They’ve made it worse!
Okay the Electoral Finance Bill is back with amendments. And I am stunned. You see I thought the Bill was so bad, so draconian, that it couldn’t possibly be made worse. But I was wrong.
Yes, they’ve actually managed to make it worse!
Not content with regulating written political advocacy, they’ve extended the definitions to also include verbal political advocacy!
The Electoral Finance Bill now even regulates someone who gets up on a soap box and starts communicating to the public.
And while they have scrapped the ludicrous system of statutory declarations, they still treat a placard in a protest march as an election advertisement (if it targets a political party) and that placard will need your name and residential address on it.
Remember all those protesters outside the Labour Party Conference? They would all have been breaking the law if they didn’t have their name and address on their placards. The ones with the megaphones – they would be breaking the law if they didn’t announce over the megaphone their name and residential address each time they chanted.
And this is no drafting error. The select committee report makes it clear they have intentionally widened the scope to capture “the use of loudspeakers and megaphones”. Yes Labour, NZ First, United Future and the Greens have deliberately moved to regulate verbal political advocacy. What sort of parties and Governments are threatened by megaphones?
Press releases that advocate for or against a party are still defined as election advertisements. If you e-mail out a press release, you’ll need to include your address on it.
Political Parties are still banned from certain types of advertisements. For example it would be illegal for the Maori Party to run an advertisement (which includes a press release!) which says “Voters should vote against any party or MP which voted for the Electoral Finance Bill”.
Labour’s usual tactic of trying to maximize advantage for itself is there. They restrict foreign donors to $1,000 yet define a foreign donor in such a way that Owen Glenn can still give his $500,000 to Labour despite not having lived here for 40 years.
Anonymous political advocacy on the Internet is gone. It will be illegal to make a post in the Usenet Internet Newsgroups that advocates for or against a party unless you include your name and residential address. And it’s the same with YouTube videos.
The exemption for non-commercial blogs remains, but there is no clarification of what non-commercial means, so Kiwiblog (which has some significant advertising lined up) may be at serious risk.
There are certainly improvements in other areas of the Bill, and I am working on a post detailing all the significant changes. But make no mistake – this remains a deeply deeply flawed undemocratic bill and it has had its reach extended from written political advocacy to verbal political advocacy also.
There can be only one response – Kill the Bill. Now.
November 19th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
crooks – I hope this corrupt Labour Leadership rot in hell for their disdain of democracy.
They will pay the price in 2008.
November 19th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Right – chant afetr me “Kill the Bill – authorised by the Free Speech Coalition, PO Box…….”
No, doesn’t have the same impact eh!
KILL THE BLOODY BILL – and yes, I feel like shouting!
November 19th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Peter Dunne – hang your head in shame, and dust off your CV – you will need it!
November 19th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
The loudspeaker/megaphones is aimed the roaming cars with recorded messages which drive around suburbs annoying the hell out of everybody.
At least we will now know who they are supporting
Kiwiblog has advertising lined up so is at risk?
cant let the changing of money get in the way of democracy can we !!
[DPF: You can't invent things about who it is aimed at. It will include loudhailers on protest marches. Aren't you ashamed to support such a thing? And Kiwiblog has had advertising for several years idiot - I've just got none at the moment at the blog is being redone]
November 19th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
While desperation overwhelms Labours trademark political adroitness, the poodlocracy participants fear being scuttled by Labour, so instead chart their own course towards the rocks of ethical depravity.
====== KILL THE BILL =========
November 19th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
David, that was quick. Did you get hold of an advance copy of the bill through the party?
[DPF: Absolutely not]
November 19th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Select Committee Report:
http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/B3855C0D-338F-42C8-8E8F-C82715337CA7/69335/DBSCH_SCR_3906_5586.pdf
Updated bill:
http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/CAAFE6BD-AFAF-4D8A-8EB5-05573289B12C/69350/DBHOH_BILL_8029_5587.pdf
November 19th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
The loudspeaker/megaphones is aimed the roaming cars with recorded messages which drive around suburbs annoying the hell out of everybody.
ok, well the suburb of kiwiblogville (ie us!) would like to know your full name, residential address, party affiliations and, oh, how about a declaration of how much you’ve been paid to blog such inane tripe in support of this legislative rort.
November 19th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
If everything in the Nats minority report is correct, the SC process has been as flawed and biased as the introduction of this odious piece of proposed legislation.
Items such as Cullens response to a request for the Solicitor General’s office to make themselves available “No useful purpose would be served” actually sums up both the predetermined nature of the Bill but also the Bill itself.
November 19th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
WTF are they thinking?
They are making a bloody good imitation of totalitarian hypocrits.
I suppose H1 told us not to worry.. it will be fixed. Yep… it’s fixed alright!
November 19th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
ok, with the suburb of kiwiblogville would like to know your full name, residential address, party affiliations and, oh, how about a declaration of how much you’ve been paid to blog such inane tripe in support of this legislative rort.
November 19th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Wot Tane, envious of other’s speed reading and comprehension abilities?
Aaawww Bro’ the big print version with talking points and one page summary should be available from Trades Hall anytime soon.
November 19th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Fascinating the revelation that Geoffrey Palmer was invited to be an advisor to the Committee.
“On 23 August, a majority of the Committee resolved that the Law Commission be invited to act as an adviser on the Bill. National members opposed the motion. A letter was sent to the Law Commission. Sir Geoffrey Palmer responded, however, saying that the Law Commission
had not been approached informally about possible appointment as an adviser and that, if he had been, he would have said it was inappropriate for the Commission to act as an adviser on a policy matter like this and, in any event, the Commission’s workload would preclude acceptance of the appointment.”
Just one in a very long line of shambolic fuck-ups by the Committee. It’s no wonder the end result is such a travesty. This is a Government that was intent on ramming through the worst piece of vile, self-serving crap in the last hundred years, and ignoring any opposing voices.
November 19th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
By the look of a few comments , I think some have hit the suntan sherry early today
November 19th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Wow this is shocking, i was considering going to the protest on wensday, and now i am definatly going! Sould i bring a piece of paper with my name and address David, just to be safe?
November 19th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Tane,
You were extremely confident over the weekend that the Select Committee would address all of the key concerns about the Bill. It is absolutely clear, in retrospect, that you had not seen an advance copy of the Bill.
November 19th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
“They will pay the price in 2008″
You mean like national did in 2002 when they got 20.8%!! Around half of the vote for labour.
The polls are showing labour is INCREASING in the polls, and I bet they will match national in january.
.
Ha ha ha
November 19th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Interesting to see that the Heralds comments section is showing a surprising amount of support for the Bill (I suspect few have read the changes). I’m a little suspicious given issues in the past (no it wasn’t me casting thousands of votes, and I haven’t posted a thing on their website) – but perhaps there is more support for change then those here give credit for.
November 19th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Lance said “Yep… it’s fixed alright!”
Lance – I presume you’re talking about the 2008 election, not the Bill – seems to me that Labour and their lickspittle (never thought I’d resort to using that word!) support partners are doing their best to achieve that.
November 19th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
“They will pay the price in 2008″
You mean like national did in 2002 when they got 20.8%!! Around half of the vote for labour.
The polls are showing labour is INCREASING in the polls, and I bet they will match national in january.
.
Ha ha ha
I love it when voters gloat, I really like seeing how humble they are when things arnt going their way….
November 19th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Prick bro, National was never going to be happy with a bill that counted their election spend from January 1 and stopped them from running parallel campaigns to undermine spending caps as they did in 2005 with the Exclusive Brethren and the Fair Tax lobby. Why else do you think Family First and Sensible Sentencing are shelling out the big bucks to stop this bill?
That’s what this debate is about – the ability of the wealthy and the powerful to distort our democracy. If you want to march about that you’re welcome, but don’t delude yourself into believing that it’s about free speech.
[DPF: If the bill gets passed I'm going to love it when Tane is 2011 is prevented from saying "Down with National" into a megaphone unless he first repeats his name and address.]
November 19th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
ghostwhowalks said “By the look of a few comments , I think some have hit the suntan sherry early today”
What did you expect bro? That opponents of the Bill would go rushing out to bow down in reverence to Dear Leader for kicking them a bit harder? Piss off and stir somewhere else!
November 19th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Tane said “That’s what this debate is about – the ability of the wealthy and the powerful to distort our democracy.”
Wealthy and powerful – you mean like Trade Unions?
November 19th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
I see they have added the “Len Richards Clause” specifically to prevent incidents like that ever happening again.
Kill the Bill
November 19th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
“That’s what this debate is about – the ability of the wealthy and the powerful to distort our democracy. If you want to march about that you’re welcome, but don’t delude yourself into believing that it’s about free speech.”-Tane
Under the new provisions of the bill i will have to write my name and address on a sign if i want to attend a protest rally. Under the new provisions of the bill i will have to yell out my name and address after the pro-national slogan. So dont tell me this isnt about free speech.
November 19th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Tane said “That’s what this debate is about – the ability of the wealthy and the powerful to distort our democracy.”
Wealthy and powerful – you mean like Trade Unions?
Wonder if he means the government of the day?
November 19th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
The Green party members protesting against the ANZ on Lambton Quay didn’t want to write their names and addresses on their protest banners when I said to them that within 32 days they would need to. When I asked “Norman’s” why the Green’s supported the EFB all he said was “You know nothing about it !”. They have learned well from Labour – Denigrate anybody who disagrees with you.
You know I never though of the Green’s as poodles – but boy have they shown their hand on this one.
November 19th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Are you quite sure, David? The select committee report says the definition of broadcasting has been amended to be the same as that in Section 2 (1) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. Which is:
<i>“Broadcasting” means any transmission of programmes, whether or
not encrypted, by radio waves or other means of
telecommunication for reception by the public by means of
broadcasting receiving apparatus but does not include any such
transmission of programmes—
(a) Made on the demand of a particular person for reception
only by that person; or
(b) Made solely for performance or display in a public place:
“Commission” means the Broadcasting Commission established by
section 35 of this Act:</i>
Which isn’t quite what you said, is it? Perhaps you could make a correction when you’ve calmed down …
[DPF: Sorry RB but you are in the wrong place. Look up the definition of "publish" in Clause 4 - the new (i) definition. And go and read the select committee report which refers to that clause as intending to cover megaphones.]
November 19th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Hey, on a positive side note – when Roger Nome said we would be surprised when the reformed Bill came out he wasn’t lying
Of course, I suspect he was alluding to the surprise being a pleasant one as opposed to that “oh fuck I just stepped in dogshit” type of surprise.
Tane: That’s what this debate is about – the ability of the wealthy and the powerful to distort our democracy.
I know! It’s disgusting how much the Labour party is skewing things in favour of themselves, isn’t it Tane? After all, with the backing of wealthy overseas billionares, unions and now this self serving piece of legislation – you are quite correct. This is exactly what the debate is about.
KILL THE BILL!
November 19th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Bloody hell. Wellington its up to you! Please advertise the time and placed for the march on every post on every blog.
November 19th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
IV2, unions have nowhere near as much power or wealth as the business lobby, but yes, they’ll be covered by the EFB too. And by and large, they support it.
PS – DPF, you reckon now’s the time to start that breakaway political party you were talking up the other day?
November 19th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Peter Dunne………….How do you sleep?????
shame
November 19th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Tane: IV2, unions have nowhere near as much power or wealth as the business lobby, but yes, they’ll be covered by the EFB too. And by and large, they support it.
Maybe not, but they are specifically excluded by the EFB. You know, more of that self-serving we’re rorting the election system from the Labour party sorry tale.
P.S. Who needs the big business lobby when you can retrospectively validate your illegal spend on electioneering and then rewrite the electoral law to suit your own party?
November 19th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
I’m away and can’t really get at the language to suss it out for myself but what does this do to the internet?
November 19th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Let’s just highlight again who comprised the “majority” that is in agreement with this Bill being reported back and who support its recommendations shall we:
Lynne Pillay – Labour
Charles Chauvel – Labour
Ann Hartley – Labour
David Benson-Pope – Labour
Hone Harawira – Maoris
Nandor Tanczos – Greens (ho thought it should go even further)
Peter Dunne – United Future
Doug Woolerton – NZ First
On this matter they must all be representing the views of their parties so while as individuals they must hang their heads, their parties are culpable of the worst kind of hypocrisy and electoral manipulation this country has seen in my lifetime.
November 19th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Russell, take a look on page 8:
November 19th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
So, apparently, Tane the Government spends $70 million in election year 2005 promoting Labour policies, and that has no influence on voters. Yet the EBs spending $1 million attacking Government policies is “buying an election”.
Fascinating you should point out extending the election period to 1 January, Tane. The minority select committee advice points out that there wasn’t any expert evidence giving any justification for it.
November 19th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
It’s interested that BeShakey won’t engage on the merits of the Bill. Presumably he supports the state regulating protest marches and requiring you to put your name and address on all placards.
November 19th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
DPF:
Could you do an update listing the specific page and/or section that you derive each of your assertions from? It would make it quicker to fact-check your claims.
November 19th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
No Pascal, unions’ election advertising is not. They are, like all membership organisations (like the AA, the Business Roundtable, Federated Farmers and Business NZ) allowed to communicate with their members.
Doesn’t your suggestion the govt should stop membership organisations from communicating with their members strike you as somewhat, ah, undemocratic?
November 19th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Kill the Bill!
If I wasn’t a believer before this amendment, I am now.
November 19th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Roger/Phillip John:
Go read the report for yourself, you lazy sod. If you can counter anything that DPF writes once you’ve done that, then you can ask him to justify his points.
November 19th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Tane – there’s a difference between “communicating with members” and telling them who to vote for, as the EPMU did in my workplace in 2005.
November 19th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
You know that it is so untrue
You know that they are liars
If I was to say to you
Things could’na get more dire
Come set this bill on fire
Come set this bill on fire
Try to steal my life these liars!
The time to hesitate is thru
No time to wallow in the mire
Wait now we can only loose
And freedom dies on funeral pyre
Come set this bill on fire
Come set this bill on fire
Try to steal my life these liars, yeah!
November 19th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
rotfl @ tane! sometimes you guys really crack me up. the best irony is always unintentional.
November 19th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Tane is in full support of this but with the ammendments as I read them he will have to shut down the standard after 1 January with his woeful ‘About Us’ – he loves disclosure except when it applies to him
November 19th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Francis – the otehr exceptions on the Internet are non commercial blogs. So any statement made on You Tube, e-mail or on a website which advocates support for or against a party is now an election advertisement which needs to have a name and address supplied.
November 19th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Retrofitted?
November 19th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Once again the labourite lickspittles have been stabbed in the back by their political masters.
Faith that it would come back from the select committee much more reasonable than the initial release, that the concerns over the content would be assuaged, that the lack of public consultation didnt matter because the bill will end up being acceptable to the vast majority of people was obviously misplaced.
Will they learn from their mistake? Nope. Watch for a “it wont be enforced anyway” statement from the labourite apologists at a blog near you soon.
November 19th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
sorry, my McCafe card just ran out … will check back later. All so bizarre!
November 19th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
the Government spends $70 million in election year 2005 promoting Labour policies
Again with that red herring. Governments have always spent money letting the public know about government policies that affect them. It’s part of living in a democracy. These ads don’t electioneer, they provide information. That this practice has suddenly become an issue for the National Party now, but never when they were in government.
November 19th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Tane – What about the free labour that unions provide the labour party for electioneering? The Labour Letters Factory? What about the PSA providing anti-national health policy brochures to patients in waiting rooms?
November 19th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
When is John Key going to take the gloves off and get angry about this ? I am increasingly despondent about the Nats and whether they offer any solutions at all. This legislation is Corrupt and this country is pathetic to be so passively standing by. These bastards do not play by any rules except their own and they need to be dealt to at the same level. Clever point scoring and outrage in Parliament will not work Dullards.
November 19th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Which isn’t quite what you said, is it? Perhaps you could make a correction when you’ve calmed down …
Perhaps you could Mr Brown….
From the bill: “Other types of broadcasting, such as the use of loudspeakers and megaphones, would be captured by the new provision
in paragraph (i).
Now lets see what paragraph i states: “bring to the notice of the public in any other manner”
I wonder if the talk we had around the lunch table will be illegal in this bill, I mean one staff member didnt realise how bad this bill was, now because I have brought this to his attention, would I have broken the law?
November 19th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Is that so Tane – so can you supply a credible explanation of why the spend in 2005 was 25% HIGHER than in either 2004 or 2006? Thought not!
November 19th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
crap – section 1 sounds like the killer bee.
November 19th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
When is John Key going to take the gloves off and get angry about this ?
Because if John Key talked the way you guys do here at Kiwiblog, National would be polling at ACT Party levels.
November 19th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Tane: Doesn’t your suggestion the govt should stop membership organisations from communicating with their members strike you as somewhat, ah, undemocratic?
I suggested no such thing sir. Retract or suffer the wrath of … erm … the Wrath of. What exactly does a socialist fear? Honesty! Yes, fear the wrath of honesty!
What I did say is that electioneering is still allowed to unions and that they are specifically exempt. Do you remember the brochures distributed in public hospitals and other locations where public service staff worked? The ones that said voting for National would see x,y and z happen to them? I know they were available in Auckland Hospital at the last election.
Tane: Again with that red herring. Governments have always spent money letting the public know about government policies that affect them.
Which is why, during election years, government advertising of their policies increase markedly. Over all other years. And in the year leading up to our next election is already approaching a record level. It’s because they are NOT electioneering.
Tane, might I suggest pulling the other one. The bells might put you in the Christmas mood. And who knows, maybe Santa would be good enough and bring you a little bit of honesty and integrity?
November 19th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Doesn’t your suggestion the govt should stop membership organisations from communicating with their members strike you as somewhat, ah, undemocratic?
Tane, all Pascal is advocating is a level playing field and you damn well know it.
November 19th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
So what was the total cost of government advertising spending in 1999, under the last National government, Tane? About $15 million.
What is the total cost of government advertising this financial year, Tane? About $100 million. Al lpromoting Labour’s policies.
You call that a red herring. Looks like a bought election, using taxpayers’ money, to me.
November 19th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Pascal said “Tane, might I suggest pulling the other one. The bells might put you in the Christmas mood. And who knows, maybe Santa would be good enough and bring you a little bit of honesty and integrity?”
We live in hope Pascal – he might also bring Helen a new job, so she can bugger off and leave us alone!
November 19th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
The Herald does not seem to share DPF’s view….yet, anyway
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10476929
November 19th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Wrath of Honesty, nice one.
November 19th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Hey everyone.. don’t waste time answering Tane…
He would argue black is white. Kind of like trying to reason with Jehovahs Witnesses.
November 19th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Pascal, are unions specifically exempt? I’m pretty sure it was an exemption for membership organisations to talk to their members. The EFB has provisions to make sure communications with non-members are counted in a membership organisation’s election spend.
As for the increase in government advertising in 2005, I imagine there were more government programs to advertise, but I’d need to look into it. Certainly it’s something that we should keep a watch on, but to call it electioneering without any further evidence strikes me as a bit of a stretch.
November 19th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
DPF,
I’m lazy. Most of my opinion on the EFB is based on your analysis and some from the Herald. I am, however, appalled at what I’m hearing from both of you.
To continue my laziness and for those of us who are similarly appalled and lazy, I have an idea. Could you summarise the reasons in bullet point why this bill, and the other one giving the government a licence to spend, is so bad for the country.
Here’s the good idea bit: could you make it small enough to fit on a Pledge Card style card?
I would LOVE to have these in my pocket and be able to talk off it and give copies to people I discuss the bill with. I’d call it “Labour’s pledge to defeat democracy”.
I’m angry, but uneducated on the bill. So are many people, this could help.
Martin
November 19th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Can some please tell me when the wellington and Christchurch marches are?
November 19th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
David Farrar Says:
November 19th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
It’s interested that BeShakey won’t engage on the merits of the Bill. Presumably he supports the state regulating protest marches and requiring you to put your name and address on all placards.
OK then, I’m concerned about certain aspects of the Bill. In particular about their workability rather than whether they undermine democratic rights. Nonetheless there are aspects that seem to me to be going too far. However, the issue clearly requires some fine balancing of conflicting priorities (for lack of a better word).
I haven’t been offering much commentary on the Bill because I’m waiting to see what National’s alternative. Given the conduct at the last election (and I’m sure National isn’t the only party to have engaged in similar things) I don’t think leaving the law as is is appropriate. So I’m waiting.
I was going to ask this before but thought I’d be accused of pushing the debate away from checking the beds for reds – what changes, if any, should be made to current NZ electoral law?
[DPF: National's alternative has always been to have genuine multiparty negotiations along with a royal commission type creature to consult with the public over underlying policy. As for what changes should be made to current law - there are indeed many. Sadly this Bill addresses very few of them. I suggest my submissions (which is on this blog) could give you a list of 30 or so of them]
November 19th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Tane said “As for the increase in government advertising in 2005, I imagine there were more government programs to advertise, but I’d need to look into it.”
Bullshit Tane – there was more government advertising because it was election year! Suyrely, there would have been more in 2006, using your rationale, as Labour publicised the implementation of all their 2005 election bribes – whoops, promises. Oh, that’s right, they welched on the tax cuts eh!
November 19th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Tane: Pascal, are unions specifically exempt?
Let’s look at the actual effect of it here. Out of your list of organizations which include the AA and the variety of unions, which group spent time and money last election campaigning against a certain political party?
If you failed to answer the unions, go directly to jail. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.
Well.
Unless you are a Labour party supporter. In which case do not go to jail. Collect $800,000. And pass several rorting bills.
You’re spinning Tane. All of us can see it. But keep it up. If we ever need to employ a drilling rig I’m sure you’ll come in handy. All we’d need to do is say “Labour did …” and you’d be like a perpetual motion machine.
November 19th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Yes, your attitude is to trust anything Labour does, Tane.
Throwing a hundred million dollars of taxpayers’ money advertising and promoting working for families, the Labour Party’s primary healthcare strategy, the Labour Party’s tax package, Kiwisaver, and environmental sustainability–the Labour Party’s five core messages–is NOT electioneering, yet the EB spending a million dollars attacking government policy does influence the system.
November 19th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Not much to do in the union offices today Tane? Slow day is it bro?
November 19th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Hey Pascal, you wouldn’t by any chance be referring to the exemption from counting Union contributions in the form of premises, manpower and pizzas as election expenses would you?
November 19th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Tane, not only is it an exemption to talk to their members, but it also gives no guidance as to what can, or cannot, be discussed. Besides, we cannot expect the proletariat to make up their own minds can we, no we must guide them!
What a load of socialist twaddle. Oh, by the way, I have a very loud voice, and can be clearly heard at great distances without the use of a loudhailer or magaphone! Will the bastards be legislating against me next?
November 19th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
But I suppose false eviction notices designed to scare the crap out of little old lady state house tennants will be caught next time round because everyone takes a position on State Housing don’t they?
What do they say? there are Liers, damn liers and then there are Socialists
November 19th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Geez, calm down everyone. Who cares if it is worse than before. I ain’t gonna obey it anyhow and neither should any of you.
November 19th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Gooner… you are promoting treason against er that must be obeyed
November 19th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Not Treason Lance, wilful disobedience.
If it’s good enough for Nandor then it’s good enough for me.
November 19th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Said with dignity, Goon. I suggest we all follow.
November 19th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Labour, NZ First, the Greens and Peter Dunne have just been upgraded from ‘obnoxious and arrogant’ to ‘loathsome and shameful’.
They are a downright disgrace and beyond argueing with.
They have to be removed.
November 19th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
I may start a new newspaper next year. The editorial content would not be covered by this bill.
[DPF: Yes it would. They have tightened that up so that the newspaper must have been previously regularly publishing]
November 19th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Suggestion for the Wed march:
We know that the secret word to make H1 froth at the mouth in rage is CORRUPT.
I suggest that it is used frequently in placards in association with the PM’s name or image. Since that’s what she’s doing.
How about:
Minimise the Corruption Footprint!
(I note that the penalties for electoral corruption still only apply to individuals, and are still a pittance.)
November 19th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
DPF – any news yet from John Boscawen as to whether he will be seeking an earlier date in the High Court?
November 19th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
1,2,3,4, show corrupt MPs the door.
November 19th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Hi Tane,
“Again with that red herring. Governments have always spent money letting the public know about government policies that affect them. It’s part of living in a democracy. These ads don’t electioneer, they provide information. That this practice has suddenly become an issue for the National Party now, but never when they were in government.”
Tane, providing information from the Government of the day is telling the voter what the Governement has done, with the intention, especially in election year, of promoting itself. That is what it means to live in a democracy: the presentation of ideas from different groups so that each person can make up their own mind which idea they like. Ensuring that people, who are not the Government, not be able to present their ideas is to devalue democratic participation.
Treat everyone equally: if you want to allow the Governement to participate in our democratic process, then everyone else should be allowed to. That’s called being fair and treating everyone equally before the law.
November 19th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Corrupt is the first word that Key needs to start using because that is what it is. This country is standing politely by while freedom of speech is being rationed according to those who want to reign forever.
November 19th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Tane advertising government policy can be used for electioneering. The example given in 21 Aprils ed of the Listener shows how it is being used for electioneering in the the 2008 election; “Recently the government signed off on a cunning little sleeper campaign in the same vein, the current Accident Compensation Corporation “You’re Covered” promotion. The ostensible reason for these ads is that some people, in particular immigrants and ethnic mionorities, still don’t realise what the state will do for them if they have an accident. Clearly this is piffle. Medical staff thrust ACC forms at you for the slightest mishap, rather the way supermarket checkout operators as “Do you have Fly Buys?” And if immigrants are missing the plot, there are way more effective ways of targeting them than spending $5 million on an advertising campaign in English.
The real point of this campaign is to prepare the future of ACC as an election campaign issue. National is still keen to make ACC contestable….”
November 19th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
For Wed….
NZ’s first retrospectively validated PM says trust me on the EFB !
November 19th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
http://www.publicaddress.net/system/topic,838,hard_news_meet_the_new_bob.sm?i=40#forum-replies
the above page links to comments on PAS
I was just wondering about this statutory declarations bit that Graeme Edgeler is referring to – does this mean that you dont have to say your name and address anymore (on placards etc as people above were worried about) -sorry for asking if a dumb question but I am getting a bit confused about what todays announced changes mean in practise.
November 19th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
That’s not possible DPF, they couldn’t could they?
An understatement my friend, they’ve aggravated;damaged;decayed;degenerated;and yes made it WORSE.
This witless bunch of self-serving hypocrites are beyond belief.
There is a pungent smell in the air and it’s not the dog pooh Winnie stepped in last election.
November 19th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
AFAIR having the word “corrupt” directed a Labour caused H1 to fly into a rage a while back.
This must be time for a repeat performance, what’s more, it’s true. Maybe Trev will come out swinging?…. literally
November 19th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Labour 2005 = Corrupt
Labour + Green + Winston + Dunne = Corrupt Absolutely
November 19th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
My comrade John A’s had a read of your post and he’s far from impressed David: http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=729
[DPF: he's also 100% incorrect. The need to have names and address on placards applies regardless of whether one registers as a third party and has already spent $12K. Good to see The Standard is lying to its readers so quickly]
November 19th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
<blockquote>Anonymous political advocacy on the Internet is gone. It will be illegal to make a post in the Usenet Internet Newsgroups that advocates for or against a party unless you include your name and residential address. And it’s the same with YouTube videos.</blockquote>
Presumably you’re taliking about 53(1)(a). But it would take a pretty tortured interpretation of the bill to come to that conclusion.
[DPF: Not at all. The definition of publish makes it very clear it includes the Internet. Try clause 4]
November 19th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Link whore.
November 19th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Great stuff Liarbore , yawn , yawn , blah , blah, Auntie Helen wants gagging orders on those who dare to speak against a regime of corrupt cowards .
Hey Batman – you’d better zip that gob of yours . Oh yeah , I know which Batman will capitulate to the gorgon first .
November 19th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Yes you do need your name and address still. You just no longer need to also file a statutory declaration (which was unworkable and hence dropped).
November 19th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Tane ,
Please stop posting links to the sewer sub standard , my head hurts thinking of all the foaming lickspittles who are splattered everywhere over there , you silly plonker . Hows George ?
November 19th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Tane that post is crap. Not worth anyones effort. Essentially calls DPF corrupt, complains about not having every statement sourced etc.
If you dorks at The Standard spent as much time analysing the legislation as you do Kiwiblog you might actually see what the rest of us have been going on about for the last few months.
November 19th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Bloody hell Tane!… “oh look look a lefty doesn’t like what you are saying”… with a backup comment from Rodensod.
Same shitty little tactics from Labour though.. smear anything you like like by mentioning money.
Fucktards
November 19th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
‘Scuse the cross post – but here are my concerns.
If I say “Vote/Don’t Vote for Helen Clark” that is clearly an election advertisement under Clause 5. Under clause 53 1 (A), I am then also required to say: My name is Milo, and I live on the Palatine at Rome. Under clause 111 I am then required to file a return of my election expenses, and under Clause 112, this return must be audited.
“Free Speech” doesn’t sound so free any more. I have to tell my listener or all viewers my name and address and cough up the costs of participating in the regulatory regime. Now maybe I’ve got this wrong, but it seems any individual trying to persaude another about their vote is a third party engaging in election advertising. So I’m basically shut down from 1 January until the election.
And that doesn’t even consider the spending limits. Do you think those limits will be indexed for taxation? Not farking likely. If they’d wanted to, they’d have done it in the bill.
Please show me I’m wrong.
[DPF: You need to give your name and address but you do not need to do a return of expenses unless you spend $12K or more]
November 19th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
FFS he even tried to equate the donation to a University with a donation to a POLITICAL PARTY!!!
The guy is off his meds!
November 19th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
DPF: “what changes, if any, should be made to current NZ electoral law?”
Clearly an Electoral Act must have a mission statement that an election is conducted with transparency, accountability, that it follows due process and breaches of the Act must be examined under the Crimes Act 1961. Definitions of “Official” and “Bribe” (Same as in the Crimes Act}. Government Policy and Party Policy need to be prcecisely defined.
The election must be closely monitored to ensure transparency throughout.
The actions of 7 businessmen has been responsible for the persecution of a religious faction in our society, whose rules prevent them from raising a voice to defend this persecution from the bullying, cowardly Prime Minister, Minister of Justice and the Chairperson of the Select Committee, who use these 6,000 members of the Exclusive Brethern Church, who do not vote and were not involved in any election activity, as punching bags.
November 19th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
“My comrade”
like the communists Tane, as winny the pooh is having a ball in NK , pity about the media though .
November 19th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Hey Tane, does your BFF John A think that universities should be prevented from accepting anonymous donations? How about sizeable donations from Trusts?
You link pimp his post here so obviously you think it has merit. If John A is the standard at The Standard then you guys are even more pathetic than I thought.
And I thought you were pretty pathetic to start off with.
November 19th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Tane ,
Does the sub standard mutely crew of misfits wash regularly as the smell is horrific ?
[DPF: D4J - 10 demerits - no need for that]
November 19th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Milo: legislation has to be interpreted, where possible, in such a way that it does not contradict the Bill of Rights Act. So the definition of “election advertisement” should not be interpreted too broadly. So “speech” will have to be an advertisement before it’s tested for being an election advertisement. Letters to the editor and blog posts are specifically excluded from the definition; ordinary conversation is so far below the threshold that it’s not even worth mentioning.
[DPF: But when there are explicit definitions, they must abide by those definitions. And publication has been defined very explicitly]
November 19th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
National MPs are supposedly joining the Wellington march.
Wednesday, 21 November from Civic Square ( Wellington City Council office area) to Parliament. Assemble 12 noon for 12.30pm march.
Free speech is essential to a first world knowledge driven economy – all the other ones have it.
November 19th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Sorry Tane ,
I meant , does the motley crew of month old standard muttonchops ever think about washing their mouths out with disinfectant ?
November 19th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
MajorBloodnok Says:
“Labour 2005 = Corrupt
Labour + Green + Winston + Dunne = Corrupt Absolutely”
QED. Refer for verification: Validation Act and EFB
November 19th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Oh dear. Did that post at the Standard basically equate to:
“DPF is such a meanie! :cries:”
Did it really? It did.
November 19th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
pete – interpretation and where possible will favour the government’s agenda every time. they are not worthy of trust, and less so of votes.
as for the BoRA, i dare say that Maharey claiming that the EFB was designed to trap the EB’s and not the Catholic Church should confirm that this corrupt government will ride horse and coach though any convention, agreement or legislation if it gets them what they want.
November 19th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
I think a New Zealand Mental Health Psychiatric Emergency Unit should monitor all participating in the sub standard sewer project to check the obvious levels of depression each imbecile is at ? Poor sods . Its really sad .
Tane if you like to email me, rather than posting another nasty comment on my blog with a postal address I will go to the supermarket and get some nice soft tissues for all you broken arse nutbars .
November 19th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
DPF
I have a shopfront that is passed by 30,000 people per day, I am thinking of selling the advertising space from 1/1/2008 to a political opponent of labour – my terms are payment in cash only @ 9 cents per week exact money only accepted, failure to pay will result in such advertising being removed immediately after an election. Is this ok and legal? If so perhaps there are other window owners looking to make a point!!!!!
November 19th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Unfortunately freethinker, I seem to recall offering services at well below market rates will also be illegal.
Hmmm, wonder if that includes union labour handing out pamphlets?
November 19th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Of course it applies to the internet. But the rules are still restricted to “election advertisements”. So Usenet posts and YouTube videos are pretty obviously not covered.
Are you really suggesting that two blokes chatting at the pub have to swap names and addresses if they talk politics?
November 19th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Bevan
As I own the premises cannot I determine market rates or does that have to go to the local Kommisar?
November 19th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
“Unfortunately freethinker, I seem to recall offering services at well below market rates will also be illegal.”
Yes I seem to remember this too. This Goverenment is so controlling it beggars belief. But what if the business owns the property it is in, doesn’t it have the right to determine what its own market rate is?
November 19th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
“But the rules are still restricted to “election advertisements”. ”
So? Where is election advertising defined?
November 19th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Clause 5
November 19th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
“Are you really suggesting that two blokes chatting at the pub have to swap names and addresses if they talk politics?”
Even then it can be dangerous pete , as the F4J Leo Blair kidnap farce proved.
We will all have to hold secret meetings in dark caves when we talk about the cadaverous dinosaur gummunt people .
November 19th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Kimble,
Election advertising is defined in clause 5
November 19th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
I know, blogs are exempt, but YouTube and Usenet are not.
November 19th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Outrageous.
November 19th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Pete, I’ve been wondering the same thing and it certainly looks as though that’s where we are heading. So, if you go and get a bit pissed and start a loud discussion with your mates about what a corrupt pack of pricks this bilious bitch and her band of thieves is, you8 can expect a visit from the modern day version of the NKVD.
November 19th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0711/S00351.htm
Peter Dunne has made a statment – then kicked up a tanty that National and Labour did not work together. Im going to meet him – anyone want to lend me their megaphone for the afternoon?
November 19th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
are you suggesting that enforcement of law should be contextual and subject to even more discretion? if so how do you propose to ensure that such discretion is applied impartially? no, don’t answer that. it won’t.
laws should be light, clear and enforced uniformly. instead we have a government that is progressively tightening the legislative noose on individuals or groups who oppose them while feeding out more slack to those who support them.
This process has a name: corruption.
November 19th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
This is the EFB thread. I’m sure there’s a Terrorism Suppression thread somewhere.
November 19th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
[DPF: National’s alternative has always been to have genuine multiparty negotiations along with a royal commission type creature to consult with the public over underlying policy. As for what changes should be made to current law - there are indeed many. Sadly this Bill addresses very few of them. I suggest my submissions (which is on this blog) could give you a list of 30 or so of them]
DPF – can you (or someone else) post a link or some directions to this. I’ve had a look around and can’t find it. I’d be interested in reading it.
[DPF: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/09/my_submission_on_the_electoral_finance_bill.html
November 19th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Bob the Builder used his own prominent billboards to advertise himself during last election campaign.
He had to include this in his spend at market rates even though the cost to him was obviously much less
November 19th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
<blockquote>I know, blogs are exempt, but YouTube and Usenet are not.</blockquote>
Clause 5 defines “election advertisement”, and then goes on to exclude the borderline cases. The cases which aren’t borderline (e.g. YouTube, Usenet, ordinary conversation) don’t need to be specifically excluded, because they’re clearly not advertisements.
[DPF: Sorry wrong wrong wrong. They are. Look at the definition of publish and election advertisement]
November 19th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
As I own the premises cannot I determine market rates or does that have to go to the local Kommisar?
I seem to recall the Herald ran your scenario as an example of what would be illegal under the bill, and it was in fact illegal. Not sure if the article was online, or paper only though.
November 19th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
“I may start a new newspaper next year. The editorial content would not be covered by this bill.”
[DPF: Yes it would. They have tightened that up so that the newspaper must have been previously regularly publishing]
So no-one can start a newspaper up one year in three? WTF?
[DPF: I have simplified it. They define a periodical that was established for a purpose other than an election campaign and since establishment has been published at regular intervals]
November 19th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
BeShakey,
Try this for all the submissions.
Read, mark, learn and inwardly digest then tell us that the SC comments about submissions are valid. I could only find 2 references in my quick scan and both referred to the support for the Bill and to recommended changes in one small area.
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/SC/Papers/Evidence/Default.htm?search=-1518679097
November 19th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
pete ; can I expect another Helen Clark pledge card ?
November 19th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Now that we’ve all had an hour and a half in Farrar’s echo chamber, you’ll be interested to hear that his claim about the megaphone is a flat out lie and his foreign donors line is a house of cards. http://kiwiblogblog.wordpress.com/2007/11/19/farrar-lies-but-the-bill-wont-die/#comment-1342
[DPF: Bad news Sam. They are 100% wrong on the $12,000. Clause 54(1) is very clear that it applies to all persons/promoters - not just registered third parties. Ask a lawyer - I have. Too much too expect corrections though.
As for foreign donors - my law would be simple,, with no exception for Owen Glenn who has not lived here for 40 years. That no-one who is not on the electoral roll can donate over $1k.]
November 19th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
and http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=729
November 19th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Oh great , first foamer from the sub standard sewer is Tane now Sam , roll on sonic ( who is pete ) and nih and sod ??
Are these leftie creeps all fucking insane !!
November 19th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Hi Bevan
yes to supply at “below market rates” is probably illegal. But what does the Bill define “market rates” as?
November 19th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
<blockquote>DPF: But when there are explicit definitions, they must abide by those definitions. And publication has been defined very explicitly.</blockquote>
It doesn’t matter how <i>publication</i> is defined, if it’s not an <i>election advertisement</i> you don’t need your name and address on it.
[DPF: But any form of words or graphics that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging or persuading voters to vote for or against a party is now an election advertisement. And a post to Usenet saying "National sucks" is most certainly that]
November 19th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Election advertising means any form of words or graphics that encourage or persuade voters to vote, or not to vote, for a specified party a combination of parties and candidates.
But it also includes encouraging or persuading voters to vote, or not to vote, for a TYPE OF PARTY or candidate.
A Youtube video of your friends doing jackass stunts would be excluded under the bill, but if they are wearing a Green party beanie it wouldnt.
November 19th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Um Sam:
From the bill: “Other types of broadcasting, such as the use of loudspeakers and megaphones, would be captured by the new provision
in paragraph (i).
Paragraph i states: “bring to the notice of the public in any other manner”
November 19th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Hey DPF, how about a size warning for that link!
November 19th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
my bad, for some reason it was saying MB instead of KB downloaded
November 19th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
This is the definition of election advertisement which is meant to distinguish election advertisements from other advertisements. If it’s not an advertisement to start with, it’s not covered.
November 19th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
yes to supply at “below market rates” is probably illegal. But what does the Bill define “market rates” as?
Whatever offends the Labour party.
November 19th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
heh guys and gals Look on the bright side The Socialists ram the Bill thru under protest They lose in 08. Come 2011 they will be hoist by their own petard if the Nats copy them and not only DONT repeal the then Act but tighten it up especially as regards Trade Unions.
Just imagine them and their supporters having to jump thru the hoops and be hobbled .
November 19th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
But any form of words or graphics that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging or persuading voters to vote for or against a party is now an election advertisement. And a post to Usenet saying “National sucks” is most certainly that
Labour will have to trake their desks to hide them from the TV cameras in case whale oil puts it on youtube and writes Liarbour” instead?
November 19th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
..sorry Labour will have to remove their Labour signs from their desks….
November 19th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
But that post to Usenet is not an advertisement. So the “words or graphics” in the post aren’t subject to this test.
November 19th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Pete – you are wrong. The EFB defines an “election advertisement” in Clause 5 specifically in relation to the disclosure regime in Clause 53(1). If it falls within Clause 5 it is an advertisement for the purpose of this Bill – even if it is not something we would normally consider an advert.
November 19th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Peter Dunne has turned into a worm. Where did his common sense go? (Not that it’s been seen for the last 5 years.)
November 19th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
I’d like to think that if the Nats tried to make this bill even worse to suit their own purposes, that people here would complain about that too.
I know I would.
November 19th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
And Pete if you are going to keep asserting your point of view, you need to actually cite the bill to back your view up. Making it up isn’t allowed.
November 19th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
DPF, Annette King specifically referred to you and KTB in the 4 o’clock news on ZB, saying “he is wrong” and going on to say that the protest on Saturday will not be illegal under the EFB.
Interested in comment/rebuttal!
[DPF: She is wrong. Unless any placards advocating against a party are all authorised with names and addresses, and unless every speaker gives his name or address, the march would be illegal]
November 19th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
I can see how you might read the bill that way, but you’re being too literal. You have to read all of clause 5 — (a) through (g) — and interpret “words or graphics” in context. Usenet posts and pub conversations are implicitly exempted, because they’re even less like advertisements that the explicit exceptions in (c) through (g).
November 19th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Watch out for a smear campaign from the Beehive David. You will be tagged “National Party puppet” from a very high level soon.
November 19th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
“As I own the premises cannot I determine market rates or does that have to go to the local Kommisar?
I seem to recall the Herald ran your scenario as an example of what would be illegal under the bill, and it was in fact illegal. Not sure if the article was online, or paper only though.
Whatever offends the Labour party.”
My understanding was that this is illegal at present (not sure who passed it, but it may even have been the Nats). It attempts to avoid parties avoiding the spending cap by having goods or services provided at negligible rates. Without knowing the details I would suspect that ‘reasonable’ would be determined by the courts if a case was brought.
November 19th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
What exactly are you accusing me of making up? I’m not sure how I’d cite “basic reading comprehension”.
November 19th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
pete wrote
“Watch out for a smear campaign from the Beehive David. You will be tagged “National Party puppet” from a very high level soon.”
DPF will have to watch his rubbish bins as well.
November 19th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
pete, you dont seem to get it at all.
Without the explicit exemption or a mechanism to infer any implicit exemptions, everything that meets the criteria of advertising, which is broad enough to set off alarm bells, will be covered under the act.
November 19th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
“DPF will have to watch his rubbish bins as well.”
Yes Nicky is always on the look out for emails ? Stolen , it don’t matter to Auntie Helen as she will fund the play !!!
November 19th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Can any of you lefty trolls tell me why we need a 150 page document to tell us who can say what about whom and when in this country?
November 19th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
“Can any of you lefty trolls tell me why we need a 150 page document to tell us who can say what about whom and when in this country?”
Just to repeat the question.
November 19th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Ignoring all the other issues, the Human Rights Commission emphatically said at para 10.3 of thier submission that the regulatory period must be no longer than the current three months.
This has not been changed. This is a very sad day for New Zealand.
I am organising a protest march from Civic Square Wellington ( close to the Town Hall) to Parliament for this Wednesday 21 November.
Marchers are asked to assemble from 12 noon and we wil leave at 12.30pm.
This will be an apolitical march.
It is also my expectation that Family First, Sensible Sentencing and myself will have spent in excess of $120,000 protesting this bill before Parliament resumes on 4 December. We will do this deliberately to show the people of New Zealand a protest like this will be illegal next year, and then one year in three thereafter.
November 19th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
There should be a big effort put into Newlands to get rid of the dunne lapdog, a waste of space he is now.
November 19th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Hi John – I attended the march on Saturday and I would like to add my congratulations for what you are doing. I can appreciate the motives for wanting to maintain an apolitical approach but the reality is that it is only the Maori party and the Nats are potential attendees anyway. Would you see the attendance of Key and Sharples as diluting the message – Key has said it is a matter of principle not politics as do most objectors to this insidious legislation.
November 19th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
John Boscawen,
Keep up the good work!
You’re dead right about this stupid $120,000 limit.
November 19th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
DPF: She is wrong. Unless any placards advocating against a party are all authorised with names and addresses, and unless every speaker gives his name or address, the march would be illegal
What if most of the people provided authorisation. One unauthorisation does not an illegal march make, which is what you are implying. If that was the case every protest march would be illegal due the omission of at least one member who forgot his name or address.
November 19th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
Sam Dixon
How is this post earlier looking about now?
Now that we’ve all had an hour and a half in Farrar’s echo chamber, you’ll be interested to hear that his claim about the megaphone is a flat out lie and his foreign donors line is a house of cards….
November 19th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
Gooner makes a very good point above, lets just ignore this legislation. Helen doesn’t have the military capability to make us all comply, so ignore the law and do what you want. That is how we keep the law in check, is a little concept called voluntary compliance.
I for one will not comply and am quite happy to become New Zealand’s first political prisoner. Lets just ignore this steaming pile of shit designed to keep Helen and here corrupt mates in power.
November 20th, 2007 at 11:00 am
Sam, if you keep quoting Blogs and The Standard to back your arguments up, and DPF quotes the Bill itself, and legal opinion, then your paucity of logic will be exposed rather quickly!