Audrey Young explains the electoral spending gerrymander
Before we turn to Audrey, first people might enjoy a couple of radio ads that have started playing on the radio today, by John Boscawen.
The former is around 2 MB and the latter 1 MB so don’t pound them too much.
Audrey’s Q&A is here. Some extracts:
What did the old law say?
Spending parliamentary money on advertising that expressly solicited votes or money was banned, as it is now. The difference is the rules didn’t say “anything else goes” – which is the effect of the new law. The new application is at variance with the Auditor-General and the Solicitor-General who took the view of the old rules that political advertising could be deemed to be political advertising if it looked like political advertising.So what has changed?
To understand the extent of how things have changed, and will change, we have to identify the different regimes under which spending rules applied and will apply, inside Parliament and outside Parliament. The pledge card was of concern under two regimes: whether the Parliamentary Service, which paid the invoices for the card, met the conditions under the Public Finance Act 1989 of expenditure voted to it (the Auditor-General found it didn’t); and whether the card breached requirements of election expenditure under the Electoral Act, which applies to all electoral contestants. The Electoral Commission found overspending, but the police did not press charges. The police recommended that Parliament’s rules be changed to prevent such expenditure on the pledge card.
This is a useful reminder. While the Police stuffed up their invetsigation, they did have a very useful recommendation. They recommended that basically all advertising from parliamentary budgets be banned for the final 90 days. The Government is doing the absolute opposite and allowing everything except an explicit solicitation for votes to be run.
How would the pledge card be treated again under each of the regimes?
It would now be a lawful use of parliamentary funds. But under proposals in the Electoral Finance Bill, such advertising expenditure will no longer be allowed to be scrutinised by the Chief Electoral Officer or the Electoral Commission alongside other election contestants. That is because the EFB expressly exempts “any publications that relate to a member of Parliament in his or her capacity as a member of Parliament” from being counted as an election expense.
This is the double whammy. Not only are Labour legalising their use of taxpayer money on such blatant electioneering, but they are exempting such expenditure from even counting as election spending.
Winners and losers?
Sitting MPs will have a huge advantage over non-parliamentary parties and candidates. The immunity on their spending runs for the entire three years of an election cycle. Their opponents have restrictions placed on their advertising from January 1 of election year.Each party, or an individual MP, could run, say, a $15,000 newspaper and radio tax-payer funded campaigns on their policies funded by Parliamentary Service – at any time of an election cycle up to election day.
For example:
* Only Labour will protect health services.
* Only National will give you meaningful tax cuts.
* Only New Zealand First cares about the elderly.
* Only the Greens will save the Earth.
And even worse the $20,000 limit a challenger has, now has to bs spread over 11 months instead of 90 days. This is the ultimate in protecting incumbent MPs – they can spend many many times more than their challengers.
Something else to consider if that MPs can pool their money totally legally. So if this bill is passed, six Labour MPs in safe seats could transfer $30,000 of their $60,000 budgets to Mark Burton. Burton could then spend $240,000 of taxpayer money on promoting what he has done for Taupo, while his out of Parliament challenger can only spend $20,000.
Many people, especially on the left (but including me), decry the US political system where boundary gerrymandering has left 85% of US House seats uncompetitive. When House Reps win a seat, they often hold if for life. They should decry the same thing happening here – with the gerrymander being funding instead of boundaries. In the US the gerrymander happens because they allow politicians not bureaucrats to set the boundaries. Our gerrymander is allowing incumbent MPs to rewrite both the Electoral Act and the Parliamentary spending legislation to suit the incumbents, instead of democracy.
So if you are against our political system becoming “Americanised” oppose both the Electoral Finance Bill and the Appropriations Bill.
Even if you support state funding of political parties, you surely do not support that the expenditure of those funds should be exempt from the spending caps under the Electoral Act?
November 8th, 2007 at 9:45 am
But look on the Bright side:
“It will stop people like the Exclusive Brethren and John Key from rorting the electoral process.” (Helen Clark Sept 16th Hansard)
November 8th, 2007 at 9:45 am
Well, you’ve certainly highlighted the key points DPF. It is good to see the issue represented in such stark terms. Of course, I expect the standard rejoinder from Tane et al will be one of:
* The alternative is having National buy elections! (snorts with laughter)
* So Adolph, tell me about your name?
* If we look at the Scandinavian countries, their tax rate is much lower and this Wikipedia article backed by soon to be Masters Degre tells us that …
More deflection from the real issue, basically and arguing fringe points becuase there is no defense of this unless you are intent on setting up a one-party state.
But those radio adverts? Enjoy them? Bloody hell no.
Whilst I can appreciate the effort John Boscawen is going to to get the message out they’re so boring we could make watching paint dry a spectator sport! And I have a vested interest in listening to them. Can you imagine the average pundit listening through those adverts and paying attention?
Dislike Labour all you want, but they know about catchy jingles and advertising their messages.
November 8th, 2007 at 9:49 am
The Labour Party think this is a beltway issue and they can just ram it through with the help of the Greens. They will also play on the fact that they are a poor party and it is not fair the rich friends of the National Party can “buy elections”. This is poppy cock of course. If the Labour Party have no money it is because they are too lazy to get money from the plenty of well off people who support the Labour Party. Indeed they had no real trouble and boasted how they easily got the $800,000 to repay the pledge card. So what is the problem. The real rort of course is to allow the deep pockets of the taxpayer to fund the Government publicity campaign right through election year but they put tight constraints on private individuals doing the same. Time will tell whether the public will stand for this. I am not confident at all New Zealanders care much about it. There is a solid core of people in this country who are envious of well off people and the Labour Party practice that sort of politics mercelessly.
November 8th, 2007 at 9:51 am
I have just heard John Boscawen’s ad on the radio. Leighton Smith was giving it a big push. I want to know how to get some money to this guy – I was going to donate to Nat Billboards if they had the nuts to do something but this bloke is more deserving. Hopefully the whole issue will get some traction now. I wonder if the dullards at Nat HQ are awake to the fact that another great opportunity to become the govt is slipping past them. They seem to have the same disease the All Blacks suffer from – just can’t bring themselves to put the foot on the throat and finish things off. What the hell are they waiting for ?
November 8th, 2007 at 10:02 am
DPF – Whats your take on the reason why National won’t take this issue up and run with it? It’s got to be PR gold!
I applaud JB’s efforts yet cannot understand the Nats reluctance to engage on a national level.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:13 am
Just listened to the ads. “Government censorship”? Sigh, yet another rightie who can’t tell the difference between restricting speech and restricting spending.
Was KtB behind these ads, or did Boscawen figure he could do a better job himself by disassociating from that ramshackle PR fiasco?
November 8th, 2007 at 10:16 am
Hey David, do you know which stations these ads are playing on, and what the rotate and the run time are?
[DPF: No]
November 8th, 2007 at 10:16 am
Brownie, I hear you – and also cannot understand why National have not made massive political mileage out of this.
I thinks it a reasonable assumption that national will win the next election and in doing so absolutely shaft Labour with their own self serving legislation.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:19 am
IMHO the Nats are now showing themselves to be almost as evil as the Socialists Sadly it seems the citizen who wants freedom is now facing 2 tyrannies. What I see is an orchestrated campaign to steal money off the citizens so those in the Parliament can buy thier ongoing tenure.
What we need as i have posted before is a maximum number of terms. three for an indiviual MP and 2 for a Prime Minister
This will at least allow for renewal instead of the current life time occupancy of those leather bound chairs by the current bunch of useless wastes of oxygen
November 8th, 2007 at 10:19 am
Tane – the EFB introduced by the Government bans National from issuing press releases. Even press releases that are free. How is this not Government censorship?
November 8th, 2007 at 10:20 am
Brownie and casual watcher – I agree.
The National Party should be called the Narcoleptic Party.
I asked DPF recently if in his opinion the Nats actually want the EFB to pass and all our efforts are in vain – No reply.
I mentioned that the Nats are in danger of turning this political gold dust into an exodus of their own voters (as I am going to because of their lame showing on this)
I’ve also suggested that practically daily, Labour ‘gifts’ the National Party with cock-ups and increasingly egregious activities, and yet they drop the ball and consistently fail to use the situation?
I’ve written open letters to Key expressing my frustartion at how this handling of the EFB is plainly – lame.
I am starting to wonder what the point of supporting such an opposition party that can’t capitalise on something like this?
It raises the question about either their intentions qualify them to, or their incompetence disqualifies them from governing, does it not?
Like I said: They make Neville Chamberlain look macho.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:21 am
Seeing as I have a spare 5min unlike our full time commenter Tane who has all day to spout crap….. Tane – I guess you think advertising, or as Labour puts it, informing the masses, does not cost anything.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:23 am
Tane – the EFB introduced by the Government bans National from issuing press releases. Even press releases that are free. How is this not Government censorship?
Graeme, clearly this is a drafting error being fixed in select committee.
National’s real concern is that their election campaign spending will be counted by January 1st, and by the sounds of this ad they and their allies are willing to invoke the memory of dead WWII veterans so they can continue to outspend their opponents.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:24 am
Yes, why is it that Act with just Boscawen and two MPs can make twice the impact over this Bill than the entire National caucus?
Shameful.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:24 am
National is sincerely opposed to the EFB, despite the fact they would benefit greatly from it once they are in office.
If I was sole dictator of the National Party, I would be spending large large amounts of money campaigning on this issue. I would have billboards, newspapers ads, every MP out there campaigning on it. I think they would be able to both stop the Bill, and fatally damage those parties associated with it. I’d probably spend all of next year’s campaign budget on stopping the bill, as it really is that bad.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:28 am
Tane – you are a very mixed up puppy but a credit to your masters none the less.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:29 am
National is sincerely opposed to the EFB,
David, I’ve read the Hollow Men, and I’ve seen the same crew are still on National’s front bench. One of them’s even leading the party.
Do you honestly expect us to believe National sincerely believes in anything, especially around rorting elections?
November 8th, 2007 at 10:29 am
Well said, casual watcher.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:29 am
What David said.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Tane – your threadjack today is crap. Go back to the idea that National really want the EFB to pass, I liked that one. Work with me here.
(you do know what ‘work’ is, don’t you?)
November 8th, 2007 at 10:30 am
DPF – Thats exactly what I’d expect them to be doing. Please tell me they’re not intending to keep the bill if they gain power. That would be an especially bad look. If you genuinely gain power in democratic elections you should be able to keep power by delivering on promises. Not shifting the goal posts. This government is an embarrassment to NZ
November 8th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Wow, Tāne can read?
November 8th, 2007 at 10:31 am
National has said they will repeal it.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:31 am
Tane: National’s real concern is that their election campaign spending will be counted …
Tane, when did you apply to and become a member of the National party’s upper eschelons? I’m surprised at the authority with which you state their intentions and their goals, considering you are simply just another commentator on the internet sprouting an arseho … I meant opinion.
Let’s not deflect the issue. The party you support are busy attempting to restrict freedom of speech for all New Zealanders except themselves.
Do you support this? A yes or no question.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:32 am
Okay Tane, I can freely accept that.
The EFB, in something ill-thought through, but not a drafting error (that may well/probably will change) also requires that people spending little or no money holding placards at protest rallies or handing out leaflets objecting to Government policy prepare statutory declarations.
Many people will not know how to do this. Others might know there are rules but not know where to find the law. A vast number would not actually be able to understand the rather confusing legislation. Lots of these people, scared of breaking the rules will say nothing at all. I know it’s not a ban, but the effect is the same – people will be scared to speak, is that not censorship?
November 8th, 2007 at 10:33 am
“National has said they will repeal it”
That’s good Whaleoil. Do you (or DPF) have a link to show me where they have said that?
November 8th, 2007 at 10:34 am
Tane: Do you honestly expect us to believe National sincerely believes in anything, especially around rorting elections?
Considering the rort that Labour had last election which not only included:
* overspending by far more than any other party
* overspending after being warned
* overspending after saying they would include it
* overspending and then declining to include it
* retrospectively changing legislation to legalize their rort of the election
* refusing to pay the stolen funds back until public pressure forced them to
I think we only need to look at Team Red to see who is actually rorting the election system in New Zealand. That is the Labour party. None of your lies or smears will change that Tane. Myopic fool.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:34 am
DPF – Good to hear your thoughts – the Nats are getting dicked left right and centre in the MSM – they must do things differently or becoming the Govt is going to get that much harder for them, particularly if these 2 Bills get through. Do you have any insight into their current thinking via your connections. Do they give a shit or are they content to sleepwalk into office ?
November 8th, 2007 at 10:39 am
<i>Hey David, do you know which stations these ads are playing on, and what the rotate and the run time are?
[DPF: No]</i>
Didn’t KtB put $10k towards this?
[DPF: No - that was for the court case]
November 8th, 2007 at 10:42 am
The EFB is anti-democratic. Pure and simple.
What is interesting is the concern expressed by some about election spending. Yet a study by a rather maverick economist in the US, looking at international results, showed that the amount of money spent on a campaign was NOT correlated at all with the final result. Conclusion – how much you spend does not affect the result. A similar study was done informally by a newspaper here in NZ. I cannot recall the details but the conclusion was the same.
Oh, and the book was Freakonomics. Fascinating read.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:46 am
Is National packing their bags for summer break?. For fuck sake what do these people think they get paid for, they are suppose to oppose. The socialists pigs will do anything to keep power, they would sale their souls to the devil if they had any.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:47 am
We maintain the right of all trees to reorientate to horizontal from vertical. However it is to be illegal for trees (except those from established political parties or unions) to to be heard whilst undertaking the such a transition.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:51 am
Let’s try dealing with this rationally and calmly.
Audrey Young:
“That is because the EFB expressly exempts “any publications that relate to a member of Parliament in his or her capacity as a member of Parliament” from being counted as an election expense”
Cl 58(c) of the Electoral Finance Bill is exactly the same formulation as the Electoral Act 1993 which provided an exemption for things done in the capacity of a Member of Parliament or any other capacity. Cl 81(g) to which Audrey is probably referring is indeed new drafting but recites the existing prohibition that arguably applied to the 2005 Pledge Card.
So let’s try a hypothetical
Pledge Card 2008 is lawful under the appropriation being in accord with the rules governing Parliamentary expenditure – doesn’t specifically solicit a vote or membership.
Chief Electoral Officer receives a complaint again. He still entitled to conclude that it’s an election expense under Cl 58 or Cl 81. He can form this view because the nature and timing of the thing takes it out of a reasonable understanding of what is “within the capacity of a member of Parliament.” That makes it a Party activity under Cl 80 or a Candidate activity under Cl 58.
Parliamentary rules will be relevant to determining what is within and outside the capacity of a Member of Parliament but this isn’t determinative. It would be a legal question that turns on the specifics of the thing complained about.
Regarding the “anything else is ok” point – no big deal really.
Regarding National’s position on the Electoral Finance Bill, according to Cullen in the House, National offered a deal to publicly support the roll over the current rules for parliamentary support allocations in return for a reduction of the 11 month restricted period under the Electoral Finance Bill. He did not indicate either way whether that was for both Candidate/Party spend under the Electoral Act and the introduction of restrictions on non candidate free speech.
Perhaps National is prepared to accept the introduction of limits on non candidate speech around elections so long as its limited to the 3mths before and the caps are upped. National has already offered Labour support on anonymous donations, which Labour has rejected in favour of correctly retaining an anonymous donation regime.
Whaleoil states that National has publicly committed to the repeal of the Electoral Finance Bill – is this on the public record anywhere Cameron perhaps you could provide a link?
November 8th, 2007 at 10:52 am
David, now that we know National supports the substantive pars of this Bill too (only wnaitng a shorter capped period so it can spend its moeny freely closer to the election) who are you going to throw your weight behind?
Is it going to be you, Whaleoil, and Rodney against National and Labour?
I would have thought so, yet no criticism of National for substantively supporting the EFB.
[DPF: They don't support the substantive part.]
November 8th, 2007 at 10:53 am
David said: If I was sole dictator of the National Party, I would be spending large large amounts of money campaigning on this issue. I would have billboards, newspapers ads, every MP out there campaigning on it. I think they would be able to both stop the Bill, and fatally damage those parties associated with it. I’d probably spend all of next year’s campaign budget on stopping the bill, as it really is that bad.
I agree. As a National Party member, I also think we should be fighting this publicly. It is possible the National Party MPs are waiting to see what comes out of the select committee before making a huge song and dance so I’m reserving judgment. For now.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:53 am
Whaleoil – my issue is that National may well have said they will repeal it but why do they appear to be sitting back and letting it go through in the first place. John Key and the rest of the Nats need to be condemning it every day on the 6pm news. They need to give this issue momentum so that Labour are shamed into withdrawing it and the minor flunkie parties are exposed for what they are. It is a point of principle and political gold all at the same time.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:57 am
Chris, I’m pretty sure that Audrey will be referring to cl 80(c). It is in similar terms to cl 58(c), which you note. An equivalent of cl 58(c) is in the Electoral Act 1993, there is no equivalent of cl 80(c).
November 8th, 2007 at 10:57 am
Davidn this really has little to do with money, who needs money when no one is aloud to challenge you. This is about evil bastards who are totally shit scared that people will call them out for what they are. And being socialists they have come to realise that they lack the ability to fend for themselves should they get the arse.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Extract from Audrey Young’s article:: “The Electoral Commission found overspending, but the police did not press charges”.
Even worse, was that Police prevented and defeated the course of justice by burying a complaint re the misappropriation of Helen Clark’s Leader’s Funds. An absolutely corrupt action, of which every Member of Parliament has a copy, (including prima facei evidence of a cover up) some of the media, Audrey Young, and of course includes our corrupt Prime Minister.
The matter was the subject of a complaint to The Honorable Justice Goddard, Police Complaints Authority, who closed the file on it. No press announcement – Allhush-hush. Sweep it under the carpet.
If I knew how to post a scanned document onto this thread I’d do so. I’ll email a copy to DPF,
No wonder John Key remains silent on the EFB and other issues?
This is the most corrupt Government in New Zealand’s History
November 8th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Sorry Chris. My mistake: too much of a hurry. Yes 81(g). Will be more careful next time
November 8th, 2007 at 11:04 am
I don’t know how you could be any stroger opposed to the bill than in this speech.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0708/S00481.htm
If that doesn’t elucidate National’s position I don’t know what would convince the labour apologists.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:04 am
Linda Reid: Your surmise is that the National Party will shut the stable doors after the horse has bolted?
November 8th, 2007 at 11:06 am
CW, there is a school of thought to let it go through then orchestra massive breaches to prove the point and thus make a larger noise as people are arrested and prosecuted.
That would pretty much ensure that Labour would never ever be trusted again.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:07 am
Frank – going back to the house with the bill amended does not mean the bill will become law. It would still have to be voted in by a majority of Parliament.
Maybe the National MPs know more than I do about who will support it and who will help them kill it.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:09 am
As I told the SC election spending just like parliamentary salaries is not a matter that MPs should have anything to do with.
Its called wait for it CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Alas such quaint governance principles have no part in the mangled system of democracy in NZ.
Why cant those with their eyes and ears painted on get the bloddy message How thick are you.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:10 am
linda, any suggestions as to who might not sign the party song?
November 8th, 2007 at 11:10 am
Tane is again trying to muddy the waters. I have yet to see any evidence that National “substantially supports” the EFB.
By the same token, were the EFB to become law, National win the next election, then hoist Labour by its own petard, there would be an element of poetic justice, or as Robinsod would put it, “it’s called irony bro!”.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:11 am
er, sing the party song
November 8th, 2007 at 11:15 am
Sam Dixon:
“David, now that we know National supports the substantive parts of this Bill too (only wantng a shorter capped period so it can spend its money freely closer to the election) who are you going to throw your weight behind?
Is it going to be you, Whaleoil, and Rodney against National and Labour?
I would have thought so, yet no criticism of National for substantively supporting the EFB.”
I hope you do not include me in that, I have been criticising National rather a lot lately about their inaction on the EFB.
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Their inactivity is going to lose National a lot of votes. I suspect many of those who think that kiwiblog (all praise be to it) is a sound forum to express anti EFB sentiments will be astounded, angry and betrayed when they realise that National’s lack of action is basically because they support the EFB, and that all of us who are opposed to it are being taken for suckers.
It’s one thing to be taken for a sucker by Labour – I expect that, after all it is in their interests to get this bill through pronto.
But to be taken for a sucker by the Party which claim sit is anti-EFB but does f**k -all to actually oppose it – well that is another thing altogether.
because the only logical conclusion I can achieve as a result of Nationals’s weak showing, is that they want it to pass, but want Labour to get the blame.
start the car…
November 8th, 2007 at 11:16 am
Thanks Sam for yor input.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:16 am
Whaleoil – thks for the response. I can see the logic politically but personally would rather do without the grief involved. It is a waste of everyones time and money. Nip it in the bud and Labour still get buried for a long time.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:18 am
I have no inside knowledge. But I think Peter Dunne may be having second thoughts about supporting the bill.
I think Winston will support it just because he got caught so badly last time – and just can’t bring himself to pay the money back.
The Greens – if they want to be true to their stated beliefs – should also pull support for the bill. But they were the target of the EB in 2005 and didn’t like it at all. They were so offended they didn’t even try to defend their policies but just attacked the EB for even daring to have a voice.
Our best hope is to SHAME individual MPs into breaking ranks.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:27 am
Linda – the best hope AT PRESENT is for Dunne to oppose the EFB at the Select Committee. UF’s votes in the House will have no effect on the Bill’s progress, but Dunne effectively has the casting vote in the SC, given its make-up. He could kill any attempt to report the EFB back largely unaltered.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:29 am
On a political level John and Bill Are coming over as Dumb an Dumber on this issue.
WHY?
November 8th, 2007 at 11:31 am
Then I suggest we all email Peter Dunne daily.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:33 am
I’m shocked with Audrey’s writing. She’s obviously just decided to emulate Fran. Now the Herald has TWO right wing bloggers.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:34 am
Lee – beware of trolls with forked tongues. The comments Brownlee made in the House the other day related to the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill which comes before the House today, NOT the EFB. Of course, Tane, Sam and Robin-banned don’t want you to know that, so they seek to deceive.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:40 am
WHY? Lee. C, Because neither John or Bill can tell you what their plan is.
You must know that the Labour Party don’t play cricket. Infact they don’t play any game until they have bought the umpire, ref, judge, brief of commissioner.
That makes for a very cautious opposition team.
The spectators have to wait to see the game played out.
There are many set moves to be tried, some will work others may not.
Nobody knows the final score, least of all Helen Clark.
And she is “pissed” with that.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:47 am
Whale – Am certainly not a “Labour apologist” and thanks for the link to JK’s speech.
Now can you please email that through to everyone in NZ as well as arranging a press release announcing what you have done along with Key, Brownlee, English comments plus organise a daily comment from the party through various national media so as to lead the voting public to construe that National doesn’t much like where we are going.
Just saying, we want to here more vociferous opposition.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:51 am
I know it must be one thing at a time but should the cry not now be “Kill both Bills”?
And only a total dumbass would take that to include Bill English.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:52 am
Linda emailing Dunne is a waste of time – all you get is a standard reply which does not adequately cover the topic.
But if you and others do good on you – it may work.
BTW don’t forget to ask him when United Future are going to pay the money they misappropriated last election back!!!
November 8th, 2007 at 11:54 am
Hip Hip Hurrah for Audrey Young,
Hip Hip Hurrah for John Boscawen
Finally something is starting to happen.
The noise being created by these people is still an awful lot less than there should be.
Why doesn’t Audrey Young demand an interview with H1 and ask her directly the pointed questions that we all know just like Susan Wood did to Brash.
I can’t believe the meek and mousy way that the MSM treat H1 – they know she is taking the country by guile and none of them have got the guts to demand an actual answer from her. She is a master at avoiding the actual curly questions she has down that for years at question time but surely an interviewer can nail her down on issues like the EFB and ignore her obfuscating answers and stick to the question line and demand an answer.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:58 am
Given W. Peter’s vicious, unprovoked and unfounded attack on Maurice Williamson the other day in question time, why can’t the Nats continue to put pressure on Winston to pay back his portion too?
November 8th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Graeme Edgeler:
Yes I don’t actually think much turns on that. While s214B doesn’t recite the earlier exemption under s213(1) one actually ends up at the same place via the “authority” question under 214B(1)(a).
What the existence of s213(1) in the Electoral Act 1993 indicates is that things done as a candidate and a MP can look very similar. This is no less relevant under s214B.
In less troubling circumstances with the Auditor General, Labour could have run a defence that the pledge card related to Helen Clark in her capacity as an MP i.e. the Leader of the Parliamentary Labour Party and thus the pledge card wasn’t issued under by the Party or with the Party’s authority under any species of express, implied or customary authority recognised by law. The MP’s capacity provides an alternative reasonable explanation for status of thing, though granted the only exemptions that exist are those things not done by the Party or with the Party’s authority or contained in s214B(1)(e).
However given the actually circumstances regarding the illegality under the appropriation one can see why they might be unwilling to run this argument.
Even in 2005 the Chief Electoral Officer would have had to deal with the “authority” question.
I accept that Cl 81(g) clarifies the law on the point.
However the Chief Electoral Officer is still entitled to hold something paid for by the support allocation and in accord with the rules to be outside the capacity of an MP in the particular circumstances. For example an MP might use a disproportionate amount of their allocation stored up in physical materials and pre paid in previous years allocations and distributed immediately prior to an election. The Chief Electoral Office might find that the nature, timing and amount of this material took it outside what is reasonably within the capacity of an MP.
Regarding National’s EFB position, from the John Key Speech link provided by Whaleoil:
“For example, we would support a limit on third-party spending in an election period. Political parties and candidates are capped in their spending so it makes sense that third parties are as well. Organisations should not be allowed to spend unlimited sums of money trying to influence an election”
Oh dear oh dear. Where is the principled defence of non candidate free speech here?
November 8th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Lee C – you can’t work out why National’s attack on this is so weak?
Its because they are not really opposed to the EFB – its just politics.
November 8th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
What is required on this issue (and has been required since day one) is to expose it to the public.
People say ‘Oh well the public aren’t interested.” That is no justification for a lack of leadership.
In fact is it not the job of our leaders to – well -’lead’?
Other lame excuses for the lack of opposition leadership on this:
‘It’s a beltway issue.’
‘The Media aren’t interested’
‘It’s too hard to explain.’
I actually think if leadership is the issue, then I have no argument. The fact is, leadership has been taken on this issue. It has been lead by Helen Clark.
She has lead it to the House, Lead it to the Select Committee
Lead it onto the Books and will lead it into law.
So let me rephrase this:
‘If the country is looking for astute leadership, it need look no further.’
Some key quotes on Key and National by Clark from the Listener july 2007:
‘The way they are trying to position themselves is they’re trying to get an image that it’s inevitable that they’re going to win. Well that ain’t so.”
Of (The nameless) John Key
“I think he would be the least substantial of them all.”
The truth will out, eh?
November 8th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
By the by can you imagine visiting “The Very Double..” and reading about its supporters criticisng Helen? That is one crucial difference, methinks.
I appreciate the ‘patience is a virtue’ argument, but want to keep the heat under this one. It’s a worthwhile cause, after all.
November 8th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
They need to call a press conference on the steps of parliament.
It needs Key , English and Brownlee to stand together and grab the spotlight.
State that they are taking the issue direct to the people via Nation wide meetings in every main centre and that they are advertising it widely. They need to wake the electorate up about how peoples democratic rights to dissent publicly are being removed and they also need to attack Labours broken tax cut promise and tell the electorate how unsafe they are with Labour.
Labour is a thieving bunch of selfish promise breakers ,undemocratic power hungry bygone unionists who take everything you got and give it to bureaucrats and don’t give us any better roads, hospitals and money etc etc and then threaten to take away our right to publicly protest.
Does Maoridom know that if the Tama iti raids happened next year because people are protesting about a Government anti terrorist policy even their protest marchs would be illegal.
November 8th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Chris: Oh dear oh dear. Where is the principled defence of non candidate free speech here?
Because, like many others, you have been suckered by the lies of Tane and Roger and so forth. Or rather, their misrepresentation of the actual viewpoints.
The majority of people opposed to this bill that have been communicating here are in support of sensible limits that apply to everyone.
They do not support:
* Limits that apply to everyone but the government
* Ridiculously low limits that will make it difficult for people to communicate in an election year
They do support:
* Not having excessive amounts of money influence elections
* Having third parties having a viable voice in politics
* Sensible spending limits applied to everyone, including the government
It’s a pity you’ve been suckered by the misrepresentation from a few commentators, because in reality there is a lot of support for the principle behind the whole idea.
Even if there is none for the way that Labour is implementing it to favour only themselves.
November 8th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
hmm… its a sad commentary when Susan Wood is being cast in the mold of a real hard-nosed journalist….
November 8th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
“Does Maoridom know that if the Tama iti raids happened next year because people are protesting about a Government anti terrorist policy even their protest marchs would be illegal.”
No, the penny hasn’t dropped yet.
November 8th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
I don’t think Maoridom is worried. Our Government and Police only selectively apply the rules that the rest of us are expected to obey to Maori protesters. Hence illegal land occupations etc. So they probably think the rules won’t apply to them anyway.
November 8th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Sam Dixon –
“Lee C – you can’t work out why National’s attack on this is so weak?
Its because they are not really opposed to the EFB – its just politics.”
I don’t understand why they would want the EFB to pass?
November 8th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Sam Dixon: At least the Nat party supporters are prepared to criticise their party openly rather than cravenly kowtowing to “the party line” like the reds.
I can’t think of anything more democratic really.
November 8th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Linda
A key person to nobble is Ron Mark – NZ1st. He is more principled than Peters or Woollerton and he carries some weight in that caucus so he might be turned and thus turn his party or at least not vote with them. UF even if all 2 MPs plus Copeland vote against it at the 2nd Stage reading (the clause by clause debate on the Bill after it is referred back from the SC) it won’t be enough to overwhelm Labour, NZ1, Anderton and the Greens.
November 8th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Chris, basically, I was seeking to explain National’s argument. I think the argument is reasonable, but that it won’t necessarily fly. I like to think it won’t, but listening to the defence of cl 81(g) by the then minister in charge, I think it may well be intended to do exactly what National claims.
November 8th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
In Australia pretty much no government advertising is permitted once the election is called – once govt is in caretaker mode the departments have clear instructions to suspend all advertising. I am not sure that this extends to the parliamentary budgets. IIRC in the last election campaign Labour were having the public service run ads well into the election period.
November 8th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Linda don;t waste your time – NZ 1st are bought and paid for – see the
Bryce Edwards Article linked yesterday:
“It takes the previous vague and flexible rules that existed before the Auditor-General intervened, and explicitly endorses those rules so that the Auditor-General is not able to complain. More than this, the Bill also inserts a ‘get out of jail card’ in the rules by stating that even if such spending is found to be illegal the parties will be explicitly exempt from paying the money back.”
Bingo!
Is this where Winston’s support for the EFB was purchased?
If he waits long enough, will the present overspend be
i) exempt or,
ii) easily ‘clawed back at the next election?
November 8th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Why should Winston be gaining interest of taxpayers money by not paying us back now?
Sometimes I wish that silly, silly man would leave.
November 8th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Pascal:
Trust me I am not suckered by anybody.
“*Limits that apply to everyone but the government”
I support it being the other way around actually.
“*Ridiculously low limits that will make it difficult for people to communicate in an election year”…. “*Having third parties having a viable voice in politics” “*Sensible spending limits applied to everyone, including the government”
I support no limits on non candidate free speech at all – but for the general law and the requirement for an authorisation statement on election notices we don’t have them now. They are indefensible in a free nation.
I also support no limits on candidate free speech either … as a compromise I would support dramatically increasing the caps.
“*Not having excessive amounts of money influence elections”
This statement is nonsense. There is no evidence of for this in New Zealand at all in fact all evidence supports the opposite contention. All evidence elsewhere suggests the more regulated you make your elections and free speech the more you favour big money interests.
The problem is that it is you who have brought into the Labour Party line not me.
That is why you struggle to effectively combat them. If you accept their policy and philosophical construct then you end up arguing over the mere details – “an 11 month limit or 3 month or why not be reasonable and split it at 5 months” The effect is to limit you rights to free speech.
MP’s like privileging their speech and their expenditure. National’s fight is over the fact that Labour won’t do a deal with them over electoral matters – usually the two old parties club together to rort together – this time one is rorting by itself. That’s what is making the Nats grumpy.
November 8th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Just heard the ads on radio live, i had no idea.
November 8th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Neither did the rest of NZ, Amanda.
November 8th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Lee – National don’t want the EFB to pass, despite our resident trolls’ desire to misinform and mischief-make.
Does this help?
http://www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?articleId=11358
Also this from QT on Tuesday:
“Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that it is National’s position that all parliamentary spending should be subject to the rules of the Electoral Act, as it was in the past, where in the 3 months before the election all spending can count as electoral spending if it solicits votes, but his Government will try to pass a bill to exempt all parliamentary spending from the electoral spending rules?”
November 8th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Chris – you seem like an intelligent man.
I don’t think National are grumpy at all. If this is National being grumpy, it can be likened to whhacthing a boy of six lashing an elephant with a piece of bamboo.
November 8th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Chris, I’m not so convinced that National are in this purely for partisan political reasons. I think they are being quiet for partisan political reasons – aggressively opposing these two bills has some significant potential downside if the media decide to misrepresent – whether because they are too stupid to know the difference, or because they decide to take sides.
It isn’t clear that there is a huge benefit to National in getting these killed, other than the generalised benefit of not having our democracy destroyed. The problem is that at present in NZ the general public don’t appear particularly interested in that – protecting something that the people don’t value isn’t good politics. There could easily be significant downsides if Labour and/or the media are successful with the meme that National are opposing in order to support “big money” interests.
I also think there is risk in opposing too strongly too early. Labour will then claim that all the issues have been addressed in the select committee, and therefore we can move on. Ramping up the activity once it reports back from select committee and (as expected) is still appalling, gives no room for Labour to run that argument.
In short, someone else needs to make enough noise at the moment to show that there is public interest, once there is public interest National and some of the minors will be prepared to spend effort opposing. That opposition should land after the select committee reports back but before the bill is passed. It should also be strong enough for both the Greens and Peter Dunne to work out what side their bread is buttered on. Restricting freedom is not (or should not be) a core principle for either of those parties.
November 8th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
I agree with Chris. No limits on spending. No taxpayer funding.
November 8th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
sorry Chris I assumed yo are male – the same applies if you aren’t !
November 8th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
IV2 – I can’t believe that English was asking a Labour MP to clarify his own policy – even more unbelievable was that particular Labourite not taking advantage of the situation in Question Time.
November 8th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Audrey Young quote: What did the old law say?
Spending parliamentary money on advertising that expressly solicited votes or money was banned, as it is now. The difference is the rules didn’t say “anything else goes” – which is the effect of the new law.
The new application is at variance with the Auditor-General and the Solicitor-General who took the view of the old rules that political advertising could be deemed to be political advertising if it looked like political advertising.
Interesting, in view of the fact that David Henry, Chief Electoral Officer had nothing to say when asked 30 August 2005 under the Official Information Act 1982, for a definition of:
Policy – Pledge – Promise – Bribe (These should be in the proposed EFB. So absolutely no starting point of reference, boundaries, rules call it what you like that define these key issues.
He was also asked to comment on this extract: “However, only a vote for Labour will ensure that this vital support for anyone with a student loan, can be delivered. It is dependent on Labour candidates return to power”.
Do you view this as a Bribe? If Not. Why Not?
The quoted extract was obtained by following the enquiry process shown on the pledge card. Out and out bribe and he didn’t want to know?
November 8th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Brownie – I guess it is the one way that a party can get something into Hansard for eternity if there is not a debate going on at the time. Ask a question such as English did – I guess that it provides a future “point of reference” should anyone try to misrepresent your position further down the track.
November 8th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Frank – you should know by now that rules only apply to parties other than Labour!
November 8th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Inventory – Are the wheels starting to turn, perhaps?
I’m still intrigued to hear what Sam Dixon thinks is ‘in it’ for National if the EFB were to pass, though.
November 8th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
PaulL:
Yes I think the Nats are scared of the Brethren/big money issue. Of course the Nats contributed significantly to their own difficulties with the Brethren.
Some in National never liked the “assistance” the Brethren offered to New Zealanders on political issues of concern to the Brethren and don’t particularly like this development in our political culture.
I suspect that the Nats will put up a mild to middling fight over the EFB especially if they can embroil Clark – contributes to her authoritarian demeanour and the voters are tiring of this aspect of her behaviour.
But actually they want it moved off the political agenda because of the Brethren issue and because it isn’t the ground to fight the next election on.
Much like their approach to the smacking Bill actually. One can see similar tones in Key’s speech on the EFB – National accepts the need for reform just not in this manner and this particular drafting. He has offered an olive branch/deal to Labour on non candidate speech.
The EFB in whatever incarnation and the Parliamentary spending rules will have little detrimental impact on National’s campaign actually. They will simply be a bit smarter about how they deploy party and parliamentary resources. I suspect the Party is already well resourced for the next election.
Likewise the EFB in whatever incarnation will have little impact on the potential influence of “big money” on NZ elections actually. Big money just employees bright people to circumvent the rules – if they really really want to. The EFB offers multiple opportunities for this.
The media are opposed the Electoral Finance Bill for self interest reasons. They are in the free speech business. Anything that restricts free speech is very bad for business. Plus I suspect they too are tiring of Helen a bit.
November 8th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Lee – I hope so. I’m not as dismissive as you of National’s opposition – after all, Labour was reduced to having Cullen or Maharey answering questions to Burton prior to the reshuffle, and Burton is now an “ex-Minister”, so English clearly scored some hits – but I would like to see National ramp it up a bit. Rodney Hide has a question this afternoon to Annette King.
I guess National has had the “luxury” of seeing a parade of submitters voice their opposition to the Select Committee, and though not all of that was publicised, it has embarrassed the government. Having to re-call the Human Rights Commission to make an oral submission (after questions in the House) suggests that Lynee Pillay’s chairpersonship of the SC has been dodgy at best. The pending High Court action against the government for the Crown Law opinion will keep this in the public arena, and John Boscowan’s radio ads won’t hurt. We have just taken on a young woman to help us in our office, and when I was listening to the audio file before she said she’d heard the ad this morning, and asked what it was about. I was delighted to be able to enlighten her!!
Yes, the wheels of opposition are starting to turn – probably not as quickly as we would all like, but they are turning nonetheless!
And your other one – what’s in it for National? Well, IF the EFB is passed (and I truly hope it is NOT!), and IF National get in next year in spite of the EFB (or because of it!), National could hang Labour out to dry for a very long time – as I said earlier on this thread, poetic justice, or as your bro and mine, Robinsod would say, “irony”!!
November 8th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
“I suspect they too are tiring of Helen a bit.”
For the sake of the majority of sane New Zealanders lets hope Chris is correct, so the media can send ripples of sedition and waves of common sense that will give depressed kiwi’s a sense of hope that the country can come right ?
November 8th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Yes, invntry or as gnome might say – ‘ironhood’…
This is why I can’t understand the stupidity of the leftwingers who are supporting this Bill.
Did I say stupidity? That was inappropriate. I meant mind-blowing, breath-taking, selfish partisan-blinded ignorance.
But they would be the first to jump up and down if anyone else tried it. Imagine the scenes. Imagine the posts….
I hope it is crushed.
But in an alternative universe that it went through, and the morons who keep bleating about ‘big-business’ get their just deserts, when the EFB ‘incentivises, even encourages’ corrupt electoral practice.
November 8th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Chris: That is why you struggle to effectively combat them. If you accept their policy and philosophical construct then you end up arguing over the mere details – “an 11 month limit or 3 month or why not be reasonable and split it at 5 months” The effect is to limit you rights to free speech.
You are right in that we have reframed the debate in terms of what the Labour party dictates, but to me personally at least that is in part due to some logical points they have raised.
Whilst I do not agree with their blatant selfishness in this legislation, I do think an election fought on ideas rather than budget would be better for us.
The issue of third parties is where it becomes contentious. On the one hand, as I believe you are saying, an unlimited budget gives one complete freedom to express your opinion and to have it heard. But on the other hand, how does that compare to the voice of someone who might hold as valuable an opinion but does not have the budget nor the means to make themselves heard?
Is it simply a case of “tough luck, buddy” ?
If we are to say that everyone, from CEO through to ditch digger has equal worth as a person within our electoral system then each should have equal opportunity to present their arguments and to lobby the causes that they believe are in the national interest.
I suppose one could argue that the innate opportunity is there for everyone, but in reality it is not.
Do you see a way one could find some fair middle ground on something like that?
And – why do you believe that money has little influence on the outcome of elections?
November 8th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
You don’t make someone freer by shutting down someone else.
Just because their budgets may be different is no reason to restrict our freedom to express ourselves.
We do not have equal resources. But we should all have equal opportunity. Most will take no part in the discussion. Some will speak more often and in more media than others. Some have a high profile and their ideas are repeated on the 6pm news TV1 and TV3. Some never get this free publicity.
You cannot legislate for equality of outcome or equality of voice. You can remove the restrictions so there is equality of opportunity.
November 8th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Well said, Linda
November 8th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Helen Clark waxes lyrical on the $4 Billion tax reductions made for WFF, Students interest free loans, rates rebates ,kinder gardens etc. All on her pledge card. To pledge this and implement her bribes she must have been aware of surpluses, knowledge of which she blames treasury for wrongful,
advice
November 8th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
“This is why I can’t understand the stupidity of the leftwingers who are supporting this Bill.”
What about the the right wingers who support this bill? You know, like National party front row heavyweight Gerry Brownly? why just several days ago he admitted that the National Party is fine with the new legislation which will effectively legalise the pledge card. The only objection they have regarding Labour’s prospective changes to electoral law is the time frame of the new regulations (they want to retain the 3 month period). They know that all the other “problems” are being dealt to in the select committee – as does anyone who’s in the loop.
“I hope it is crushed.”
Yep, Lee has just proved how hopelessly out of the loop he really is.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Aye, what Linda said
November 8th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
roger, either total bollocks and lies ..or.. can we have links please to evidence of nationals intent to support either of the bills in question.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
roger comes to the party, belatedly, but predictably! National does NOT support the EFB, and, at the risk of repeating myself, I quote from an earlier post “The comments Brownlee made in the House the other day related to the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill which comes before the House today, NOT the EFB.”
November 8th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
I think I can see your point Linda, but disagree. What you are proposing is effectively a system where your ability to make yourself heard in what is likely the most fundamental direction setter of our society is determined by your chequebook.
This inherently favours those with wealth behind them which would seem contrary to the basic principles of our democracy, would it not?
The restrictions do not need to be onerous, but I believe there does need to be some form of restriction during the effective period of an election campaign.
But not the EFB, because that is simply a means for the Labour party to stifle all voices.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill
First reading is underway
November 8th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
I guess that the truth or otherwise of Sam, Tane, and roger nome’s assertions will soon be revealed!
November 8th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
kk, iv2-
National doesn’t support the EFB as it stands, but there are significant changes that are presently being made in the SC stage. It’s funny to watch you guys continue to bleat on about the EFB when the final product is going to be something quite different to what you understand it to be – something that National agrees with, nearly in full.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
If enough people care enough they will raise the funds to be heard.
Look at the Kill the Bill site. People are freely contributing to this because they believe they need to be heard.
NZers have a habit of supporting with their $$$ things they feel passionately about. Millions have been raised in a weekend in the past.
On my own, no, I could not make a big difference – but joined with others I certainly hope to.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
IMHO Its really quite simple
The bastards should have to raise their own money to advertise and campaign.
All significant sources of money or money in kind must be disclosed to the citizens so we can see where the bribes are coming from.
See really simple No need to have the lawyers in there complicating and confusing the matter.
If these bastards wnat to get elected then they need to roll up their sleeves and start working and stop sucking on the citizens like the bloddy leeches they are.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Am listening to Uncle Scrooge at the mo.
Poor bloke is barely coherant.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Gee Roger Nome, so you say the final product of the EFB is going to be quite different, and we have no understanding of what it will be.
Do we get the opportunity to subject that to normal democratic scrutiny then? With select committee submissions and community consultation?
November 8th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
What a bully!
November 8th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Why are readings merely a time for MP’s to grandstand instead of reading the bill.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Dr Cullen is “on subject” about as much as Tane et al (which is to say “not much”.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Bloody hell – billy english’s faux outrageometer is going of the scale!
November 8th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
roger nome – Rodney Hide said at QT that the EFB will be reported back next week WITHOUT significant changes – do I believe him, or do I beieve you? Geez, tough decision – not!
November 8th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Lol! @ nome. I think I see a blood vessel about to burst on his forehead.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
roger nome flogged that line (faux outrage) from Cullen – don’t give him the credit for coming up with something amusing on his own!!
November 8th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
IV2 – believe what you want. I’ll watch you continue to be outraged at phantoms.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
English speaketh the truth, Gnome. What say you?
November 8th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
gnome has a truth allergy!
November 8th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
He gets a rash when confronted with the truth!!
November 8th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Thanks gnome for your input.
Great to see that you can’t see the ‘ironhood’ of telling me I’m not ‘in the loop’ las if implying that you are someone who is.
I wonder if Cosima Wagner’s diagnosis fof Nietzche explains these hightened delusions of grandeur?
But then again….
Jeez, imagine that? Imagine if gnome is representative of someone who is actually ‘in the loop’ and has been charged with the task of running our country in some way.
Now that would be scary.
It would be like putting Benson-Pope in charge of Human resources at a under-tens’ tennis club.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Or B-P in charge of the ball boys!
November 8th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
“English speaketh the truth”
Are you listening to Darren Hughes?
November 8th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Yip. Poor boy actually believes in what he is saying. Good speaker, able debater. Will be a shame when Aunty Helen and Mike W rip the carpet out from under him.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Go the Ginger!!!! (I’m one too so can say that in confidence.)
November 8th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Poor LeeC – fumbling around in the dark, lashing out at those better informed. At least your invective is entertaining
November 8th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
School-University-Labour Parliamentary Staff-MP
Poor lad has had a VERY sheltered (and taxpayer-funded) existence
November 8th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
roger nome is paid to talk utter crap on here ? Hells bells that would be it for me if that were the truth ? The poor tax payer bleeds like a stuck pig while coward and senseless propaganda lickspittle boreholes like Mason annoy everybody on the internet . You are one very sick women Helen Clark !!
November 8th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
No Dad, I meant Darren Ginga Hughes
November 8th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Oh yes Invent 2 silly me how could I forget about that carrot top circus clown that sits behind caustic scourge Cullen and that mad witch .
November 8th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
No a bad contribution from Nick Smith – he’s actually more facts than emotion for a change
November 8th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Oh, goodness then the geriatric from NZ1st gets into it.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
I thought NS was good. LOL!!! Then the geriatric says that the Auditor General doesn’t know his job!! This guy is nuts!!!
November 8th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
someone put the fogy out to pasture already- god it’s just embarrassing watching him stammer over his lines like that.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Has Winston paid it back yet?
Peter Brown just said “We followed the rules exactly” – Tui billboard!
November 8th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Typical Labour tactic blame everybody else , it wasn’t our fault , slippery sophisticate socialaist scum are accountable for grand scale corruption and the Prime Minister is a dark role model for outright deception and dishonesty .
Our politicians are outrageous nutbars !!
November 8th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
“Our politicians are outrageous nutbars !!”
Perhaps you can run for parliament and set them straight D4J? I can imagine you would be a star in the debating chamber.
November 8th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Brown is an absolutely hopeless debater – what a liability to NZ he is.
November 8th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
roger nome said “someone put the fogy out to pasture already- god it’s just embarrassing watching him stammer over his lines like that.”
Sheesh – roger and I agree on something!!
November 8th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
oohhh, Nandor is whooping the Auditor General’s arse on this one. Nanador holding meetings with youths, too young to vote, on their rights under the law, and Kevin Brady counts that is electioneering? Shows up his true blue colours no?
November 8th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Crikey! Here’s someone that will stay on message.
November 8th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
roger – Nandor is simply following the line he’s been told. “Helen says “The Auditor-General was wrong” – repeat after me – the Auditor-General was wrong, the Auditor-General was wrong……….”
The only problem with that is – if the Auditor-General was wrong, why did Labour pay back the $800k? Winston hasn’t. Peter hasn’t.
November 8th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
And who’s side is he on? i don’t think Pita knows!
November 8th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Pita’s against the Bill. He’s also given a timely reminder about how bad last year’s validating retrospective legislation was. An excellent speech.
November 8th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
roger, Shows up his [the AG's] true blue colours no?. not everyone who opposes labour’s action supports national. there are plenty who oppose the Labours corruption of our electoral system because it’s wrong. just plain wrong. period.
November 8th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
“The only problem with that is – if the Auditor-General was wrong, why did Labour pay back the $800k? Winston hasn’t. Peter hasn’t.”
The AG is the umpire. Whether he’s wrong or right you follow his ruling. Winston is snake though – of course.
November 8th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
When the Parliamentary spending legislation goes through then Winston will ‘pay it back’ keep the interest, and then overspend next time and use his ‘get out of jail free card’.
“the Bill also inserts a ‘get out of jail card’ in the rules by stating that even if such spending is found to be illegal the parties will be explicitly exempt from paying the money back”
(Bryce Edwards)
You see – you can buy an election!
November 8th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Life in the ‘loop’:
‘People who oppose the EFB are National Party supporters. Pita Sharples opposes the BIll. Therefore Pita Sharples is a National Party Supporter’
‘Loopy’, more like!
November 8th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Nah Lee, unless I’m wrong, “paying it back” sanitises the money and makes it available forr respending additional to subsequent allocations.
Additionally I think it will be exempted from any restrictions with regard to timing and use.
November 8th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Dunne raises some interesting points around the “validation Bill” – all parties could have been in trouble going all the way back to 1989! Clearly that would have been a ridiculous situation.
November 8th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Not really Roger. If they did wrong, they should be in trouble. The police would be unlikely to prosecute anything going back that far, things that had taken place 2-3 months before, however, were quite likely to get prosecuted. It is a little to clever to equate the two as a justification.
November 8th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Dunne? Interesting? Nah, Nome. The two words can’t go together.
November 8th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
“If they did wrong, they should be in trouble.”
Nearly all of Bill English’s 2002 campaign was funded through parliamentary services. Should he, and is campaign team (McCully? etc) be getting in trouble for that, or was that too long ago? The rules were the same then.
November 8th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
“all parties could have been in trouble going all the way back to 1989! Clearly that would have been a ridiculous situation.”
If only the Auditor-General hadn’t already signed off the accounts for those years, he, and you, might have a point.
November 8th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Paul & Roger,
“If they did wrong, they should be in trouble”.
Not necessarily, but they shouldn’t have the option of making it OK just because they are the law makers.
Anyone, politician or otherwise, who changes rules when they get caught out are corrupt. Real simple in my book.
What would happen if Helen upped the speed limit for the day she got done trying to get to the rugby on time. After she got caught.
November 8th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
State funding in drag? What a bigoted old hag! What’s her name?
November 8th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
“If only the Auditor-General hadn’t already signed off the accounts”
That’s a legalistic and technical point GE – The point is that National spending in 2002 was exactly the same in Nature as Labour’s was in 2005 – the law was the same under both circumstances – Labour was just unlucky in that the AG chose to take a different interpretation of the law in 2005.
November 8th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
But he didn’t nome. One just has to deal with whats in front of you.
November 8th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Phillip John/Roger Nome
I don’t think it’s a legalistic and technical point. This raises an issue under administrative law. If the AG took “a different interpretation of the law in 2005″ then the affected parties can file judicial review proceedings. Instead they chose to pay it back (in the case of Labour, after a “whip-round” on a grand scale that Panty Slut Boy would have approved of).
November 8th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Brownie – in 2005 the AG found that…. “Nanador holding meetings with youths (too young to vote) on their rights under the law, was electioneering”. Clearly he chose to use a ridiculously broad and subjective definition of the law in his ruling on the 2005 campaign. Much broader than was applied in the 2002 campaign, where nearly all of National’s campaign was funded through parliamentary services.
November 8th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
POC: Are you a lawyer? Do you live in the US?
November 8th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Phillip John/Roger Nome:
What does this have to do with the thread topic?
November 8th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
So yes to both questions POC?
November 8th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
No point reading in sub-text that simply isn’t there. Again, how do your questions relate to the thread topic?
November 8th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
But nome, the nats didn’t have the AG constantly reminding the that it was illegal!
Labour just ignored the bloke and then acted surprised when he called them on it.
November 8th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
POC: Why are you so reticent to answer these questions? What do you have to hide?
November 8th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Nome – this is blogging. He doesn’t/shouldn’t have to tell you. Leave off.
November 8th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
I don’t see you asking everyone else to state their background. Are you now suggesting we set up a Kiwiblog interests register, so everyone can declare their interests (and presumably their areas of expertise)?
November 8th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
POC – I’ve had a lot to do with you on this blog yet I know nothing about you at all – so I’m just a little curious as to who you, very vaguely, are. Simple as that really. There’s nothing sinister about it.
Again, I repeat, what are you so worried about? I’m not even asking for your name – BTW I’m a 26 year old Masters student studying at Otago University. See, it’s not so scary.
November 8th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
POC – I wouldn’t fall for that if I were you. The relevant point is that the auditor warned Labour, they agreed to include it on their return, then they changed their mind. Open, closed.
November 8th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Phillip John/Roger Nome:
This is really an unnecessary distraction from the thread, but I’ll briefly comment.
There’s a significant difference between those who (voluntarily) choose to go public with their name and/or background and those who (voluntarily) choose to keep that information to themselves. D4J is the single best illustration of the former (although his background is an unknown quantity, as we only ever hear his side of the story). Redbaiter is a good illustration of the latter (no doubt his identity is a matter of purient curiousity). We seem to know enough about your background. Much of that is probably due to your own voluntary disclosures – although, to be fair, others seem to have “outed” some aspects of your life. For what it’s worth, I think the person who originally posted your surname, whoever that was (D4J?), went too far.
It’s true that we’ve had a fair bit of dealings – and that includes some very constructive discussions as well as some sword-fighting. Hopefully all is forgiven?
Leaving aside the name-calling and fan mail, others here also engage with you. As I’ve explained before, I think much of that is to do with your posting style. You go to more effort than many. But those who post authoritatively with empirical data and references, and who presumably expect to be taken seriously, should expect to have their comments closely scrutinised. And there really shouldn’t be any problem if the comments are defensible. It all adds to healthy debate. It also goes to the difference between facts and opinions derived from facts.
Frankly, I’m starting to grow weary of Kiwiblog, as there are a notable few repeat offenders who disrupt multiple threads on a daily basis. It’s not quite the blog it once was. There are a few commentators whose comments I skip over altogether, as I can be confident that they generally don’t add anything constructive to the debate. I don’t know that DPF’s moderation policy has made much impact to date.
But yes, in case it assists, I’m a lawyer. I only left NZ very recently, for a better life overseas.
[rakaunui(moderation):: Thankyou P.O.C. for that insight in your comment regarding moderation.
I will ask DPF whether we can crank up the severity of moderation a notch or two]
November 8th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
PaulL
Could you clarify the bold text? Are you saying that Labour reached some kind of understanding with the AG that the expenditure could be included in the return? And that the AG subequently changed his position?
November 8th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Labour were warned that some of their material needed to be included. By the Electoral Office I seem to recall. Labour argued about it for a while, then kicked for touch by sending a letter agreeing to include it. After the election they changed their mind. It is in DPF’s history somewhere, including the scanned copies of the letter. It was pretty blatant, and incredibly dishonest.
November 8th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Further, link: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2006/05/the_timeline.html
There were other posts around that time that had the scanned letters.
November 8th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Thanks PaulL.
That’s consistent with my general understanding of the actual sequence of events. Yes, DPF did a fairly detailed series of posts some time back.
November 8th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
Paul/POC:
There were two separate issues going on, of which there appears to be a degree of confusion.
The AG warned all political parties before the 2005 election that they were not to spend parliamentary services money on the election campaign. Labour kicked for touch several times, and postponed meetings with the AG to clarify the rules on what parliamentary services money could be spent on. After the election, the AG ruled that the parliamentary services money Labour spent on its pledge card, and other items totalling some $900k, was campaign expenditure, and therefore unlawful. Only the Labour Party feigned surprise at the AG’s ruling. The AG’s ruling was backed up by an opinion from the Solicitor-General.
The second issue related to a series of correspondence between the Labour Party and the Chief Electoral Officer, in which the Labour Party agreed to include the pledge card, and other expenditure, as campaign expenditure, before the last week of the election. The CEO held the view that the pledge card was campaign expenditure, and needed to be included in Labour’s cap and expenditure return. The Labour Party subsequently changed its mind after the election and refused to include the expenditure in its return.
The police investigated this, and despite legal opinions from the AG, the Solicitor General, the CEO, and clear agreements before the election from the Labour Party, the police concluded that there was “too much confusion” and refused to prosecute.
November 8th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
Insolent Prick:
An admirably succinct summary, thank you. You’ve inspired me to go back and read DPF’s posts on this issue again – when I get a chance.
November 8th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
INV2 4.19pm
A bit late in supporting you but you are right – Pita Sharples speach was excellent. Certainly the best I have heard from him – no stuuttering or stammering and an excellent summation of the overspending in the 2005 election.
November 8th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
Rakanui for what it is worth, I agree with POC there are serial offenders who visit kiwiblog solely for the purpose of disrupting the debate and add nothing to the subject other than stupidity. I mean, we had to bear someone the other day going on with some inane nonsense about why someone was called ‘Adolf’… and it goes on for hours.
I must admit my present mood is not lightened by the fact that many of these people are actively supporting a situation which is designed to limit freedom of speech, yet cry foul when anyone has the audacity to suggest their input is irrelevant, or that they should be banned. If yo want evidence of this read the affected outrage evident on the standard when the are taking the p**s out of this blog.
I am going to adopt a ‘zero-tolerance’ attitude to these people. ie I’ll refuse to discuss ideas I hold dear with them, because I have lost most of my respect for them.
But why should we have to scour through the blog bypassing all the inane nonsense to hunt out one or two relevent postings?
November 9th, 2007 at 6:54 am
Lee C: But why should we have to scour through the blog bypassing all the inane nonsense to hunt out one or two relevent postings?
A worthwhile point. The trolls need to be banned irrespective of political affiliation. There is one multiple personality disordered individual who does as much to disrupt the discussion as Tane does and he never seems to go away. And as soon as he’s taken a day’s leave he returns under one of his other aliases.
They are certainly dragging Kiwiblog down and it’s becoming relatively unpleasant to come here.
November 9th, 2007 at 10:49 am
Yeah, but you can have some sympathy for that person, as he appears to be ill. If we agreed that Tane was also ill I could have some sympathy for him too. At present my suspicion is that he is just a wanker.
November 9th, 2007 at 11:45 am
Pascal
As much as I sympathise with that individual I have to say that I would like to see him banned as well – simply because when our trolls run out of arguments they start baiting him and there goes another thread.
While I’m annoyed with what has been happening recently on Kiwiblog I would suggest that people don’t quit coming to the site. That’s simply going to give the likes of Tane the victory they want. After twenty years of reading the bloody Listener or watching One News/TV3 the development of right-wing blogs has been hugely pleasing.
But I still face the fact that finding the time to comment is tough when I’m juggling full-time work and family life. It’s difficult to get the hours in the day (or night) to comment on any thread – and that leaves the field wide open to people like Tane and co. who apparently have all the time in the world.
It’s actually a great example of what the EFB is all about: I don’t have the time to speak as often or for as long as left-wingers because I have chosen to focus on family and making the money to support a better life. The latter is something that left-wingers often sniff at: ‘well if you care so much you’ll organise a protest won’t you! Suits on the street – that’ll be the day, heh, heh, heh’. But that’s the whole point – there is an implication that the left-wing deserve to dominate the discourse because they are willing to sacrifice family or lifestyle or money to a cause, and if you’re not – well your ideas get buried – tough!
That’s where money comes in: if it was not for money that I can use to buy an advertisement or a mailout – or more to the point, that I can contribute towards someone else doing so on my behalf (e.g. PayPal support of Michael Yon) – the things I believe in would have no voice at all.
Money in an election, or in any campaign, is pretty much all I’ve got to combat the seemingly endless quantities of time of Tane and Robinsod and Gnome.
So let’s not don’t give up. We just have to be better at ignoring people indulging in obvious threadjacking and only respond when they put something up that has some argument behind it.
November 9th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
More scare tactics from the right. If you morons would just <i>read</i> what the EFB will do you will see that it is really not there to take freedoms, rather ensure each party gets a fair go on election day without big business interference. It’s just like the anti-smacking bill, if people against the repealment of section 59 actually <i>read</i> Sue Bradford’s bill they wouldn’t have any problems with it.
[DPF: On the contrary I can almost guarantee you have not read the EFB. I have read it many times from beginning to end. If currently requires you to sign a statutory declaration before you can send an e-mail to a friend telling them what you think of a political party]