Electoral Finance Bill Submissions
Half Done has done a good graph showing the composition of the submission on the Electoral Finance Bill:
I like the greater than 50% kill category 
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: Electoral Act
October 19th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Beaten to it… i’m 30% of the way through the ~600 submissions!! Well done Half Done.
October 19th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Krazy Kiwi… now I see the reason for the slurred speech in your post on another thread :-O
The “not classifiable” ones must be fascinating. Probably like the regular correspondence I used to receive at Parliament, written in orange crayon on “Footrot Flats” books.
Can anyone define for me “amend” vs “general amend”? Is the latter of the “go with the general principle but throw out the contents and start again” type?
October 19th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Of course you are happy with the status quo that allows National’s rich backers to spend as much as they like on elections by exploiting huge gaps in the regime.
The EFB as it stands is heavily flawed – lets hope a more sophisicated regime emerges – Canadian lines i favour,
[DPF: Sam why do you lie? I know you read my blog. You must have seen my submission to the Select Committee. Did you not read it? If you did, then why do you lie about what I said? If you did not read it, then why invent what I said?]
October 19th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Sam Dixon: Of course you are happy with the status quo that allows National’s rich backers to spend as much as they like on elections by exploiting huge gaps in the regime
More ideological hackery
Got to love it. Sam, I’ve got a lot of respect for you on your taxation related issues, but this … [sighs]
October 19th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Sam:
Oh, you have inside knowledge that Labour is about to publish the names of its anonymous donors and declare it won’t accept any more money of that nature?
October 19th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Sam. First, the status quo that allows National’s rich backers to spend as much as they like on elections applies equally to Labour too. Owen Glenn isn’t below the poverty line mate, and the unions contribution is worth many $$$$ to Labour. So the status quo works equally for both.
Second, the EFB as currently drafted does nothing to address what I suspect you mean by huge gaps in the regime. Labour have made sure it does nothing to stop anonymous donations – presumably because Labour want to slurp from that trough – despite National’s willingness to negotiate on that point. And, as many people have pointed out, the $60k cap can be easily circumvented by having several people each spend up to their $60k allocation.
So tossing your toys about of course you are happy with the status quo and casting aspersions at National seems pretty lightweight mate.
October 19th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
And from memory 95% of submissions opposed the Civil Union Bill. Should we have scrapped that piece of legislation?
October 19th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
So we have the latest Labour Party line: Those who oppose the EFB are simply trying to allow National to rort the next election.
Peter Dunne
The Greens Party
The HRC
The Law Society
Even it’s partisan support from Hager upon inspection criticised it as a crock.
Yet comes the response ‘It’s all a National Party plot to rort the election.” just like Helen says. So it must be true.
So The Labour Party’s incompetence and lack of public consultation, cross-party consulatation and cut-and-paste cobbling together of some other examples of elctoral Law, are wait for it – all Nationals’ fault?
It was all a plot by National to ….wait for it…. change absloutely nothing!
I mean National have sure gone to a lot of trouble to ‘maintain the status quo’ haven’t they? Those sneaky b**ds, the EFB has been a National trick all this time.. blahblahblah
Meanwhile back in reality, The Labour Party has scored a complete own goal by opening a public debate on the amount of unnacountable time and money they benefit from by union involvement in their own election campaigns.
When are yo gonna change that badly scratched record.
October 19th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
I like the 50% kill the bill,, what % needs to be reached to actually do that??
On another note,, who agrees with me that Labour has simply pillaged and raped this country and its people with its primary taxation regime and focusing on nothing else.
More interestingly, who thinks I’m talking a heap of traitorous crap ??
Speak up and do tell
October 19th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Tane – you are wrong 95% did not. I’d say you should kill this bill because it breaches human rights according to the HRC. Once upon a time the left worried about such things.
October 19th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Tane, i think you’d find that opponents to the the Civil Union bill weren’t drawn from unions, businesses, law experts, activists, human right experts, lobby groups, clubs, societies, greenies, lefties, drug liberalisation groups, national-front folks etc etc
October 19th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Of course Sam is keen to change the law that allows Labour’s Union mates a free pass to spend as much as they like on elections by exploiting huge gaps in the regime. Whilst Labour’s rich mates still get to donate large sums of money anonymously to the party.
Come clean Labour, who are those large donations from!
October 19th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
And guess what kk,,
They’re all the people who are gonna vote against labour.
I think even the greens could feel the pinch this time round.
I think Rodneys gonna be grinning hugely
October 19th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
It must suck for poor old Tane to be pushed out into the firing line on this one. The bullets may be fired in support of the truth, but they still shred the target.
October 19th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
In fact, a huge indictment of the political situation that could not have been said in all earnest before
October 19th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
No, but there’s no reason why that, and the EFB, couldn’t go to an electronic referendum. No significant cost barrier (unlike the paper version).
Oh, that’s right… sucking up to a place on a Party List imbues the sucker with omnipotent wisdom the rest of us lack. Or so those in Parliament seem to think.
October 19th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
hinamanu, agree on the pillage. the EFB is just another strategy to silence any opposition to said pillaging.
be careful about the traitorous stuff though. perhaps the intent of strengthened anti-terrorism laws is to simplify exposure of anonymous bloggers…
October 19th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Rex,,
remember Ross Perot tried to introduce that kind of democratic input and look what happened to him in ‘the land of demoncracy’
And that wasn’t a misspelling
October 19th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Tane – you are wrong 95% did not. I’d say you should kill this bill because it breaches human rights according to the HRC. Once upon a time the left worried about such things.
Okay David, I checked it out. It’s 91%. My points stand. How does the number of submitters against a bill bear any relation to whether it’s any good or is supported by the public?
October 19th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
And David, one can disagree with an analysis from the HRC without being some kind of ogre. Surely you’ve disagreed with them on issues in the past?
October 19th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
kk,,
Remember back in 87 labour dropped treason laws to commit treason and sell off the country
and they want us to be scared to use terms such as traitorous?
talk bout the hater pot calling the kettle black
October 19th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
There are also a lot of people here claiming all sorts of people oppose the bill. – whether it be unions, the Greens, Peter Dunne etc.
They’re not – they want the bill fixed. To pretend they want the bill ‘killed’ is disingenuous.
October 19th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
well Tane,,
it depends on whether that graph is mock or true.
simply stated, if its true, the bill dies, a quick and violent death
October 19th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Well, no. The Civil Union Bill showed 91% opposed, yet it had public support and got the numbers in Parliament. Farrar’s graph is meaningless.
October 19th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Sam Dixon … couple of threads ago you said in a reaction to my post …..
Ross Miller – don’t call me a liar unless you can point to a lie. I don’t call you a necrophiliac.
Seems to me that David F has caught you out good and proper.
October 19th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
So, Tane (as you’ve raised the issue), would they have any objection to people who aren’t members of whatever club (a union executive, the Green… collective, or whatever they style themselves… or with Peter Dunne in the phone box at his next AGM) being involved in this “fixing” via a proper process of consultation and then a referendum? Or do they think they know best?
October 19th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
I have another suggested amendment to the EFB. What about a clause forcing the Maori party to reveal who offered them money to back a Labour government?
October 19th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Correct. And support is found in the 29 supportive submissions, a handful of government MPs (and begrudgingly from the remaining govt MPs) and a few posters here. Hardly a runaway successes.
Still, if a government wants to abuse its power it doesn’t need public support. Just the numbers in parliament. Democracy eh?
October 19th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Rex, I’m not quite sure what you’re asking. I’ve said from the start this whole thing should have been done through a citizens’ assembly so it couldn’t be as easily hijacked by self-interested politicians. But seeing as it hasn’t been, and we don’t now have time, it’s important we fix it now while we have the opportunity. The bill has some bad elements, but that’s what the select committee process is for.
October 19th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
milo… noooooo. we’re already back 100 years!
October 19th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Can I just say, it’s amazing how nearly every thread – particularly when they become embarrassing for DPF – turns into a discussion about the EFB.
[DPF: Yeah I'm the embarrassed one. Idiot]
October 19th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Like a lack of public mandate and complete absence of consultation prior to drafting.
the only way the select committee can fix THAT is to recommend that bill is completely withdrawn.
October 19th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Tane: The title of this thread is “Electoral Finance Bill Submissions”. Complaining that it has now degenerated into a discussion of the EFB is just, well, kinda weird …
October 19th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Tane: This thread IS ABOUT the EFB all though you tried to threadjack it by bringing in the Civil Union Bill.
October 19th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
yeah,, milo,,
I sorta wondered about that ???????
October 19th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
tane, suck it up buddy. there’s a hail of bullets with RIP EFB engraved on each. about time. do your orders permit desertion?
October 19th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Milo, doh, got my threads mixed up. Friday afternoon and all that. Still, it’s something I’ve been wondering about for some time.
Reg, no such threadjacking. Read my posts again.
October 19th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Tane; Fair enough. It happens.
October 19th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Tane if every thread turns into a discussion about the EFB it’s because th bill is so pervasive. A bit like didymo.
October 19th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
[quote]Can I just say, it’s amazing how nearly every thread – particularly when they become embarrassing for DPF – turns into a discussion about the EFB.[/quote]
lol
October 19th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
tane said..
“..There are also a lot of people here claiming all sorts of people oppose the bill. – whether it be unions, the Greens, Peter Dunne etc.
They’re not – they want the bill fixed. To pretend they want the bill ‘killed’ is disingenuous..”
um..!..tane..fwiw..i’m a deeper green than 95% 0f the green party..
(not that many vegans there..y’see..)
and i know this bill is beyond any ‘fixing’..
it needs killing..
and yes..anonymous donations to poitical parties must be banned..
democracy must also ‘be seen to be don’e..eh..?
and this legislation must be drawn up/mandated by a separate ‘commission’..or whatever..
not by the/any government of the day..
how can you oppose any of that..?..tane..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 19th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Tane : The difference between the CUB and the EFB is that those that disagreed with the CUB were perfectly entitled to vote against the those that supported it, in the 2005 election.
I believe it was the arrogant forcing through of the Labour Party’s Social Engineering agenda that led to them nearly loosing that Election -(Notice a lot less Social Engineering this Term).
The EFB is a totally different issue. It is fundamentally changing the Ground Rules as to how Elections are fought.
It is a deliberate attempt by an incumbent Government that has lost public support to seek to tilt the playing field -in their favour- in a desperate effort to cling to power.
Electoral Law should only be changed after a broad consesus has been arrived at by bringing together all Political Entities and interested parties in the community.
This “obnoxious” and “draconian” piece of legislation was initially motivated by an irrational hatred of a religious minority and proceeded to become a vicious attack on “Grassroots Democracy”, it has been condemned by a huge majority of submitters and yet the Socialists seem determined to Bulldoze it through.
If they think it has the support of NZers;Here’s a test.
How about a By-Election in Palmerston North !!!!!!!!!
Wow! Got that of my Chest
Great Week-end to all!
October 19th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
But Phil, the Greens aren’t saying kill the bill – they’re saying fix it.
October 19th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
The EFB doesn’t attack or in any way hinder “Grassroots Democracy”. It restricts campaign spending during the year of the election in order to level the playing field. How many grassroots democracy groups can afford to spend more than $60,000 a year on billboards and newspaper advertising?
October 19th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
I presume “Grassroots Democracy” is code for “Labour Supporting” since it seem that only Labour is supporting the EFB
October 19th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Sam and others I told the SC that I dont want any anonymous donations over $10k and I dont want a dollar of mine or any other taxpayers used to fund these bastards.
And that its no place for a government that says its supports free speech to stop citizens speaking up and speaking out.
Alas the monkeys that purport to be the SC didnt want to understand
October 19th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
How many Grassroots democracy groups want to fill out statutory declaration every time the print a few pamphlets.
Typical socialist doctrine “tie ‘im up in Red Tape” to make it virtually impossible to do anything, and claim you are just trying to protect them from themselves.
October 19th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Prehaps Sam Dixon can put Half Dones pie chart into a bell curve then people like Tane and Sam can tell us we are all deluded, that should make them happy.
Still waiting for my Dear Leader T shirts as can’t wait to wear one into our local city, and what joy, it is a Liarbore cesspit.
October 19th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Tane:
And I applaud you for that.
Whether those on the left who are now shifting uncomfortably and admitting the Bill needs modification are willing to instigate an open and comprehensive public consultation on the legislation, as you yourself have suggested.
No time? That argument is valid only if you believe that whatever law is eventually passed should extend to a year before an election. That, however, is one of the points to which many people object.
A flawed law is not better than no law at all. I agree the present law is also flawed, but proper enforcement would count for a lot.
An alternative would be to pass a hastily amended Bill to apply only to the next election and then expire, allowing for a proper process of public consultation on new legislation. I wonder if those promoting the Bill would countenance that, if their real motives are as pure as they claim?
You’ll forgive me if I don’t have much faith in a Select Committee consisting of Doug Woolerton, David Benson Pope and other such luminaries.
October 19th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Hang on guys, I’m struggling to keep track.
On the one hand Labour wants to stop grassroots democracy groups:
How many Grassroots democracy groups want to fill out statutory declaration every time the print a few pamphlets.
Typical socialist doctrine “tie ‘im up in Red Tape” to make it virtually impossible to do anything, and claim you are just trying to protect them from themselves.
But on the other it wants to give them an easy rise because they support Labour.
I presume “Grassroots Democracy” is code for “Labour Supporting” since it seem that only Labour is supporting the EFB
Can you sit down and work out which conspiracy theories you’re running with?
October 19th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
That last line shouldn’t be italicised. It was me.
October 19th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Rex, I’d be quite happy to see a properly amended version of the EFB go through before the end of the year, then something along the lines of a proper citizens’ assembly followed by a binding referendum after the next election.
October 19th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
tane said..
“..But Phil, the Greens aren’t saying kill the bill – they’re saying fix it..”
yeah..go figure..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 19th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Tane: The real issue is that Labour’s only coherent agenda seems to be power. Power, not quite at all costs, but at any cost it can get away with. This image reinforced by the penchant for attack politics they have engaged in lately.
So if you don’t want Labour to be swipted at from all directions, they really need a coherent vision positive, and to engage with New Zealander’s from a position of genuien respect for diversity – including economic diversity.
So “Nuke the rich and crush all opposition” just doesn’t quite do it.
October 19th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Gagh! Copyediting meltdown. Sorry. Will go now.
October 19th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Tane,
I recall a thread a wee while ago where someone (was it you) already ran the “grassroots organisations don’t have $60K.” And everyone under the sun then posted a list of organisations who both that money and/or spend it in elections. That included the AA, some unions, Forest and Bird etc etc.
Why are you bringing out discredited arguments again? Hoping we’d forget? Or did you forget?
Paul
October 19th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
The seven stages of depression, short exploration of the grieving process featuring the words of chairman Tane:
Stage 1: shock or disbelief:
“And from memory 95% of submissions opposed the Civil Union Bill. Should we have scrapped that piece of legislation?”
Stage 2: denial:
“Okay David, I checked it out. It’s 91%. My points stand. How does the number of submitters against a bill bear any relation to whether it’s any good or is supported by the public?”
Stage 3: bargaining:
“There are also a lot of people here claiming all sorts of people oppose the bill. – whether it be unions, the Greens, Peter Dunne etc. They’re not – they want the bill fixed. To pretend they want the bill ‘killed’ is disingenuous.”
Stage 4: Guilt:
“I’ve said from the start this whole thing should have been done through a citizens’ assembly so it couldn’t be as easily hijacked by self-interested politicians. But seeing as it hasn’t been, and we don’t now have time, it’s important we fix it now while we have the opportunity. The bill has some bad elements, but that’s what the select committee process is for.”
Stage 5: Anger:
“Hang on guys, I’m struggling to keep track. On the one hand Labour wants to stop grassroots democracy groups: But on the other it wants to give them an easy rise because they support Labour. Can you sit down and work out which conspiracy theories you’re running with?”
Stage 6: Depression:
“Can I just say, it’s amazing how nearly every thread – particularly when they become embarrassing for DPF – turns into a discussion about the EFB.”
Stage 7: Acceptance/hope:
(PaulL: “I recall a thread a wee while ago where someone (was it you) already ran the “grassroots organisations don’t have $60K.” And everyone under the sun then posted a list of organisations who both that money and/or spend it in elections. That included the AA, some unions, Forest and Bird etc etc.
Why are you bringing out discredited arguments again? Hoping we’d forget? Or did you forget?”
Over to you, Tane…
October 19th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Seriously though if I could choose anyone to have my back in a tustle i think it would be you, Tane, but I think you are misguided on this one.
Come over to the dark side, luke.
October 19th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Lee:
That’s hilarious!
But I’m not sure Tane will be able to reconcile his various positions. He’s like the proverbial bull in the china shop: National bad, Labour good (in all its variations). Introduce facts into the conversation and he stampedes off to The Standard to plot his next thread-jack attempt (with Sam Dixon et al).
October 19th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
C’mon…everyone knows Tane and Sam are the Maginot Line of the Labour Party…and the tanks are just getting started up…put up the white flag now chaps. Do it for Helen.
October 19th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
For those few people who have not read my article, the “general” groups are those who didn’t say explicitly what they wanted.
So “General Oppose” were people who didn’t actually say they were opposed to the bill, but clearly were.
“General Ammend” were people who made noises that suggested they wanted the bill ammended, but didn’t actually say so. In reality, almost no one actually said they wanted the bill ammended, so a lot of the “ammends” should be in this category too.
But I got sick of reading the things after two weeks…
October 19th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
It’s funny how Sam Dixon repeatedly accuses DPF of being a National HQ stooge. Sam, as a collectivist, just can’t fathom the prospect that DPF – heaven forbid – might be posting his own ideas.
October 19th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
“Sam, as a collectivist, just can’t fathom the prospect that DPF – heaven forbid – might be posting his own ideas.”
Hello redbaiter?
October 19th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
No Phillip John – I’m not Redbaiter. You can send your attack dogs elsewhere.
October 19th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
Shit sorry. Forgot about roger nob…well, he’s not really Maginot Line material, is he…more Italian regular army…
October 19th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
Davud Farrah mite be posting his own views?
Any reason why he should not do this? it is his kiwiblog.
Seems a place for moaners and whingers to vent their spleen without saying who they are. Some of the personal insults are repugnant.
Oh then the trolls hijack and turn the subject (thread) into their own point of view.
Example: Electoral Finance Bill gets changed to the Civil Unoins Bill.
And away we go on a tangent.
I am an engineer and put in my 9 hours today designing, fabricating, welding, grinding hard out, and yeah nut on bolts stuff.
What did you do all day? in front of the computer passing the day on Kiwiblog?
Pity I don’t have the time to get near a computer in working hours.
I actually work for my money.
I also don’t hide behind a ficticious name.
Regards, Steve Thomas
October 19th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
Steve:
I don’t think it actually matters whether someone uses a pseudonym. The regulars (Phillip John particularly comes to mind) get a right royal roasting when they slip up. Kiwiblog is (or should be) about debating ideas.
October 19th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Steve Thomas my name is Lee Clark I make picture frames for a living. Pleased to meet you.
If you can get Tane to admit to who he/she is you are a better man than I.
October 19th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Lee:
I don’t suppose you dabble in framing autographed pictures? And airbrushed portraits? If so, you may find a demand for your services in Wellington.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
Imagine if we had to have a framed picture of our glorious leader in every business like they do in in real socialist havens, gee Lee you could retire!!!!
actually you have done a great job with your postings on the EFB so well done
October 19th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Actually bwakile, Lee didn’t actually start making picture frames until the EFB came on the radar. Then some official popped his head round the door and said “because you’re the hard lefty on staff you’re our rep on the Helen In Homes working party” and now Lee works all day framing pics of H1 so that when the EFB is rammed through and she gets her chance to promulgate the dictatorship, we right-wingers will all spend time finding a spot amongst the McCahons for a mandatory Kim Jong Clark pic. Or else.
October 19th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
What I find amusing is the line: let the Select Committee fix the Bill, and let it sail forward. What this fails to recognise, of course, is that the public don’t get a second bite at the cherry. It’s basically a “trust Labour” message.
Best to withdraw the Bill, address the public concerns, and then put it back before the Select Committee. Now I don’t know if this has ever happened – as usually controversial legislation gets rammed through under urgency.
October 19th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
“I don’t suppose you dabble in framing airbrushed portraits? If so, you may find a demand for your services in Wellington.”
Didn’t know she was your type POC? My the world is a strange place
October 19th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
Phillip John:
You need to read the first sentence and the second sentence together. “Demand for your services in Wellington” is not about me. It’s all about context. A bit like statistical analysis?
October 20th, 2007 at 12:32 am
It’s funny Tane, you bring up this Civil Union bill every time the EFB is debated. The only difference is, nobody wants Labour to fuck with their democratic right to support any political party.
As we know now, the Civil Union bill allows everybody to fuck each other
October 20th, 2007 at 12:32 am
Apologies for the profanity. That kind of language belongs on my blog
October 20th, 2007 at 1:15 am
Clint:
Actually, just for kicks, let’s give Tane the benefit of the doubt.
The argument for the CUB: recognise our relationship, but don’t amend the Income Tax Act 2004 to recognise that same relationship (thus, on the face of it, creating an uneven playing field).
And the possible anology with the EFB: regulate electoral campaign spending, but create a special exception for the unions (thus, on the face of it, creating an uneven playing field).
Does Tane know something that we don’t?
October 20th, 2007 at 9:49 am
POC http://www.framze.co.nz for al your framing needs!
October 20th, 2007 at 9:52 am
DPF I owe you a ten-spot for the advert..
October 20th, 2007 at 9:55 am
Imagine if you could get a ten-spot for every time those suckers try to use kiwiblog to whore the ‘Average’ you’d be able to retire!
October 21st, 2007 at 5:56 am
Bill Ralston has come over to the dark side…
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10471101
October 22nd, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Tane, the Civil Union bill never had wide support, you moron, 91% OPPOSED…is not support!