of justice.
……
So Police are directly responsible for The Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Act (Statute of Shame and Memorial to Police and Political Corruption) and the corrupt: The Electoral Finance Bill now before the Select Committee.
As
I allege, Police failed utterly, not only to carry out their statutory duties and police the Electoral Act 1993 and the Crimes Act 1961, but also allegedly by lack of action and paucity of investigation, successfully buried allegations of misappropriation of Public Funds from the Prime Minister’s Leader’s Funds.
This enabled the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Act to pass into law, supported by Members of Parliament, fully aware of the allegations in the first two paragraphs of this letter. Others with the same full knowledge did not vote. (A gross violation of their obligations).
Outcome. A High Court hearing was negated. Justice was denied.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 10:07 am
After reading commentary and guaging general opinion on this I am coming to the impression that should Nelson Mandela, Ghandi, Jesus, Mother Theresa, Karl Marx, Lenin, the Pope and Bono all stand together to say:
“The EFB is an assault on democracy by Helen Clark and the Labour party. Redraft it to follow proper process and to actually achieve the laudable aims it was intended to aspire too”
people like Sonic, Helen Clark, Tane and a few others would be here to tell us that group of people are only after tax cuts and wanted to buy elections. Honestly, how many independant organisations who make this their living would have to stand up, condemn this and suggest it be redone before these commentators will wake up and realize it is fundamentally flawed.
Not from a National, Labour, ACT or Greens perspective, but from a Kiwi perspective.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 10:07 am
i’m with craig – piss off sonic. you are only here to disrupt. we all know this. others have constructive comments to make while your scripted piffle just gets in the way. go and play on the road …
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 10:09 am
I made an oral submission yesterday, made the point the $20,000 hasn’t been adjusted for inflation and larger MMP electorates; and concluded by saying: think about an election year some time sooner or later when the parties in Government are those to whom you are most opposed and whose principles and policies you most abhor. If that thought doesn’t fill you with dread then you don’t understand the implications of this Bill. If it is enacted the Government of the day will have almost no constraints on what they spend from their ministerial budget as long as they don’t explicitly solicit money or votes.
At the same time, if your conscience allows you to take advantage of the state funding by stealth enabled by this bill, you will be able to use your parliamentary budgets in a similar manner. But in Opposition that budget will be much smaller than the Government’s; and you will be effectively gagged by the strict limits on spending the money your members and supporters have willingly given you and the need to account for that spending from January the first; in effect almost a third of the election cycle.
This is dangerous legislation which unfairly gives the Government an advantage over opposition parties and is biased towards parliamentary parties while severely constraining any political parties outside parliament and other groups and individuals.
It will impose needless regulations on individuals and groups which will effectively gag them for almost one year in three.
It does not address the issues which caused the most concern in the last election – namely anonymous donations and the misuse of parliamentary funding.
And in conclusion it is an affront to the democratic principles which until now have formed the basis of our electoral laws.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 10:26 am
Pascal said “After reading commentary and guaging general opinion on this I am coming to the impression that should Nelson Mandela, Ghandi, Jesus, Mother Theresa, Karl Marx, Lenin, the Pope and Bono all stand together to say:
“The EFB is an assault on democracy by Helen Clark and the Labour party. Redraft it to follow proper process and to actually achieve the laudable aims it was intended to aspire too””
Pascal, if the prophet Muhammed were to join the chorus, would that change Helen’s opinion?
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 10:26 am
ele – good on you for taking the time and making the effort. I am staggered that the MSM are not putting submissions like yours and the law society’s on the front page of the paper. I know that commercial priories rule but if this is not a story then what is ? Has the population been dumbed down to a greater extent than realised or is the MSM simply too intimidated to run real stories that challenge the shower of wankers who run this country at the moment.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 10:33 am
Sonic:
I’d like to think I have quite a sense of humour, can appreciate a witty bitching of the National Party and have even been known to chortle at a good joke at my own expense. Does help if it’s actually funny, though.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 10:34 am
The Law Society submission wouldnt have anything to do with their losing their monopoly next year. You do realise that a Barrister and Solicitor will no longer be compelled to be a member of the Law Society in order to practice and that currently the District Law Societies are all voting on whether to disband and just have one NZ Law Society.
Could be a case of sticking it up the Socialists notwithstanding that their analysis is correct.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 10:34 am
Perhaps someone could advise me if this Bill would be able to shut down the kind of dirt digging and publishing that Investigate Magazine has done with respect to the allegations published against people high in the Labour Party in relation to certain activities in Dunedin.
- within the (effectively) 1 year regulated period prior to an election, or
- at other times.
I don’t think the Bill can stop this happening except during the regulated period, but the fact that it can then is chilling, if this is part of the intention.
Because, the more you look at this Bill, the more it looks like Labour’s petty payback for the dirt digging that was done after the last election and the various allegations that were published, especially by Investigate Magazine.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 10:45 am
“scripted piffle”
Tinfoil hat boy strikes again!
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 10:47 am
Where are the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi embodied in the EFB?
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 11:08 am
Patrick Dunford – it shouldn’t, no.
There is an exemption for periodicals informing or entertaining their readers (which Investigate probably falls into).
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 11:09 am
gd – no.
You may not be aware that the Law Society was pushing for the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act for a very long time (and were getting very annoyed at all the delays).
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 11:10 am
Idiot/Savant has been a strong supporter of the EFB (easy, as he has turned off comments). I would really like to see him post on this. Or is he just a Labour party poodle? What about it I/S – are the Law Society the enemies of democracy?
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 11:15 am
milo – I/S has not been a strong supporter of the EFB. He has been a strong supporter for the need for reform of our electoral laws. I don’t want to put words into his mouth/blog, but he has been very critical of many aspects of the EFB – including the incredible breadth of the definitions, and the absence of controls on anonymous and trust donations.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 11:19 am
GD – the vote is over. There will be one society.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 11:32 am
Puzzled in Ekatahuna: “Where are the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi embodied in the EFB?”
First and foremost, no ‘principles’ are expressed or implied, to underlie the 3 Treaty Articles.
Only obligations and responsibilities by both parties. These may be summarised thus:
• Maori to relinquish any rights and powers of sovereignty
• Britain to safeguard Maori possessions
• .Maori to receive British citizenship and so uphold British law
Contrary to Lord Woolfs expressed opinion in 1994 on behalf of “Their Lordships”, both parties are indeed confined for all times, to these clearly expressed terms. The first is no more or no less important today than it was when written and signed. The 2nd cannot be applicable after 1931. The 3rd has been fully honoured. Any alleged additional importance given to these simple terms could only arise by default or wishful thinking by either party.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Attn Tane, Roger Nome, Sonic and co I have reposted this from last night.
Now Please answer!!
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.
Now read the section(121) it applies to and TELL US WHY THESE ARE NOT VERY REALISTIC AND POSSIBLE SCENARIO’s UNDER THE EFB
1/A search warrant on suspicion of intent to collude with the ACT party over tax cuts could be used to search Nat Party HQ (and 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 on carbon credit policy.
5/Taito could be searched on suspicion after speaking to Rodney Hide wanting help to raise the media profile for an immigrant applying for residency with criteria out of line with current govt. policy. (Taito only got searched when he kicked over Labour previously)
AND AFTER ALL THAT THE TARGET GROUP THE EB’s CAN REPEAT WHAT THEY DID LAST ELECTION UNDER THE EFB.
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 28th, 2007 at 11:40 am
Castafiore – happy to help:
1. Does not disclose a suspected offence
2. Does not disclose a suspected offence
3. Does not disclose a suspected offence
4. Does not disclose a suspected offence
5. Does not disclose a suspected offence
Anything else I can assist you with?
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 11:44 am
Frank –
Vote:So there is really no protection of tonga, of which free-speach, full and unfettered use of Te Reo, the ability to air greivances even if a politician has made it an issue of concern and so subject to the EFB, might have been one? What a bugger.
September 28th, 2007 at 11:46 am
Graeme – won’t that be for the police to decide?
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 11:51 am
um..!..craig..that sound you hearsd a while back..
was my one going right over your head..eh..?
do try to keep up!..there’s a good chap..!
it’s not a ‘good look’..eh..?
sorta ‘lets down the side’ a bit..eh..?
i think in your quarters that’s known as ‘doing/dropping a tony’..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Not just the police, also the Judicial Officer they need to get agreement from to get a warrant.
None of the examples actually disclose illegal behaviour. Complaints about them to the Electoral Commission or the Chief Electoral Officer won’t be forwarded to police. No police officer could lawfully apply for a warrant and any Judicial Officer granting a warrant could probably be sued for misfeasance in a public office.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
To all Sonics and other Labour Party lackeys. The political damage within Labour from this measure will be serious. This Bill represents Helen Clark’s naked appeal to the bedrock Hard Left of Labour and in turn the naked power-lust of that bedrock support base to the extent that democracy isn’t really notable as one of the things they believe in.
It is hard to imagine a more deluded and unintelligent effort by Labour to stay in office and that points very plainly in one direction, where brawn wins over brains. However that is also a huge electoral liability and Helen Clark knows it and that is why she has been a master of political pragmatism up to now in keeping the different factions of the party together.
So just get used to the idea that the Right of Labour will choose the next leader and drive all you socialists back under the bed for a while. (See my blog for more)
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 12:27 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?
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?
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Isn’t it ironic that the only place that all these issues of public debate can be aired are on a blog like this?
Surely questions raised here should have been aired and discussed and taken into account before the Bill was drafted and put forward to select committee?
Isn’t it also ironic the left’s paranoia about faceless fat-cats making policy decisions in secret more describes their own party these days?
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Graeme Edgeler
“misfeasance in a public office.” – Are you being serious – do you really think that is such circumstances such a charge would ever see the light of day in a Labour Govt ?
It would simply not be in the public interest – move on.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
burt I have to admit I was insinuating much the same – a police force which is politically warped enough not to pursue charges ‘in the public interst’ is surely only a step away from being instructed to pursue charges when told it is in ‘the public inteest’.
Of course this raises other constituional issues about separation of powers – another area which the present lot have been slowly chipping away at over the years.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
They could seize computers faster thn a speeding motorcade!
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
I would have thought that Law Commission Chairman and former Labour Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer, hailed as one of our great constitutional lawyers, would have submitted his thoughts to the Select Committee and so given New Zealander’s the benefit of his considerable experience?
I know that he was being considered to be invited to advise the select committee considering the Electoral Finance Bill, and that he is a loyal supporter of the Labour party – witness his $11,000 donation last year. I have no idea whether he is acting in any capacity as regards the hearing.
Perhaps his silence on the matter is some sort of tacit approval?
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
burt – it’s not a charge, it’s a tort.
A holder of public office does some act knowing they do not have the lawful authority to do it and could reasonably have anticipated harm would result.
You then sue them.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Could assets or chattels conceivable be grabbed pending a decision?
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Where are the Police submissions on the EFB?
Remember they were going to send their recommendations to the Electoral Committee after their “Comprehensive investigation” into their complaints, and found numerous breaches, but decided not to prosecute on the grounde that there were so many offences that, that excused them all (or something like that?).
They didn’t use the hoary, old excuse of not being in the public interest!
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Graeme:
Re “Does not disclose a suspected offence”. COUld you please elaborate on what you mean?
Section 121(c) provides power to issue search warrants “in respect of an illegal practice that constitutes an offence under this Act that
…
…
“[c]is believed to be intended to be committed. ”
Are you saying that the cases given are insufficient to disclose a suspected offence under section [c], or do you actually mean sections [a] and [b]?
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Graeme Edgeler
Darnton VS Clark shows the futility of such action.
But thanks for the clarification all the same.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
I am saying that the evidential foundations laid out do not disclose sufficient evidence to suggest that an offence is even intended to be committed. Not even close.
Lee C – pending a decision on what? Whether the grant to warrant that has been sought? No.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
I too beg to differ with Graeme Edgeler:
Perhaps Graeme you could explain what burden of proof would be necessary to obtain a Search Warrant on the suspicion of collusion?
My reading of section 121(1)(b) of the EFB is that if a complaint is received concerning an “illegal practice” that “is suspected to have been committed” “a search warrantmay be issued…”
Now I may be wrong but;if the Forestry Industry had a conference that went into “private” to discuss a political strategy and 2 weeks later a number of $60,000 campaigns simultaneously sprung up around the country, there would be a suspicion that they were guilty of an illegal practice as defined by section 104(2).
Labour complains in a strongly worded letter to the Police.
The Police apply and get a search warrant on the basis outlined above.
The Police raid the homes and offices of Forestry Industry leaders throughout the country.
Is this scenario a possibility -if the EFB passes- and if not why?
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Graeme
“….an illegal practice as defined by section 104(2).
Labour complains in a strongly worded letter to the Police.
The Police apply and get a search warrant on the basis outlined above.
The Police raid the homes and offices of Forestry Industry leaders throughout the country.”
The Forestry lodges an appeal, or complains, and the warrent is revoked.
The computers and goods are returned …. eventually
with delays blamed on buerocratic errors, etc…
Act enables politically motivated suppression, and seizure but ‘Human Rights’ are upheld under appeal, so no harm done….
Vote:In the meantime, the election is over…
September 28th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Graeme I have every respect for your knowledge of the law, but not your insight into psychology. This expressed with no rancour.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Burt: “Darnton VS Clark shows the futility of such action”
Only successful if you have a corrupt Parliament that can pass a law validating an unlawful action that was to their advantage, and disadvantaged everyone else!
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Graeme Edgeler: I/S has accused National of bad faith in asking for the bill to be scrapped. His major criticism of the bill is that it fails to get rid of anonymous donations. He has a guest column from Nicky Hager banging a similar drum. His submission supported the principles of the bill and asked for improvements.
So he is well out on a limb from the Law Commission view, and has been at pains to use stong langauge against other opponents of the bill.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
I asked where was the Police submission on the the Bill?
I should round the question off. Where is Transparency International (NZ)? Remember they stated that if the Validation Bill was passed it would affect our World Standing on Transparency. It certainly has. We are firmly at the top of the Non Corruptibility Stakes despite this blatant attack on Our Democracy.
People are dying today in old Burma fighting for the right to have a democracy? We simply don’t value ours!
Where is the submission of any MP? That of the Chief Electoral Officer, The Electoral Commission? In all irony you have The Minister of Justice defending this breach of our Bill of Rights!
Vote:I ask again why is it mainly the hoi polloi that is left to debate the merits or otherwise and make their submissions?
September 28th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
The burden of proof for such a search warrant would be reasonable grounds to believe that an offence will be committed.
This would require a police officer to adduce sufficient admissible evidence such that a reasonable person looking at it would believe that an offence was intended to be committed. Suspicion would not be enough. You need belief.
As for Reg’s example – which differs from Castafiore’s – it would depend on a few things – the similarity of the campaigns etc. But yes, you could probably get a search warrant for that.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Re: Analogy of forestry industry.
I guess the point I’m trying to make Lee is; that by association I could become under suspicion of collusion.
So NZers won’t just be restricted in what they say in election year, but if they are politically active will have to be very careful as to who they are seen to be associating with.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Frank. – Transparency International (NZ) presented a submission.
You can download it here:
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/SC/Papers/Evidence/4/d/3/48SCJESCEvidencefA3014_A3507-Transparency-International-New-Zealand.htm
The Electoral Commission are giving advice to the Select Committee on the Bill. So is the Ministry of Justice (which includes the CEO). Thus, they, like MPs, can have their say without presenting a formal submission.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
With due respect Grame to your opposition to this nefarious bill the words operative here are “suspected” and “believed” to have been committed and normally the Police hold their powers of search only for imprisonable offences,
As always the nasty details are obscure.
As I see it:
Clauses 27, 28, 77, 96 and 116. All state; “If the Chief Electoral Officer (In some clauses this is Electoral Commission) believes that a person has committed an offence specified in this subpart, the Chief Electoral Officer must report the facts upon which that “belief” is based to the NZ Police.”
That is why Section 121 (1)c is specifically added to lower the bar for the Police from ‘suspicion’ to simple wide open ‘belief’.
i.e. The Nat’s have a defector who tells the Chief Electoral Officer a story he has heard discussed at HQ to do with supporting Kyoto Forest Group actions. He (the Chief Electoral Officer) only has to believe that a person has committed an offence and report it to the Police who have been given special powers under section 121 (1) c to get a search warrant if they “believe” an offence was “intended”to be committed.
And further to ensure that the Police act over and above the Summary Proceedings Act the following was added Section121(2) to make it watertight that they will act.
LOOK OUT NATS they’re coming thru
And LOOK OUT GREENS this will be used against you if you are planning stronger climate change action with Forest and Bird etc.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Thanks Graeme.
Vote:What your answers proves is that we will be putting a huge responsibility on the Police and Judicial Officers in the last weeks of an election campaign as politically motivated complaints flood in.
The temptation to apply -even subliminal- political pressure to these agencies could well be too great to resist, for a Government facing an electoral rout.
Imagine the huge psychological advantage awarded to an incumbent government as the media depict police raids on their political opponents in the final count down to an election.
This is not scenario we want to risk in NZ.
September 28th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Yes, but it is a police-state mentality that Helen and co are quite happy to visit upon New Zealand. The legislation is beginning to look like a ‘scorched earth’ policy, designed to starve the enemy of as much sustenance it can, as Labour retreats.
The legislation is not only selfish in its conception, it is is also imposing a major encumbrance on the democratic process which the next generation will find itself incapable of shedding.
Poor sleepy old New Zealand! Still in the 1980s in its attitudes: ‘It could never happen here” has long been the mantra of the ‘do nothing’ spirit, and guess what, it could, and it will. only last week someone blogged on here admonishing DPF for interrupting his desire to live a quiet life and get his lawns mown on the weekend…. poor sleepy little new Zealand!
It’s nice now, we are all great chums and the good old spirit of fair play seems to pervade our attitudes. But tomorrow and tomorrow, you will only need one switched-on, media -savvy party who is able to bully, buy or cajole its pathetic oppositon into submission, and the EFB will be a free ticket to perpetual power.
If New Zealand wants a bloodless revolution to bring it into a single-party state, the EFB will probably be lauded as the second great milestone in this process. The first? retrospective legislation over election spending.
I find it astounding that there are people who are so partisan in their political viewpoints that htey are seriously supporting this legislation, but there it is, it is their right to say what they want. They support it because they are stupid enough to believe that the political climate will always favour their views and so and anti-democratic measure, designed to suppress free speech will not affect them..
Like smokers who ignore the warnings on cigarette packets because cancer is something that other people get…. Until they find themselves diagnosed with it then gosh they wish they’d listened to all those health warnings! It is only then that they are chastened that they laughed at those who told them it was bad for them. Such is the selfish spirit in which this Bill is conceived, and such is the selfish and short-sighted attitudes of those who support it.
So trollers and EFB defenders, kick back, light another cigarette, ignore the health warnings, after all they are directed at every one but you , aren’t they?-
Once the genie is out of the bottle, and all that.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Castafiore – I agree that those aspects of the search warrant provisions could be clearer, however subclause (1) makes clear that search warrants must still be issued under s 198 of the Summary Proceedings Act.
The suggestion that the bill lowers the threshold at which search warrants may issue for illegal practices below that which applies to other offences doesn’t bear scrutiny. Not least because the new search warrant rules don’t apply to corrupt practices. You would have to find a judge who, on reading this section would interpret it as allowing search warrants on mere suspicion for illegal practices like accidentally over-spending, but only allowing search warrants on belief for corrupt practices like deliberately over-spending.
This cannot be, and is not, correct.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Graeme- The right Judge wouldn’t be hard to find at all.
A judge or J.P. with left leanings would issue a warrant without turning a hair because the legislation is drafted to support it.
What about this Judge?;
Judge Jan Walker is still sitting on a case involving an Orewa pensioner Margaret Taylor taking a civil claim against David Cunliffe, Helen Clark, the Police and the Labour Party. (NZ Truth Magazine 20/09/07 & 06/09/07)
There couldn’t be a clearer case of bias than this case and she wont step down and Chief District Court Judge Russel Johnson(left too??) supports her.
Judge Walker is a life long Labour loyalist, an unsuccessful Labour candidate,a Labour Party office holder and rumour has it according to ‘Truth” a lesbian or well known member of the “dykocracy”.
So, you have the Govt, the law, the right Judge and how can the poor constable refuse to act.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Graeme Edgeler: Thanks for the information. Great they have got into action and made a submission. i would have liked to see them make a press release.
You are much more up with the play than I am.
Vote: