Dunne on Electoral Finance Bill
Peter Dunne wrote a column today on the Electoral Finance Bill which ran in the Dominion Post. It is great to read that he has been listening to the concerns of thousands of New Zealanders over this Bill, and how it will affect human rights in NZ.
As it stands, under the Bill’s provisions, almost any group that dares to express an opinion that could be construed as political (in that reflects upon the policies of one or other political party) is potentially caught and required to register as a third party. This is clearly absurd, and reflects a level of control over society that even the KGB would have struggled to match.
It is little wonder that groups like the Human Rights Commission and the Law Society have condemned the Bill as a massive attack on free speech.
Peter proposes a number of changes around the definition of advertising and the third party limit. He says:
Unless the Electoral Finance Bill is radically rewritten along these lines, Labour will not get the support it needs to pass the legislation.
Now it is quite correct the bill does need radically rewriting. In fact more radical than even what Peter says, as he has not mentioned the ridicolous 11 month period of regulated speech, which would apply for 30% of our lives.
But the key point is, that even if suitable radical amendments can be drafted and agreed to, it is then a radically different Bill. And the public deserve the chance to have their say on a radically different Bill which will still regulate their rights to participate in the electoral process. So what I hope Peter does, if he thinks the Bill is now acceptable, is to move that submissions on the amended bill be called for – because it’s common sense to let the public have their say.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Common sense perhaps, but not part of Labours muzzling masterplan
October 17th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Superb this is what happens when Helen leaves the country!
But seriously, this might be the first stage to tipping this bill over and getting the right kind of public and political consultation taht a major peiece of constituional reform deserves.
Kiwibloggers should congratulate themselves, because there have been those who contribute here, despite the snide and diversionary attempts of others, who have been material in getting this response from Dunne.
It will be interesting to see whether some of the parrots maintain their intransigence and dismissiveness about people with differnig views to theirs now that one of Labour’s allies in the HOuse has had the temerity to suggest it is a badly written and undemocratic piece of legislation.
Time to turn the heat up on the Greens next.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Nice the way he waited for Mother to leave town before he had a bleat.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
<i>he has not mentioned the ridicolous 11 month period of regulated speech, which would apply for 30% of our lives.</i>
Perhaps that’s because he realises it’s about regulated spending, not regulated speech.
[DPF: Yes you are allowed to convery your views over the dining room table, but the moment you want to e-mail those views, do a poster or placard, then it is regulated]
October 17th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
What I want is an end to anonymous donations (they could still be any amount, just all declared) and state funding that is based on, and limited to, “matching funds” (say taxpayer funding matching individual donations up to a maximum amount – say the first hundred dollars. After all we are now tax subsidising 1/3rd of the money given to our favourite charities).
I would also limit donations to political parties to individuals (no corporates and no unions etc).
That’s what I really really want.
This bill is a sideshow – a distraction from what is really needed. People will be left feeling victorious when the government backs down, but what are we left with, the issue remaining unresolved and no progress being made.
Who really wants those with collections of money buying up influence as they do in some other countries where democracy is remote form the people and the capitalist dollar rules?
October 17th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Can’t say I disagree with peter here. Actually I can’t think of any cotributers here that would. Can you LeeC? Remember, the argument has been mainly over whether it should be scrapped or not (Dunne apparently does not advocate this), not whether its more draconian elements should be altered.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
No Tane, it’s all about regulated speech and you know it. the bill sucks and it’s very drafting without full public consultation is a disgrace. and utter abuse of power. period.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
I congratulate him. At least he has taken the trouble to study and reflect with a degree of impartiality on the bill in stark contrast to others such as Ron Mark who hold themselves out as men of integrity, and then default when tested.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
KK, no it’s not. You can still say what you like. You just can’t spend unlimited amounts of money on billboards and broadcast time to drown out other voices during election year.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
KK, with all that bolding going on… are you burt?
October 17th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Should the EFB be completely thrown out? Listen to the experts…
The Human Rights Commission said -
The Law Society said -
If they say it should be scrapped then it should be scrapped, not tinkered with and rammed though under urgency.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
“If they say it should be scrapped then it should be scrapped, not tinkered with and rammed though under urgency.”
Sorry – it’s not going to be scrapped KK – no matter how much the National party want to have unlimited third-party money from special interest groups to run parallel campaigns with during the next election.
[DPF - Actually National made clear early on it supports reasonable restrictions on third parties. But hey don't let the truth interfere with a good lie]
October 17th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
I note that in questiontime Burton continually makes reference to Canadian legal findings which Burton asserts support his position. This is totally irrelevant. What would be an intersting exercise, which won’t happen, is if the Canadian judicial system is asked to rule on the NZ EFB in it’s current form.
I would think that the judges who made this decision would be horrified that their judgement is being used in the matter.
The election period in Canada is FAR shorter, and the spending limits far higher. In Canada, donations from unions and corporations are banned. In Canada, the have a First past the post system.
In any case, Burtons use of the Canadian experience to justify his own position is rather mischievious.
October 17th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Roger.
The problem that labour had is not the unlimited third party money used in the last election. The problem is that that money was used against labour. Had a group run such a campaign in support of Labour, I would suggest there would be no issue.
This whole issue is less about what is being done, but about who is doing it….
October 17th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Do we have free speech when the wealthy can drown the rest of us out?
In Canada there are actually limits on electioneering expendiutre for the entire term, the 6 week figure is added restrictions at election time.
October 17th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
KK – public consultation is occurring at the Select Committee. Hopefullt eh EFB will evole into a more complete reform, along Canadain lines, as a result of the process. At the moment it misses out restrictions on anonymous doantions over $10,000 and anonymising trusts.
I think there is also a good argument for donations being tax deductible as they are in Canada.
October 17th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
[DPF: Yes you are allowed to convery your views over the dining room table, but the moment you want to e-mail those views, do a poster or placard, then it is regulated]
But the point is that’s being changed. There’s no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater, unless your real problem is with restrictions that stop the wealthy and the powerful from buying elections.
October 17th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
“DPF – Actually National made clear early on it supports reasonable restrictions on third parties. But hey don’t let the truth interfere with a good lie”
hehe – I like this one. And what would reasonable be DPF? I seem o recall that you (unofficial National Internet Spokesperson) advocated the Business New Zealand lobby groups definition of ‘reasonable restrictions’. It was over $200, 000 wasn’t it DPF? For all intents and purposes – unlimited.
October 17th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Sam Dixon
Do we have free speech in NZ if the Labour party can tell everybody else to S.T.F.U as they are the only ones allowed to spend unlimited amounts on policy advertising ?
October 17th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Why has the Govt found time to request extensive public consultation in respect of changes to the Crimes Act and in relation to 3rd Party Motor vehicle insurance BEFORE that legislation is even drafted
.. but ..
when we face the most significant change to our electoral freedoms in decades this shonky bill is drafted in the dark?
The EFB is an attamped con, the likes of which we’ve never seen before. It is a disgrace.
October 17th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Sam Dixon
If the Canadian example is so good then why didn’t we just import it as it is. No special Labour paty allowances, no attacks on certain groups and no more anon donations?
Oh I know – It wouldn’t tilt the pitch in favour of Labour….
October 17th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Very informative post, thanks DPF.
I would highlight this paragraph.
“But the key point is, that even if suitable radical amendments can be drafted and agreed to, it is then a radically different Bill. And the public deserve the chance to have their say on a radically different Bill which will still regulate their rights to participate in the electoral process. So what I hope Peter does, if he thinks the Bill is now acceptable, is to move that submissions on the amended bill be called for – because it’s common sense to let the public have their say”
It seems there is chance to fix the bill, come to a compromise so rules can be put in place for next election, you counsel delay.
Can it be, that behind the high flown rhetoric, the real aim of the “kill bill” campaign has been to do it’s best to ensure that whatever happens the Next Election is fought on the present rules? An election where third party cash will remain unregulated, donations will remain secret.
What a boost to the National Party.
Perhaps that explains what a bitter bunch the “kill the bill” movement has become. Opponents are “Stalinists” or worse. There has never been any positive ideas presented on how we could fairly regulate electoral spending, just overblown rhetoric.
Is that because the only aim has been to ensure that no action gets taken before the next vote?
Surely not.
October 17th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
burt Says:
October 17th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
“Sam Dixon
If the Canadian example is so good then why didn’t we just import it”
FPP works for me!
October 17th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
“Is that because the only aim has been to ensure that no action gets taken before the next vote? Surely not.”
I think that has been fairly well established now Sonic.
October 17th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
roger nome
So Labour will be allowed to steal tax payers money again BUT just like last time it won’t effect the outcome of the election….
You & sonic have hit a new level of “stupid” today !
October 17th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Burt:
You seem to forget old fella – I’ve often said here that I support the capping of govt promotional spending during the restricted period – it only makes sense. Really I don’t know how you manage to keep track of a game of chess with that memory mate. Especially after you add a few glasses of Merlot to the equation
October 17th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
“FPP works for me!”
Off course it does when NZ has a natural left majority.
i.e. throughout the 60s and 70 Labour and Social Credit usually got more of the vote than National, yet National was in power for nearly all of this period,
October 17th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
roger nome
Chess has simple rules, the same rules are used by both players. The winner in a game of chess is the person who played a better game, not the one who stole peices and retrospectively validated it at the end.
You can’t keep bagging the existing election rules without accepting that Labour rorted them and validated that rort in the last election and apparently for the last 14 years. End of story.
October 17th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
roger
Throughout the 60′s and 70′s National and Social Credit got more votes than Labour…. so what is your point. Clearly you don’t understand FPP which will explain a lot about your apparent lack of understanding about MMP.
October 17th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
You can start here and work your way through to all the elections. It really is surprising how big the left’s natural majority is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_general_election%2C_1960
October 17th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Yes roger, it shows why 14 years of retrospective validation was required. If there wasn’t a lot of shit going on then only the 2005 election would have needed to have been validated…..
Thanks for reminding us how long they have been rorting the system.
October 17th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Burt – Social credit was certainly of the left – that’s the point. Do you not understand?
“Behind this flaw in the price system which leads to avoidable poverty in a world full of wealth, Douglas saw something more sinister – the power of Finance to control the direction of the economy: to control the lives of the mass of the people through the threat of unemployment and poverty: to make or destroy business enterprises: to control the direction of political parties: to limit Government programs by the power of debt: to stir up trade competition and even actual wars – in short, to destroy Democracy and become the hidden government of the world.
The centuries have seen a continual struggle by ordinary people to gain control of their lives from forces that would tyrannize them. They have fought against the powers of priests, to bring the world freedoms of speech and religion. They have rebelled against the powers of kings, to give us Magna Carta, Constitutional Monarchy, and Parliamentary Government. They have rebelled against the power of class privilege, by extending the vote to all. They have gained power to prevent the Government and the police from oppressing individual rights, through an independent judiciary, the Charter of Rights and the Jury system. The powers of the guilds of the Middle Ages and the state monopolies of former times have been limited by laws to encourage a free market. But the power of finance is so easily hidden that no effective way has yet been put in place by which the people as a whole can control it for their benefit.”
http://www.socialcredit.com/subpages_resources/whatis.htm
October 17th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
The left had a majority?
Don’t be such a simpering moron. Labour and National last election had around eighty percent of the vote.
And as we ALL know now, labour is a centre right government.
October 17th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
The more egregious precedent set by the EFB is not just its provisions but the utterly dishonest way Labour has gone about trying to pass it. There has NEVER been any major amendment to the Electoral Act (which the EFB effectively is) that has not been preceded by bi-partisan support of the major parties, a Royal Commission (or numerous White Papers) and/or Referenda – sometimes all 3. The fact that anonymous donations were railed against by Labour then mysteriously exempted is another travesty.
It sounds like UF are backing off – good job but with the Greens and NZ1st still in the hunt, this dog could still pass largely intact.
October 17th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
roger nome
Social Credit were big on free speech and freedom of religion. They wouldn’t be supporting laws like the EFB that limit free speech and attack selected religious groups would they.
So you might call them left, but they are nothing like the left you currently support. How silly we make ourselves look when we are dominated by being partisan rather than having integrity.
October 17th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
“And as we ALL know now, labour is a centre right government.
Leave a Reply”
Some people say that. They certainly are to the left of the political center of gravity in NZ. But globally speaking they’re probably more dead centre to centre right. In any case – it’s interesting to see that parties that have been to the left in the context of NZ politics have held a majority of the vote for perhaps 90% of the time during the last 50 years yet the left has been in government about 30% of the time. So it’s ease to see why many (if not all) people on the right prefer FPP
October 17th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
“Social Credit were big on free speech and freedom of religion. They wouldn’t be supporting laws like the EFB that limit free speech”
I don’t support it in its current form – but I may well support it in its amended form. Time will tell.
October 17th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
roger nome
You are an idiot. Labour campaign “Two ticks Labour”. Have you forgotten this ? How many times have I reminded you….
If that’s not “We want to govern alone and if we can’t we want to pick our partners” then what is ?
I’ll play you at chess any time roger, how about an online game on night?
October 17th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
A fair and reasonable but very strict definition of “government advertising” will be the test.
If this aspect of the EFB is not redrafted fairly you will have a clear indicator of the moral and ethical worth of the Labour Party
(I am NOT referring to candidate advertising, or electoral advertising, or party advertising. I am referring specifically to the use of government departmental advertising that may be normal outside the regulated period)
It is my unfortunate belief that much devious use will be directed by an “unstated authority” to individual departmental bureaucrats that future promotion will be dependent on “getting the message”, nod, nod, wink, nothing in writing, you understand.
If you doubt that this could happen. Look at the immediate promotion of Val Simm of Crown Law who wrote a convenient but bogus “opinion” for Cullen to find the “no conflict” with the NZ Bill of Rights.
October 17th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Roger says: “They certainly are to the left of the political center of gravity in NZ. But globally speaking they’re probably more dead centre to centre right.”
flip, flop.
The political centre of gravity has half on each side. No left majority.
Bye bye roger’s argument…
October 17th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
“roger nome
You are an idiot. Labour campaign “Two ticks Labour”. Have you forgotten this ? How many times have I reminded you….”
Sorry if I offended you with the chess jibe Burt. Really you shouldn’t go getting all riled up at your age mate, what with that nasty alcohol habit you have … it’s a recipe for trouble mate.
oh, and chess isn’t really my thing BTW so i’ll have to politely decline that offer I’m afraid.
October 17th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
“The political centre of gravity has half on each side. No left majority.
Bye bye roger’s argument…”
Yes but “Labour” isn’t the entire left.
Bye bye helmet’s argument.
October 17th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
roger nome
I very seldom drink but like most people I expect you to make wild assumptions with zero substance and state them as facts.
Keep shooting yourself in the foot roger.
October 17th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
“The political centre of gravity has half on each side. No left majority.”
Actually scrap that last argument
According to helmet it’s impossible for the left or right to get a majority in an election. Sorry helmet that’s a nonsense argument.
October 17th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
“I very seldom drink but like most people I expect you to make wild assumptions with zero substance and state them as facts.”
ooohh, lighten up Burt.
October 17th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
roger nome opines:
…conveniently forgetting all the others who want it scrapped, such as the HRC, the Law Society etc etc. But roger isn’t alone in his ability to focus solely on the object of his distaste and blame them and them alone.
Some commenters in favour of scrapping the Bill save all their opprobrium for Labour, when in fact as baxter says above there are plenty of spineless jellyfish who secretly support restricting the rights of those whom they consider themselves born to rule. Mr Mark being a prime example, when from what I observed he couldn’t run a successful circus (well, paintball park, but the analogy isn’t quite as pictureseque then
)
Clearly Dunne, as the most unprincipled and weak amongst them, is beginning to waver – especially now, as Lee C and Barnseley Bill point out, he’s not in immediate danger of being called to the 9th floor for a dressing down.
It’s the other parties that are the key to this and upon whom pressure needs to be maintained. I congratulate those who I know are so doing and urge everyone to fire off at least an email, even if you made a submission.
October 17th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Tane says: There’s no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater, unless your real problem is with restrictions that stop the wealthy and the powerful from buying elections.
And that is exactly the point, nothing is being done to stop the wealthy and the powerful (Helen Clark) from buying elections (funding pledge cards from her leader’s budget in excess of the expenditure cap).
Thank you for making this so perfectly clear Tane. Can I send you an honorary membership of the Kill the Bill coalition?
October 17th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Earlier I said:
“It will be interesting to see whether some of the parrots maintain their intransigence and dismissiveness about people with differing views to theirs now that one of Labour’s allies in the House has had the temerity to suggest it is a badly written and undemocratic piece of legislation.”
And out they trot like ants:
Tane:
“There’s no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater, unless your real problem is with restrictions that stop the wealthy and the powerful from buying elections.”
nice anlaogy EFB won’t stop the wealthy and powerful, it will ‘incentivise’ it (according tho the HRC)
gnome:
“Sorry – it’s not going to be scrapped KK – no matter how much the National party want to have unlimited third-party money from special interest groups to run parallel campaigns with during the next election.”
Nice diversion – I believe the National Party were happy to be consulted about the EFB in its beginnings, but weren’t, so how can you claim to know what they want?
sonic:
“It seems there is chance to fix the bill, come to a compromise so rules can be put in place for next election, you counsel delay.
Can it be, that behind the high flown rhetoric, the real aim of the “kill bill” campaign has been to do it’s best to ensure that whatever happens the Next Election is fought on the present rules? An election where third party cash will remain unregulated, donations will remain secret.”
The EFB would encourage covert use of third party campaigns and doesn’t address anonymous donations. The Government had an opportunity to formulate a decent Bill, to undertake consultations, and to set out thie stall.
Instead they cobbled a cut-and-paste series of ideas together in secret, and foisted on the public with the ‘Select Committee’ as a fig-leaf to promote the polite fiction that the public were to be involved. Is it any wonder you have nut-jobs like the Kill the Bill lot forming?
sonic, gnome, tane: ‘You can’t polish a turd!’
And why would anyone want to polish this particular turd? Is it because the Labour Party is still broke after paying back the overspend, is it because party donations are so low, they can’t scrape enough cash together to put on an election campaign? Is it because they want to spend tax-payers’ cash on slick media campaigns with subliminal appeals to the electorate to vote Labour, but gag everyone else? Is it because hidden in the Bill are moves to ratify the Emergency legislation which validated the Election Overspend.
Is that why the little partys support it, because they see a way into gradually altering the law so that they never have to pay back the cash they ‘overspent’?
In response to these egregious attempts to salvage what floaters are left in the pan after the Select Committee is finished with its ‘public consultation’ I now refer to:
Law Commission’s submission on the EFB:
“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.”
In other words, ‘It’s so badly constructed, it can’t even be rewritten – bin it.”
Given the opinion of a panel of expert professionals against a cohort of one-eyed apologists for the Labour party, (who have it appears, deluded themselves that they are somehow central enough to the Select Committee process that they can second-guess what it is going to do) have who would you believe?
October 17th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Funny how Sam, Tane and roger nome come on here and tag team isn’t it.
Personally, I believe that Dunne has positioned himself at a point where, if Labour wants the EFB to even emerge from the Select Committee, it is going to cost them big-time. For a party of two MP’s, that is a level of importance and influence way beyond what is reasonable, but that’s the way it is. Dunne can now hold a gun to the government’s head and make such statements as “Unless the Electoral Finance Bill is radically rewritten along these lines, Labour will not get the support it needs to pass the legislation.” – and bloody good luck to him. Dunne seems to have completely shut the door on the EFB emerging from the SC process with a bit of tweaking here and there – I just hope that when push comes to shove, he has the political courage to insist on a fresh period of cross-party and public consultation – vital IMHO. He hinted at this at Question Time today :
“Hon Peter Dunne: Noting that answer and also the speech by the Leader of the Opposition to the National Press Club in August, in which Mr Key accepted the need for some change to electoral financing law, including a cap on third-party expenditure and more transparency of donations, why has the Minister not engaged directly with the Leader of the Opposition and his party to bring about a solution that everyone seems to be broadly in agreement with?
Hon MARK BURTON: Because the bill concerned is in front of a multiparty select committee. That select committee—
Hon Dr Nick Smith: That’s not an excuse. That’s a weak excuse.
Hon MARK BURTON: Oh, Dr Smith, please calm down. That bill is before a select committee whose membership was enhanced and significantly enlarged to ensure that full political party participation could indeed take place, and that the discussion could take place around the submissions from many submitters. I think that that is the precisely correct place for that consideration of the bill to take place—including, I might add, useful amendments to it.”
October 17th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
The real drowning out is by the incumbent government. I advocated to the select committee to legislate what we had, based on the Auditor’s rulings. Everyone knew what was fair and intended but the Parliamentary Office, under the responsibility of Margaret Wilson choose to ignore it. They did for 1972 as well. Where is her culpabilty?
If we are to have caps, the limits should be minimum of $250 000 for individuals with no registration under $20 000. The definitions are far too broad anyway and I don’t believe is possible to draft intermediate ones, so it is largely academic. The present provisions make increasing sense with a government pitted against the rest without limits. Winston won’t be able to get away with his excesses next time as he will not be able to argue then that he spent the money in ignorance. The AG ruling and legal opinion are very clear and sufficient to control parliamentary excesses.
October 17th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Those of you staunchly defending the EFB, or perhaps saying that it is good in principle but could do with some tweaks; what do you make of this:
Hansard 20070918
Excerpt:
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I think the Minister of Justice has made it clear a number of times that the intention of this legislation is to capture people like the Exclusive Brethren, not the Catholic Church [...]
later:
Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Will the Minister ensure that the bill is amended so that the Catholic Church’s campaign can proceed, given the facts that thanks to Working for Families this Government has cut child poverty by two-thirds and the National Party opposed the Working for Families package?
Now, without taking a position on whether the campaigns referred to are worthwhile (that is not the point), it seems to me that this argument clearly highlights the guiding principle behind the EFB.
It boils down to “speech will not be restricted as long as it is aligned with government policy”, or in other words: “the intention of the EFB is to suppress speech that we do not approve of”.
Now that that has been shown to be the intent of the bill (by the governments own words) then it should be scrapped. The drafting of the bill is tainted by political motives.
October 17th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Well put Jim. We saw this again when Labour were caught out with Health Call Centre scripts that pushed Labour policies using public funding. The response of the parliamentary Labour party was “Nothing wrong with that!”. The response of the officials was immediate red-faced changes to scripts to remove the political content.
I don’t think it is a case that they can no longer tell right from wrong. Rather, they are just very clear that Labour is right, and anything else is wrong.
October 17th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Inventory –
Interesting development.
“Noting that answer and also the speech by the Leader of the Opposition to the National Press Club in August, in which Mr Key accepted the need for some change to electoral financing law, including a cap on third-party expenditure and more transparency of donations, why has the Minister not engaged directly with the Leader of the Opposition and his party to bring about a solution that everyone seems to be broadly in agreement with?”
You see to me that is interesting: Dunne here appears to positioning himself which appears sympathetic to Key. Reading between the lines, is Dunne suggesting that he could play Santa Claus to National? – his position being that the way forward for the Bill is to involve cross-party proper consultation? He clearly has shut the door on the SC as it stands.
Clearly Dunne has looked into a possible future if the EFB is allowed smooth passage, and fears that he will not be part of it. However, if National are to loom larger in the future, this would be a good time to start putting some provisions into the life-boat…
Now, I wonder what the Green Party is thinking?
October 17th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
yeah milo and we are still paying for those poncy little red boxes with the Labour Party logos on them they insist on parking on their desks during Question Time!
Tax-payer funded advertising?
October 17th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Agree Lee, and congratulations to all those that communicated with PD and made their views known.
He is in an ideal position to take the credit of being the “white Knight” that saved democracy.
Will he have the courage to Stand up to HC when she gets home?
October 17th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
I’m glad Sam Dixon et al don’t want the wealthy and powerful buying elections – as the government of the day is most wealthy and powerful entity in the country!
October 17th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Only if he has a shedload of viagra, Reg!
October 17th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Seriously, though Reg, if he is courting National, that would be some dutch courage…. Only a year to go, what does he have to lose? (Apart from his career, if the EFB goes through untouched).
October 17th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
This is the critical test for MMP. The purpose of it is to stop the major parties pushing through radical legislation for which they have no mandate. The EFB represents the biggest rort of all. If passed, it would make a mockery of the political safegaurds supposedly built into MMP.
So I am very heartened by this statement from Peter Dunne. He is showing that he is responsible enough to hold the balance of power.
Also, I like the way he extinguishes all the minor nutter parties. Like moths to a flame, they join up and then die a (mostly) quiet death. Quite a service to New Zealand really.
October 17th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Lee – if nothing else, Dunne is a pragmatist – how else could you explain his longevity in politics, through so many changes of allegiance? Dunne will have seen that the trend favouring National is pretty well established now, he will realise that he will very likely be back in the House in 2008 by virtue of his loyal following in his electorate. I am sure that most of UF’s support would be relatively comfortable with him supporting an incoming National government – and give him his due – he is a reasonably competent Revenue Minister.
October 17th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
“Sorry helmet that’s a nonsense argument.”
It’s your argument roger, not mine. Your silly attempt to reframe the argument, using your own words ‘the political centre of gravity” is pretty funny. A centre of balance has exactly half on each side. You’re not really this stupid are you?
Labour and national are centre -right parties, (go check your compass).
The right had an eighty percent majority (at least!) last election, not even taking into consideration NZF and UF. The left was left with the dregs, the losers.
Or is this yet another example of nome ‘winning’(?) an argument?
October 17th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
The question is whether Dunne will have the “guts” to to hold up the bill in the SC until next year.
If he merely joins a Nat lead majority on the SC to recommend it be axed and they report it back in time to pass it this year, there is the numbers in the House to ram it through.
Alternatively he could well demand some very major alterations and then as a condition to supporting the revised Bill require that there is a fresh opportunity for submitters, which would take the issue well into next year and effectively kill it.
October 17th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
“Sorry helmet that’s a nonsense argument.”
It’s your argument roger, not mine.”
No it’s not. I’m saying that it’s possible for the left to get a majority of the vote. You’re saying that it isn’t. Your argument is clearly stupid and wrong.
“The right had an eighty percent majority (at least!) last election”
If you look it in a global context, yes. If you look at it in the NZ context the left had a majority.
Perhaps I could clarify the argument for you helmet? under FPP National was in government for most of the 1960s and 1970s. In an MMP environment social credit (who were perhaps more left-wing than labour was) would have coalesced to form a government in most of the elections (based each party’s share of the vote). Thus FPP favored National over the more left wing parties. The same was true in the 1993 election where the Alliance and Labour when combined, received a majority of the vote, yet National was able to govern with just 35% of the vote. For these reasons I said that it’s no surprise that many National Party supporters seem to favor FPP. Do you have any (non-petty/semantic) objections Helmet?
October 17th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Sorry, that should have been
In an MMP environment social credit (who were perhaps more left-wing than labour was) would have coalesced to form a government in most of the elections WITH LABOUR (based each party’s share of the vote).
October 17th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Roger nome
How would Social Credit have got any votes ? Labour and their “Two ticks Labour” would have squeezed them out, just like Labour have done with the Greens. You are dreaming if you think Labour will intentionally share the power and National are no better.
also:
Just out of interest, is that because both players must play by the same rules ?
October 17th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
Roger, you were on here a couple of days back telling us that Labour were of the right. You are, as usual, making stuff up.
DPF has, since the start of his campaign, clearly said that the bill was so bad that it couldn’t be amended without reconsultation. To suggest that this is a change of heart is arrant nonsense.
Dunne is doing this under instruction. He gets to look like the big man demanding change, Helen makes some minor change and makes a big deal about how bad that change is making things, the media fall into line and think everything is good, they all ram it through. We’ve been through this playbook before.
If it is changed significantly, it needs another round of consultation. If it isn’t changed significantly, then it needs to be thrown out. There is no middle ground here. If Labour had consulted properly it could have been in before the next election, they didn’t. That bus has left the station, there is no legitimate way this can be law before the election. That was Helen’s choice.
October 17th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Checkmate to burt!!
October 17th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
PaulL
I agree, carefully orchestrated politics. The smallest of the Poodles barks and the others pass it anyway. Status quo – move on.
October 17th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Burt, PaulL: the conspiracy theory is usually trumped by the cock-up theory, you know. If Labour were capable of such devious conspiracy, they would have done a better job on the Auckland stadium debacle (and several other debaculae).
October 17th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Good point milo.
October 17th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
PaulL & burt – as I said earlier, I believe that Dunne is being pragmatic (maybe I’m being charitable!); otherwise he’s covering his bases (or his ass). Statements such as “This is clearly absurd, and reflects a level of control over society that even the KGB would have struggled to match.” and “Unless the Electoral Finance Bill is radically rewritten along these lines, Labour will not get the support it needs to pass the legislation.” are pretty carefully worded, and would, I expect, have got Burton’s attention today. Burton has again been allowed to answer questions in the House, but his answers are lacking in conviction – I think he’s already been informed of his fate – he really just seems to be going through the motions.
October 17th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Dunne is just getting a foot in both doors.
THe EFB will be passed with some minor tweaking.
Dunne will win his seat next year but will not have any other MPs.
He will be put out to a cosy pasture (like Anderton) by whoever needs him to form the government.
October 17th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Roger Nome quote “I’ve often said here that I support the capping of govt promotional spending during the restricted period”.
But Roger, what yiou say doesn’t matter because your masters don’t agree. Show me where that is covered in the Bill. It isn’t and you can’t.
You are putting up a straw man argument. Mulgabe would be proud of you.
October 17th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
“Roger, you were on here a couple of days back telling us that Labour were of the right.”
I said that “some people say that they’re center right” so please do stop “making things up” PaulL.
Burt:
“How would Social Credit have got any votes ? Labour and their “Two ticks Labour” would have squeezed them out, just like Labour have done with the Greens. You are dreaming if you think Labour will intentionally share the power and National are no better.”
Fortunately it’s not National’s or Labour’s choice – it’s the publics.
October 17th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
Ross Miller
But but but Labour are good and National are bad… I would believe you if National had drafted it… but not from my precious Labour… surely not. No I will argue till I go in circles and dig myself a hole then I’ll run away.
October 17th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
roger nome
I’m off to have a coffee and a game of chess with a Dr mate of mine. We’ll talk politics while we play and discuss how many patients are sleeping in hall ways tonight in Wellington Hospital. Always interesting to compare what somebody who’s there everyday has to say vs your mates over at The Standard.
October 17th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
‘fortunately, its not Nationals or labours choices, its the publics.’
Good call. Even with MMP’s down sides, its far more democratic then FFP.
Majority govts are forced to share the power qwith the minors who helped them get into treasury seats.
Its taken a while, but now the truth is coming out.
Simply put, MMP is both a blessing and curse to the major players.
I do though wonder who Jeanette prefers afternoon coffees/hot chocolates with.
no surprises if its Rodney
October 17th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
“But Roger, what yiou say doesn’t matter because your masters don’t agree.”
Yes but you can’t get everything you want. It’s the nature of politics I’m afraid.
October 17th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Meh… the system is corrupt and all the EFB amounts to is a large corruption being used to try to quash a repeat of a small corruption (and failing to do even that).
I say we follow the Argentine example and just cut out the middleman. Who wants to be first to put their franchise on Trade Me?
October 17th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Long time reading, first time contributer.
The Minister of Justice says the EFB stops people ‘buying’ elections. This makes two worrying assumptions that I haven’t seen discussed much.
The first assumption is that voting New Zealanders are like a bunch of four year-old kids that are easily swayed by moving pictures and sound-bites.
The second assumption is that politicians are so lacking in character that they’ll ‘sell’ legislation in order to get campaign funding.
If these assumptions are true then surely the EFB will only normalise these aspects of democracy in Aotearoa and make the political process more cynical.
In fact I put forward that if this bill is truly necessary then it signals a moral failure of New Zealand’s leaders and New Zealand’s voters.
A moral failure because leaders aren’t prepared to govern for all and a moral failure of voters who can’t be bothered informing themselves so that they can overcome the power of advertising and vote for leaders that will govern for all.
October 17th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Dunne is a Govt poodle and there is only one group worst than Dunne and that is Winston First Party.
Dunne has realised his electoral oblivion have been very deeply entrenched with the stellar poll ratings the Nats have been holding.
This polling has surreptitiously undermined Dunne’s power base coupled with his new (what does he stand for – anything) party vehicle.
A vote for Dunne is a vote for ???? Helllloooo !!!!!!
whereas,
A vote for Winston is a vote for Labour !!!!
October 17th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
It is my unfortunate belief that much devious use will be directed by an “unstated authority” to individual departmental bureaucrats that future promotion will be dependent on “getting the message”, nod, nod, wink, nothing in writing, you understand.
If you doubt that this could happen. Look at the immediate promotion of Val Simm of Crown Law who wrote a convenient but bogus “opinion” for Cullen to find the “no conflict” with the NZ Bill of Rights.”
Hey Mr. Baigent – where can one see Val Sim’s opinion about the EFB?
thnx Lee
October 17th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
In Australia the govt goes into caretaker mode once the election is called. During this period there are campaign limits, and the government doesn’t spend public money advertising. The period is typically 6 weeks.
Given that the EFB proposes a period of 1 full year, is there any reason that the govt wouldn’t be in caretaker mode during this period? Could be interesting…
October 17th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
SPC wrote:
Well, pardon my French but whose fucking fault is that? Labour have been talking about campaign finance reform for – what? – the best part of two years, and had every opportunity to openly and genuinely consult with other parties (as opposed to stitching up deals behind closed doors) and put up a bill that could have enjoyed broad support both inside and outside Parliament. It shouldn’t have been that hard.
I’m still trying to figure out how you lot could have turned something that should have been a no-brainer populist bill – a reasonable and substantive package of meaningful reforms – and turn it into the Mother of All Fuck-Ups!
October 17th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
The Minister of Justice Hon Mark Burton defends this EFB when questioned in Parliament.
His sickening repetitive answer is Standard: ‘The Select Committee will sort it out”
My question is: How did such a Bill with a criminal intent ever get to the Select Committee in the first case?
Only because it was shepherded through the House by Corrupt Politicians
seeking to advantage themselves to the disadvantage of others. Under the Crimes Act this action is considered a Crime. Do we have a bunch of crooks representing us in Parliament?
October 17th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Lee C.
“where can one see Val Sim’s opinion about the EFB?
thnx Lee”
I moaned so much during my oral submission to the Judicial and Electoral Select Committee that there was no on line access, that both Chris Findlayson and Mark Burton mailed me a copy each.
You can have one if you give me an address to mail it to.
It’s 19x A4 sheets – I don’t have a scanner.
October 17th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
Craig
Not being a member of any political party, I do avoid any responsibility for the bill. I did communicate with someone of the Green Party about it, and they felt real change would have to wait till after 2008. Opposition from United and NZF (to state funding) had undermined the chance of meaningful reform as Labour’s response was to remain reliant on anonymous donors and union funding.
October 17th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
Lee C, If you want a short legal opinion on the Crown Law Opinion you can follow this link to Stephen Franks blog – go to the last comment.
http://www.stephenfranks.co.nz/?p=163
October 17th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
Craig R: And I’m still trying to understand why Labour’s fuck-up is somehow something that National should fix for them. Riiigggght. That sounds like an astute political move – “I know we weren’t consulted and didn’t agree, but since Helen fucked it all up now we’ll just throw in the towel and let you pass some incredibly bad legislation, because otherwise……”.
Not sure what will happen otherwise, since the legislation doesn’t make anything better and makes lots of things worse.
October 18th, 2007 at 3:04 am
It so obvious that this is nothing more than self serving legislation which is incredibly flawed the way it is been rammed through and in its actual subastance.
Blind Freddy should be able to see this.
Helen Clark came out strongly post 2005 saying Anonymous donations would be banned. Yet when she realised this would dry up Labours coffers this cornerstone of electoral finace reforms was dropped.
If this bill was based purely on principle and fairness then why has Labour changed their position.
It has nothing to do with what is fair and principled but on what needs to be done to get back into office.
Good on you Peter Dunne for pointing out the obvious flaws in the bill
October 18th, 2007 at 5:28 am
David Baigent thanks for the link; yeas I would like a copy if you would?
[edit address as a precaution]
I particularly enjoyed this:
“For months the PM and her lackeys have silenced criticism by branding it as support of the EB. As well as the insults and threats mentioned by Matthew Hooton, Hansard shows Minister Mallard repeatedly referring to them as “chinless scarfwearers”. Minister Dyson threatened to end their ability to claim benefit of a longstanding employment law exemption for conscientious objectors.
Imagine if an opponent had denigrated a viewpoint of Ms Clark’s Islamist friends by calling them “towelheads”, and suggesting that they lose their right to welfare until they denounce Mahomet’s polygamy. What would be the left’s reaction to an MP insulting Tim Barnett as a ’shirtlifter’ instead of dealing with Tim’s arguments.”
which describes some of my own feelings about how this Bill has been promoted (of course in contrst to the preferential attitude to te Catholic Church, as mentioned by Jim, above) But not in contrast to the idea that charitable trusts that state political views risk losing their tax-status?
You see the problem, as I see it, is the EFB is going to reduce what constitutes a ‘political view’ down to simply what the government says one is.
Then it will make it legal to refer to the Electoral Office on the basis of that opinion. Of course it is a mere baby-step away from a test case inflaming the government so that they will need to extend its rights to prosecute to safeguard against a repetition.
IMO is the inevitable historical slide of untrammelled power and arrogance into tyranny.
October 18th, 2007 at 6:22 am
Tane: There’s no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater, unless your real problem is with restrictions that stop the wealthy and the powerful from buying elections.
You mean like the ~$800,000.00 that Labour overspent by despite the Electoral Office’s warnings and despite them saying they would include it in their spending?
The money they stole from the taxpayer to help fund their election campagin?
The money they only paid back after tremendous public pressure?
Oh wait. That must be okay because retrospective legislation validated it. I’m sure that we wouldn’t want the Labour Party wealthy to buy an election…
Oh wait. They already did.
What a partisan hack.
October 18th, 2007 at 6:34 am
Sonic: Is that because the only aim has been to ensure that no action gets taken before the next vote?
As said before, the Labour party stole the last election. You never seem to complain about that or express any concern over the retrospective legislation to validate their rorting of the system.
I, like most of the right posters here, support a well thought out, consulted draft of legislation that will clamp down on anonymous donations.
Most of us do not support any rushed legislation to fix a non-existant problem that the Labour party and their supporters perceives as a threat to their rorting of the election system in New Zealand.
In fact, the only people who actively seem to be supporting the manipulation of the electoral system through massive funding is you, Sonic, Tane and to a lesser degree Roger Nome.
Says a lot about you, now doesn’t it?
October 18th, 2007 at 6:37 am
Pascal said “Oh wait. That must be okay because retrospective legislation validated it. I’m sure that we wouldn’t want the Labour Party wealthy to buy an election…
Oh wait. They already did”
The Labour Party wealthy didn’t buy the election Pascal – you and I did. And don’t you just hate it when you buy something you don’t want??!!
October 18th, 2007 at 6:46 am
Dunnne has asked a number of times in the House why Labour didn’t consult with all parties and put together a bill that had the support of a large majority of Parliament.
He is in a position now to use the “balance of power” he holds on the Justice and Electoral Select Committee to consult with every party, arrive at such a consesus and demand the Bill be redrafted to reflect this.
Of course such a radical re-write would need further public consultation via submissions, but thats Labour’s fault, they “stuffed it up” in the first place.
If the Regulated Period was reduced to 3 months or 6 weeks it could still be passed before the next election without the date of its passing being within the regulated Period.
Some seem to think that Dunne is a “Poodle” of the Peters variety. This is his opportunity to prove them wrong!
October 18th, 2007 at 7:01 am
Inventory2: The Labour Party wealthy didn’t buy the election Pascal – you and I did. And don’t you just hate it when you buy something you don’t want??!!
Oh crap. I’m so used to not actually seeing any of my own money I’d forgotten that little fact! Thanks for setting me straight, Inventory2.
October 18th, 2007 at 7:32 am
Sorry for calling you out Roger, but you can’t blame me or anyone else for the fact that your posts on this topic are wrong.
You’re simply wrong about the left winning a majority in any recent NZ elections.
To gain power, labour has had to come so far over to the right, using the right’s policies, it’s become a right-of centre party. That’s because kiwis prefer right wing governments.
You’ve tried (badly) to reframe the terms of your statement.
Well, you could have the most ultra left wing country in the world, with several ultra commie parties going for the vote, and the ‘political centre of gravity’ would be… well, exactly in the middle. By your argument, the half on the right would be of ‘the right’ and the ones on the left would be ‘the left’. The ones on the far right would be ‘ultra right wing’ (evil) no doubt, even thought they’re barking mad pinkos. It’s meaningless and irrelevant, as per usual from roger nome.
Not too flash on logic I see. Where did you get this ‘degree’ from?
Same site you got your ‘girlfriend’ from?
October 18th, 2007 at 7:34 am
Cheers Pascal – like you, I guess I’ve become “conditioned” to Cullen & Co getting their pounds of flesh from me. Tax cuts are a bad idea, because I no longer know how to spend my own money since the wonderful, bebevolent government does it so well for me, and having to make spending decisions on how to dispose of the additional dosh would merely be an added stress!
October 18th, 2007 at 8:17 am
On United Future’s website http://www.unitedfuture.org.nz/default,300,the_electoral_finance_bill.sm
He uses the words “These presently obnoxious provisions need to be rewritten” & “Unless the Electoral Finance Bill is radically rewritten along these lines, Labour will not get the support it needs to pass the legislation.”
Lets hope he is right.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:01 am
Said “I wonder what the Greens are thinking?’ yesterday Well here it is (thanks to Andrew for forwarding this)
“Thank you for sending your email to us about the Electoral Finance Bill. This is an issue of great importance to the community and directly affects the nature of our citizenship. The public interest in the bill and its effects is very welcome in a healthy democracy.
The Greens view on electoral finance reform is guided by three key principles.
Transparency – that voters have a right to know who is funding political parties.
A level playing field – elections should be a contest between different ideas and policies not a contest as to who has the most money.
And finally avoiding state dependency – political parties should be encouraged to maintain strong memberships and links to the community and not become entirely dependent on public support.
Because of the importance of preventing the influence of undue wealth, political parties currently have restrictions on the amount of money they can spend in an election. We believe that similar principles ought to apply to others who engage in electioneering. To constrain political party spending but not that of other groups fails to address the problem, but we need to get the balance right.
To this end, we have campaigned strongly to alter the bill to include a ban on secret trusts and anonymous donations.
We also agree that the bill includes a number of restrictions on third parties that are unnecessary to meet our objectives for fair electoral finance law. We are working in the select committee to make the changes to the bill that will ensure that the public right to actively engage in the electoral process is protected while guarding against undue financial influence.
We also believe that the public should be engaged better in the process and so have called for a Citizens Assembly to address these and other electoral funding issues.
Finally, we have chosen to constructively work with other parties across the political spectrum to get the best possible outcome in this bill as we do not believe that the current law properly protects against the abuses of financial influence.
We sincerely appreciate your concerns about this bill and we expect that they will be addressed.
Noho ora mai,
Na,
Metiria Turei MP ”
What do you think of those three ‘key principles’ – have they been supported by the Greens’ activities on this Bill?
October 18th, 2007 at 10:03 am
“We also believe that the public should be engaged better in the process and so have called for a Citizens Assembly to address these and other electoral funding issues.”
ie bin it and start again?
October 18th, 2007 at 10:12 am
Lee C said “ie bin it and start again?”
Sue Bradford and her left-wing “activist” cronies? Don’t hold your breath Lee.
Realistically, the only hope now is Dunne using his vote at the Select Committee so prevent the SC reporting the Bill back.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:33 am
I2- Dunne is certainly the best bet! But like Lee I wouldn’t give up on the Greens.
I don’t doubt they are seriously angry at the “Terrorist ” busts last week and if the have ever read the EFB they know that like the Terrorism legislation it allows for search warrants to be obtained on suspicion of an intention to break the law!
Brighter Sparks in the Green movement will be waking up to the fact that next year they won’t be breaking down there doors at 6 o’clock in the morning to look for guns but for placards and posters.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:37 am
Yeah agreed – however I have to observe that the guiding principles, once stated bear scrutiny. I also think they would not have been put up for scrutiny unless people had kicked up a stink.
I suspect the Greens and Dunne and Labour and the other lot – all would have preferred that this Bill be sneaked through onto the books.
I think that the more we discuss the party principles they espouse, and illustrate where the EFB contradicts these, the fewer dark corners there will be for these gravy-sucking pigs to hide in.
So, to be brief. Sue Bradford needs to be addressed with this issue, seeing as she is the boss (sic) of the Greens, and aksed where she stands, for the record….
October 18th, 2007 at 10:44 am
Yes Reg.
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn’t a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
(Martin Niemoller)