They’ve made it worse!

November 19th, 2007 at 12:36 pm by David Farrar

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.

Tags:

172 Responses to “They’ve made it worse!”

  1. Monty (977 comments) says:

    crooks – I hope this corrupt Labour Leadership rot in hell for their disdain of democracy.

    They will pay the price in 2008.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Inventory2 (10,337 comments) says:

    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!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Inventory2 (10,337 comments) says:

    Peter Dunne – hang your head in shame, and dust off your CV – you will need it!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. ghostwhowalks (377 comments) says:

    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]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    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 =========

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Tane (1,096 comments) says:

    David, that was quick. Did you get hold of an advance copy of the bill through the party?

    [DPF: Absolutely not]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. MikeE (555 comments) says:

    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

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. david (2,557 comments) says:

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Lance (2,654 comments) says:

    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!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    The loudspeaker/megaphones is aimed the roaming cars with recorded messages which drive around suburbs annoying the hell out of everybody.

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. david (2,557 comments) says:

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Insolent Prick (417 comments) says:

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. ghostwhowalks (377 comments) says:

    By the look of a few comments , I think some have hit the suntan sherry early today

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Nick C (336 comments) says:

    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?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Insolent Prick (417 comments) says:

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. ghostwhowalks (377 comments) says:

    “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

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. BeShakey (405 comments) says:

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Inventory2 (10,337 comments) says:

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    “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….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Tane (1,096 comments) says:

    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.]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Inventory2 (10,337 comments) says:

    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!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Inventory2 (10,337 comments) says:

    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?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Whaleoil (767 comments) says:

    I see they have added the “Len Richards Clause” specifically to prevent incidents like that ever happening again.

    Kill the Bill

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Nick C (336 comments) says:

    “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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    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?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Russell Brown (405 comments) says:

    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.]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Pascal (1,969 comments) says:

    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!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Bloody hell. Wellington its up to you! Please advertise the time and placed for the march on every post on every blog.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Tane (1,096 comments) says:

    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?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. boomtownprat (281 comments) says:

    Peter Dunne………….How do you sleep?????

    shame

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Pascal (1,969 comments) says:

    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?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. francis (712 comments) says:

    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?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. david (2,557 comments) says:

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. MajorBloodnok (361 comments) says:

    Russell, take a look on page 8:

    We recommend an amendment to ensure that it is clear that the meaning of ‘‘broadcast’’ in this bill is consistent with the Broadcasting Act 1989 (encompassing, for example, television and radio broadcasting). Other types of broadcasting, such as the use of loudspeakers and megaphones, would be captured by the new provision in paragraph (i).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Insolent Prick (417 comments) says:

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. David Farrar (1,894 comments) says:

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Tane (1,096 comments) says:

    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?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Brownie () says:

    Kill the Bill!

    If I wasn’t a believer before this amendment, I am now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Insolent Prick (417 comments) says:

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Inventory2 (10,337 comments) says:

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    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!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. francis (712 comments) says:

    rotfl @ tane! sometimes you guys really crack me up. the best irony is always unintentional.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. pacman (51 comments) says:

    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

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. David Farrar (1,894 comments) says:

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. francis (712 comments) says:

    Retrofitted?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Kimble (4,438 comments) says:

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. francis (712 comments) says:

    sorry, my McCafe card just ran out … will check back later. All so bizarre!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Tane (1,096 comments) says:

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Spam (588 comments) says:

    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?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. casual watcher (289 comments) says:

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    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?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Inventory2 (10,337 comments) says:

    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!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. francis (712 comments) says:

    crap – section 1 sounds like the killer bee.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Tane (1,096 comments) says:

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Pascal (1,969 comments) says:

    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?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Insolent Prick (417 comments) says:

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Inventory2 (10,337 comments) says:

    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!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Kent Parker (451 comments) says:

    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

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Kimble (4,438 comments) says:

    Wrath of Honesty, nice one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Lance (2,654 comments) says:

    Hey everyone.. don’t waste time answering Tane…
    He would argue black is white. Kind of like trying to reason with Jehovahs Witnesses.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Tane (1,096 comments) says:

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Dooman (1 comment) says:

    Can some please tell me when the wellington and Christchurch marches are?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. BeShakey (405 comments) says:

    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]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Inventory2 (10,337 comments) says:

    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!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Pascal (1,969 comments) says:

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Insolent Prick (417 comments) says:

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Inventory2 (10,337 comments) says:

    Not much to do in the union offices today Tane? Slow day is it bro?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. david (2,557 comments) says:

    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?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Right of way is Way of Right (1,122 comments) says:

    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?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. david (2,557 comments) says:

    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

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Gooner (995 comments) says:

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Lance (2,654 comments) says:

    Gooner… you are promoting treason against er that must be obeyed

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Gooner (995 comments) says:

    Not Treason Lance, wilful disobedience.

    If it’s good enough for Nandor then it’s good enough for me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Brownie () says:

    Said with dignity, Goon. I suggest we all follow.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. GK (97 comments) says:

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Linda Reid (415 comments) says:

    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]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. MajorBloodnok (361 comments) says:

    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.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Inventory2 (10,337 comments) says:

    DPF – any news yet from John Boscawen as to whether he will be seeking an earlier date in the High Court?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Linda Reid (415 comments) says:

    1,2,3,4, show corrupt MPs the door.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Matthew (163 comments) says:

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. casual watcher (289 comments) says:

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Gloria (12 comments) says:

    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….”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    For Wed….

    NZ’s first retrospectively validated PM says trust me on the EFB !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Max Call (212 comments) says:

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. pseudonymous (74 comments) says:

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Lance (2,654 comments) says:

    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 :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. MajorBloodnok (361 comments) says:

    Labour 2005 = Corrupt
    Labour + Green + Winston + Dunne = Corrupt Absolutely

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Tane (1,096 comments) says:

    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]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. pete (416 comments) says:

    <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]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Kimble (4,438 comments) says:

    Link whore.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. dad4justice (8,208 comments) says:

    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 .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. David Farrar (1,894 comments) says:

    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).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. dad4justice (8,208 comments) says:

    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 ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Kimble (4,438 comments) says:

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Lance (2,654 comments) says:

    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

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. milo (525 comments) says:

    ‘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]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Kimble (4,438 comments) says:

    FFS he even tried to equate the donation to a University with a donation to a POLITICAL PARTY!!!

    The guy is off his meds!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Frank. (607 comments) says:

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. dad4justice (8,208 comments) says:

    “My comrade”

    like the communists Tane, as winny the pooh is having a ball in NK , pity about the media though .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Kimble (4,438 comments) says:

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. dad4justice (8,208 comments) says:

    Tane ,
    Does the sub standard mutely crew of misfits wash regularly as the smell is horrific ?

    [DPF: D4J - 10 demerits - no need for that]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. pete (416 comments) says:

    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]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. dad4justice (8,208 comments) says:

    Sorry Tane ,
    I meant , does the motley crew of month old standard muttonchops ever think about washing their mouths out with disinfectant ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Frank. (607 comments) says:

    MajorBloodnok Says:

    “Labour 2005 = Corrupt
    Labour + Green + Winston + Dunne = Corrupt Absolutely”

    QED. Refer for verification: Validation Act and EFB

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Pascal (1,969 comments) says:

    Oh dear. Did that post at the Standard basically equate to:

    “DPF is such a meanie! :cries:”

    Did it really? It did.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. dad4justice (8,208 comments) says:

    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 .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. freethinker (691 comments) says:

    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!!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    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?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. pete (416 comments) says:

    Not at all. The definition of publish makes it very clear it includes the Internet. Try clause 4

    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.

    But when there are explicit definitions, they must abide by those definitions. And publication has been defined very explicitly.

    Are you really suggesting that two blokes chatting at the pub have to swap names and addresses if they talk politics?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. freethinker (691 comments) says:

    Bevan

    As I own the premises cannot I determine market rates or does that have to go to the local Kommisar?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Matthew (163 comments) says:

    “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?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Kimble (4,438 comments) says:

    “But the rules are still restricted to “election advertisements”. ”

    So? Where is election advertising defined?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. pete (416 comments) says:

    So? Where is election advertising defined?

    Clause 5

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. dad4justice (8,208 comments) says:

    “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 .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Lindsay Addie (1,502 comments) says:

    Kimble,

    Election advertising is defined in clause 5

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Kimble (4,438 comments) says:

    I know, blogs are exempt, but YouTube and Usenet are not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. ben (2,379 comments) says:

    Outrageous.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,903 comments) says:

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. dave (988 comments) says:

    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?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    Are you really suggesting that two blokes chatting at the pub have to swap names and addresses if they talk politics?

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. pete (416 comments) says:

    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.

    This is the EFB thread. I’m sure there’s a Terrorism Suppression thread somewhere.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. BeShakey (405 comments) says:

    [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

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Max Call (212 comments) says:

    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

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. pete (416 comments) says:

    <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]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Linda Reid (415 comments) says:

    “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]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. dad4justice (8,208 comments) says:

    pete ; can I expect another Helen Clark pledge card ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Sam Dixon (596 comments) says:

    and http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=729

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. dad4justice (8,208 comments) says:

    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 !!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Matthew (163 comments) says:

    Hi Bevan

    yes to supply at “below market rates” is probably illegal. But what does the Bill define “market rates” as?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. pete (416 comments) says:

    <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]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Kimble (4,438 comments) says:

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    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”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Kimble (4,438 comments) says:

    Hey DPF, how about a size warning for that link!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Kimble (4,438 comments) says:

    my bad, for some reason it was saying MB instead of KB downloaded

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. pete (416 comments) says:

    Election advertising means any form of words or graphics…

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    yes to supply at “below market rates” is probably illegal. But what does the Bill define “market rates” as?

    Whatever offends the Labour party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. gd (2,286 comments) says:

    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 .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. dave (988 comments) says:

    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?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. dave (988 comments) says:

    ..sorry Labour will have to remove their Labour signs from their desks….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. pete (416 comments) says:

    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.

    But that post to Usenet is not an advertisement. So the “words or graphics” in the post aren’t subject to this test.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. David Farrar (1,894 comments) says:

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. MajorBloodnok (361 comments) says:

    Peter Dunne has turned into a worm. Where did his common sense go? (Not that it’s been seen for the last 5 years.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Spam (588 comments) says:

    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.

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. David Farrar (1,894 comments) says:

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. david (2,557 comments) says:

    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]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. pete (416 comments) says:

    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.

    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).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. david (2,557 comments) says:

    Watch out for a smear campaign from the Beehive David. You will be tagged “National Party puppet” from a very high level soon.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. BeShakey (405 comments) says:

    “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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. pete (416 comments) says:

    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.

    What exactly are you accusing me of making up? I’m not sure how I’d cite “basic reading comprehension”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. Lance (2,654 comments) says:

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. Kimble (4,438 comments) says:

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. dad4justice (8,208 comments) says:

    “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 !!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. slightlyrighty (2,475 comments) says:

    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?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    “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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. John Boscawen (146 comments) says:

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. john (478 comments) says:

    There should be a big effort put into Newlands to get rid of the dunne lapdog, a waste of space he is now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. casual watcher (289 comments) says:

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. Lindsay Addie (1,502 comments) says:

    John Boscawen,

    Keep up the good work!

    You’re dead right about this stupid $120,000 limit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. dave (988 comments) says:

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    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….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. pdq (82 comments) says:

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. Right of way is Way of Right (1,122 comments) says:

    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!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote