Court date set for Electoral Finance Bill judicial review
Excellent news. NZPA reports that the High Court at Wellington today agreed to urgently hear an application for a judicial review of the Electoral Finance Bill.
It has been set down for 27 November in Wellington.
Even better, the Judge has indicated that if the Government tries to progress the Bill before 27 November, the Court will consider an earlier date.
Now this action can not stop the Electoral Finance Bill being passed into law. But it can get a decision that the Attorney-General and Crown Law were wrong to claim it does not breach the Bill of Rights.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: Electoral Act
November 5th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Congratulations – excellent news – It will be interesting to see Labour and more importantly te support parties squirm if this action becomes big news and the court finds in the favour of those taking the action.
Will Cullen stand up in parliament and defend the Bill on the basis of a lickspittle opinion from Crown Law?
November 5th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
So soon we will get to see how far the tentacles of government manipulation reach into the judiciary.
November 5th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
The speed with which the High Court has agreed to hear this review is significant. I’m sure Graeme Edgeler can comment more. The findings of the review cannot be appealed. The HC cannot stop the EFB (as David has pointed out) but a finding against Crown Law would be a huge PR blow for the Government as this WOULD be picked up by the MSM and reported on. When added to the HRC and the Law Society opposition, Labour’s remaining fig leaf of support would be gone exposing the EFB as the partisan rort that it is.
November 5th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Clever move of the Judiciary to make the hearing date late in November.
A decision won’t be available till the end of the first week in December.
I can see a bout of unseemly haste and extreme ultra urgency in the house to get this through the House in time.
Look for H1 to demand the postponement of Christmas.
November 5th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
The speed with which the High Court has agreed to hear this review is probably because judges don’t like being dicked around by defendants.
During the pledge card case there was delay after delay from Labour until the delays pushed the hearing back far enough to get the retrospective legislation through before the case could be heard.
That isn’t going to happen this time.
November 5th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
However, of course, if it supports the original judgement, the Kill the Bill movement would take quite a blow.
Personally I can’t see how it could support the original advice, but, it does place the High Court in a tricky position.
Having said that, whether the High Court should feel intimidated by this or any government goes to the heart of what the EFB is about and the salient issue for me is whether there are any check and balances still in place to stop this or any government from driving a coach and horses through a parliamentary and democratic tradition which many have felt proud enough to defend with their own lives.
Also interesting that this shoddy piece of legislation should emerge so soon after the Privy Council was abolished… coincidence?
November 5th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
A case like this don’t come cheap – it’s a good thing there are upstanding groups like KtB around to kick $10k into it but wait a minute… there’s only been $6260 worth of donations to KtB! And it was implied the donation to the case was just one of the things the dosh was being used for. I wonder where all that extra money is coming from? Could it be T-shirt sales???
November 5th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Robinsod, no one else biting over at the other thread? are you old enough to know what a ’stuck record’ is? perhaps not.
November 5th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
Well done David, National needs all the time it can get to roll out its multi-million dollar billboard campaigns outside of the official election period. Which, of course, is what your entire opposition to the Electoral Finance Bill is about.
Except for Bernard Darnton’s. He wants to abolish the state except for the military and the police for when those rowdy peasants get out of control. God you guys crack me up.
[DPF: I love how Tane just invents figures. The billboards suddenly are a multi-million campaign. The billboards ran for five months, of which only two I think were outside the 90 day period. And the cost I understand was less than the pledge card.]
November 5th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Robinsod.
I dare say that within the ranks of the many who oppose the bill would be some persons with more than a modicum of legal training and expertese. Perhaps some of these individuals are giving freely of their time and expertese in support of this application for judicial review?
November 5th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
KK – http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/astroturfing
Tane – I know what you mean I was amazed to see DPF get caught up in this fiasco (he’s supposed to be a pro!) but I notice D Brash has put some dosh in too. Not to mention all the donors that didn’t make the list…
[DPF: This is interesting. Robinton tells lies about me and the KTB. When I reply with our disclosure policy (which was on website) he calls me a liar again and challenges me to post the list. Even after the list has been posted, he still calls me a liar. And then when he discovers the list he once again calls me a liar and accuses me of fraud but not listing all the donors.
Well you know I'm probably the most tolerant person around for allowing people to ask me questions, to debate things with me etc. The KTB campaign is the most open campaign ever in NZ's political history. None other has ever listed every donor. Now I just can't see why on my own site, I should allow an anonymous slanderer to just keep defaming me. He has shown not one hint of good will. He has not apologised for his continued smears. He uses my openness and tolerance against me, while refusing to even post under his real name.
I'm going to spend 24 hours trying to think of a single good reason to allow Robinson/d to keep posting. Sure a half dozen people will cry censorship but lets face it they are never going to be fair minded anyway]
November 5th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
I would point out Tane, that John Boscawen (who has taken the Attorny General to the High Court) is actually an Act member rather than a Nat. In fact he managed Rodney Hide’s Epsom campaign in 2005, not exactly endearing himself to the National Party.
November 5th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
SR, maybe you’re right. All will be revealed when David opens the books. IIRC, Challenge Weekly said the campaign had gathered $20,000 and that Bob McCroskie from Family First was a big supporter. How much American fundamentalist money is going to KtB? And are they disappointed with the ramshackle PR fiasco it’s been so far?
November 5th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
Excuse my language, but Robinsod are you fucking stupid or did you work on it?
By my calculation there is $17,775 of donations, did you by chance check the second page.
More apologies I think are warranted. BTW no donor has been omitted at all, so apologise for that while you are at it.
You and your union gonns can FRO with any accusations, you have been found wanting.
November 5th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
Tane, ditto
November 5th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
And thus the apologists come marching along once more. Funding a private legal action against a deplorable act of governing that touches upon our fundamental human right is not illegal.
Next year, it very well might be if you guys get your Labour Good, National Bad message legislated.
Until then, Kiwis are allowed to act upon their democracy.
November 5th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
But Tane – DPF has opened the books http://www.killthebill.org.nz/files/KtB_Donations_2007_11_03.pdf and he’ll tell you off for claiming otherwise (he asked me to apologise!)
The only problem is that the figure don’t add up. What’s with that DPF?
November 5th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Uhm, Whaleoil? Is the link on http://www.killthebill.org.nz under Donors the one you are referring to? In that case, there is only ~$7765 in donations. The one donation of $5000 has been reduced by the refunded $5000, as noted in your footnotes. (The only way I could get it to $17775 was to add that $5000 in twice on top of all the others – and I probably misplaced a tenner somewhere, blame that rather lovely Shiraz)
Better double check your figures, mate.
November 5th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
Ah, he has too. I don’t visit KtB as often as I should. Pity, really.
I see Mr Boscawen and an aquantaince (his wife?) have refunded their $10,000. Where did they get that from, I wonder?
What’s it add up to when you take out the money from the ACT Party stooge?
[DPF: Wow Tane now smears John Boscawen. Tane is unable to comprehend that people may donate their own money due to their convictions about how bad this bill is. Everything for Tane is a conspiracy theory]
November 5th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Jeez whale – your right. I apologise unreservedly – I didn’t realise the refund were to cover the case. (I just figured that anyone who gave you that kind of money had done it via a reversed banking error). So yes Whale sorry. I must say for a couple of well-connected types like yourselfs you’ve not done very well at this fundraising thing- how long has this “coalition” been going again?
[DPF: On the contrary I am delighted with the response. Considering all I did was send out one e-mail to people, and blog one item about it, that's a superb response. I'd love to see incidentially how much money would be donated to a campaign for the bill.]
November 5th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
So, Robinsod and Tane, do you actually have any opinions about the court case?
Do you think that opinions that you do not support shouldn’t have the right to be heard?
If the EFB is not lacking in integrity, why do you not rather welcome this as an opportunity to put the record straight?
You should be pleased that this case is being heard. In fact, you should be putting in a few bucks yourselves.
November 5th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Look there’s some really dodgy numbers in that PDF Whaleoil. I just noticed it says the $10,000 donation received. And yet, there is no $10,000 donation listed anywhere. You can’t blame people for calling foul when it’s that fucked up mate.
November 5th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Lee C, I’m glad the court case is going ahead. But it’s bloody difficult claiming the high ground when basic fucking errors like that screw up what is supposed to be a decently run campaign.
November 5th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
“What’s it add up to when you take out the money from the ACT Party stooge?”
I would have thought Rodney would be the first to donate against the EFB.
Correct me if I am wrong (and I hope you do ) but in this case has his money followed his mouth?
I don’t want to find out after all Rodney’s big talk in the house he ends up like another Winston
November 5th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
The only thing that doesn’t add up is Robinsod.
Answer me one simple question.
If national was proposing the EFB would you support it? Yes or No. No “Yes, but”
Yes or no, quite simple really.
November 5th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
“And yet, there is no $10,000 donation listed anywhere.”
There are two donations of $5k, both with asterisks indicating that they have been refunded. The name “Refunded” replaced the name of the second donator refered to Mr Boscawen’s acquaintance.
Mystery solved?
Of course, $10k worth of confusion in a private fund raising effort is worthy of more attention and criticism from Tane and Robinsod than $800k deliberate and illegal overspend during a public election.
November 5th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Whale. Yes, I’d support it with suitable amendments around the definition of election advertising. And I’d advocate, as I am now, bringing in public funding and banning anonymous donations.
But National would never bring in anything like the EFB because they don’t want to lose their ability to spend millions upon millions of dollars to influence the election. That’s why they – and that includes you – are so determined to sink the bloody thing.
November 5th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
“Correct me if I am wrong (and I hope you do ) but in this case has his money followed his mouth?”
Why would he donate to this effort when he is running his own?
November 5th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
… like National’s ‘deliberate and illegal overspend’ of $10,000, Kimble? And the ‘accidental’ GST error? Give me a break…
November 5th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Mr Boscawen, and another donation of $5000, both have been marked by an *. As I read it, both donations have been refunded to the donors for use in the High Court action that has precipitated this thread.
Simple really.
November 5th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
“But National would never bring in anything like the EFB because they don’t want to lose their ability to spend millions upon millions of dollars to influence the election.”
OK, I am calling it, time of Tane’s brain death is 8.09pm.
If National was in government they would be able to spend millions of dollars misappropriated from NZ taxpayers for their election campaign. They wouldnt have to worry about raising funds from anyone else!
November 5th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
$10k > $800k, oh, its sooo obvious.
November 5th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
From Challenge Weekly:
“Mr Farrar told Challenge Weekly the Coalition raised about $20,000 in the first four days after its launch, and is now starting to gather momentum.
One of the early groups to join the coalition is Family First. Director Bob McCroskie…”
So where’s the $20,000 and the rest you picked up when the campaign was ’starting to gather momentum’? And why is Bob McCroskie and Family First not listed amongst your donors?
[DPF: Family First have joined, but have not donated a cent. If they had it would be listed. The $20,000 figure referred to included money pledged but not yet banked. At the time I was interviewed we had a bit over that pledged. I have total trust in the persons concerned that they will follow up. ]
November 5th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
slightlyright: Mr Boscawen, and another donation of $5000, both have been marked by an *.
Ah, that clears it up. Placing the word “refunded” in front of one made it look as if that was a refund for the earlier $5000. So, that still totals up to a lot less than claimed.
November 5th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
Ok, I’m nothing to do with Kill the Bill. I’ve checked it out, maybe commented once, maybe…
If I had the spare cash and I gave it to that pressure group to assist its case, would it therefore follow that the pressure group was corrupt, or that I am corrupt.
One of the salient issues that the EFB has raised is
“What exactly constitutes democratic expression in New Zealand in 2007?”
The Bill has polarised the debate.
My view of democracy is along the lines of ‘I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend your right t say it.”
Other may see democracy as an expression of a perhaps purer ideal, where a person’s bank-balance should not limit their ability to have a political voice.
But the real issue for me is, that in order for both of these views of democracy to prosper, the law must be unpartisan in its execution. Those that propose the Law must be unpartisan in their Law-making. Once the making of Laws is politically biased in its motivation, it puts the freedoms of the people at risk.
This is my view of the EFB. I don;t give a flying one about Labour or National. They are all minnows in the big pond of history. I do give a flying one about my little boy growing up in a society in which his freedom to express his political views is criminalised because it fails to meet with the approval of the government of the day.
For me, This is what the EFB represents.
Then you have people who are in the ‘union movement’ who are riding on the backs of all those hard-won rights that people fought for since the Tol-puddle f**n Matyrs actually supporting the Bill. Only because they cannot see what a perversion of the Labour Movement their precious Labour Party has become.
Sickening to witness such perversion. Let them eat cake and all that…
November 5th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
If National was in government they would be able to spend millions of dollars misappropriated from NZ taxpayers for their election campaign. They wouldnt have to worry about raising funds from anyone else!
Which of course shows how disingenuous your argument is. Government advertising is run by departments, not by the party in power’s election campaign team. Moreover, it can’t advertise a particular party. Of course, there’s potential for abuse. But don’t pretend there’s ever been a party in government that’s given up soliticting donations and running a campaign because of it. National want to be able to pervert our democracy by buying our elections with money from their rich mates. The EFB would put a stop that, so National are opposing it.
November 5th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Tane, give up you pathetic troll, you have got nothing. Zip. Nada. Stop embarassing yourself with this canard.
November 5th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Kimble, I’d say the claims in Challenge Weekly pose a serious claim to David Farrar’s credibility.
November 5th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Yeah Pascal – I made the same mistake and apologised for it. It still doesn’t tally with the $20k in the first few days line though. Is lying to a christian reporter worst than lying to the secular press? I guess you’ve got a greater chance of going to hell…
November 5th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
’serious challenge’, that should say. I should stop trying to type while eating.
November 5th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Exactly. And for a concrete examples of astroturfing, see this one. And then of course, there was a labour minister writing to party members encouraging them to write letters to the editor & call talkback radio.
November 5th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Well of course. “You’re better off with labour” was just added to policy statements by the government department….
November 5th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
I see KtB is also following in the fine tradition of accepting money from anonymous donors and trusts.
“Tawanui Holdings”
“Friedlander Foundation”
“Bank Deposit”
“Bank Deposit”
“Forest and Wood” (could be real, but heaven knows what it is)
[DPF: My God I think Tane has descended to a new depth of pathetic. I mean seriously this is so sad. He is complaining because someone went to a BNZ branch and deposited $20, yes $20 in our account. Helen is legislating to keep her hundreds of thousands of anon donations and Tane is worried about our $20.
I don't know most of the people who have donated. All that happens is a deposit turns up on our bank statement. It called genuine giving. As for Tawanui Holdings and Friedlander Foundation, one is a company and on a public register and the other is pretty obviously associated the Friedlander family and not very secret.]
November 5th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
“Government advertising is run by departments, not by the party in power’s election campaign team”
Yup, HUGE distinction there.
“it can’t advertise a particular party.”
So it advertises the Government and lets people make their own judgements.
“National want to be able to pervert our democracy by buying our elections with money from their rich mates.”
BAHAHAHAHA, TROOOOLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!
Thats the way you buy elections!!! Funnel money to the advertising companies!
Stupid me, I thought that buying elections was paying for votes or paying for someone to fix the count. You know, shit that would actually BUY THE ELECTION!!
A far better definition of buying the election is through promised spending in the future. Enticing people to vote for you by promising that they will recieve money they didnt earn if you win the election. You know, like saying that student wouldnt have to pay interest on their student loans, or that welfare payments would increase.
But even THAT isnt truly buying an election!
Obviously brain dead but still twitching!
November 5th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
You know, you guys should really keep up this attack, since you started wailing, and you know its funny because it is almost comment for comment but people have started donating again…hell, six more in 10 minutes, keep it up….you’re doing great.
Nothing like a bit of publicity huh to motivate the troops. Your troops number but three, ours a few more than that.
November 5th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
# hinamanu Says:
November 5th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
” “What’s it add up to when you take out the money from the ACT Party stooge?”
I would have thought Rodney would be the first to donate against the EFB.
Correct me if I am wrong (and I hope you do ) but in this case has his money followed his mouth?
I don’t want to find out after all Rodney’s big talk in the house he ends up like another Winston”
Hinamanu, Rodney is taking the case to the High Court with Boscawen. If that isn’t putting his money where his mouth is I don’t know what is.
November 5th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
Spam – every political party and group does the old ring talk back and write letters to the editor thing. The difference between that and astroturfing is that the latter uses paid campaigners, front groups and hidden funding sources. At the risk of sounding paranoid is it a coincidence that the KtB campaign started not long after DPF began contract work for National?
November 5th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
“But National would never bring in anything like the EFB because they don’t want to lose their ability to spend millions upon millions of dollars to influence the election. That’s why they – and that includes you – are so determined to sink the bloody thing.”
That statement really doesn’t make sense. If National were to govern wif the EFB in place they could spend millions upon millions on their campaign.
The bill would work for them just as much as Labour, considering they will.
And if you or anyone has an argument about this I have a statement to make.
November 5th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Yes, Tane, who are these multi-millionaire donators to this corrupt cause? These shadowy people hellbent on perverting our democracy via a $20k fund raising effort.
Ban all trusts! Ban all bank deposits! Ban all names that just seem a little odd!
TROOLLLLLLL!!!!!!
November 5th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
KK said “So soon we will get to see how far the tentacles of government manipulation reach into the judiciary.”
It is hard to distinguish between the two and we’ve further cause for alarm when you think about the statement from Justice Minister Burton who said ” that the BOR is not binding over statute law “. Yeah right talk about stacking the deck Mark .
Surely there is prima facie to take this Labour rort to the UN or International Court of Justice ?
November 5th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
“At the risk of sounding paranoid is it a coincidence that the KtB campaign started not long after DPF began contract work for National?”
The only thing that is strange is that you WORRY about sounding paranoid!
November 5th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Back to the main topic – great news. The fact that the trolls are left to quibble over minutiae is telling. I believe that the High Court is likely to lean more towards supporting the opinions of the Human Rights Commission and the Law Society than a widely-disputed opinion from a hitherto-unknown solicitor in the Crown Law office. Most interesting of all will be the government’s response, especially if the High Court finds in favour of the applicants. Go guys – Kill the Bill! Now, I must go and make another donation……….
November 5th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Hay Whale – pleased to help bro (christ knows you need it), but what’s with this “our troops” thing? Are you trying to make yourself feel less lonely? Oh and I’ve notice both DPF and “Rakaunui” seem to have disappeared. Oddly they turn up at the same time too… Still it must be good to have a “bro” to use as a foil to Tane.
And Whale – you’ve still not said how come things don’t tally with the Challenge Weekly report – I mean you had that thing up all over your site so I’m sure you’d've noticed the discrepancy…
[DPF: And now he accuses me of inventing sock puppets. One more slander. Not many more to go]
November 5th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
Tane says:
“But National would never bring in anything like the EFB because they don’t want to lose their ability to spend millions upon millions of dollars to influence the election. That’s why they – and that includes you – are so determined to sink the bloody thing.
National want to be able to pervert our democracy by buying our elections with money from their rich mates. The EFB would put a stop that, so National are opposing it.”
The Law Society,says:
“The bill has serious defects, which mean it will not achieve its stated aims. Moreover, it is likely to curtail the legitimate expression of opinions while failing to curb (and potentially even incentivising) clandestine conduct in relation to the electoral process. The bill as a whole represents a backward step in the integrity of democracy in New Zealand.
The HRC Says:
“By limiting freedom of expression and creating a complex regulatory framework in the way it does, the Electoral Finance Bill unduly limits the rights of all New Zealanders to participate in the electoral process.”
BACKWARD STEP … LIMITS THE RIGHTS OF ALL NEW ZEALANDERS which parts don;t you understand? The EFB is a political h-bomb It will not discriminate whose political rights it reduces.
Tane wake up. You are being sold a pup. If this goes through, and National win the next election, what do you think it will do to the unions?
Lose your obsession with the National rorting line, it is a bullshit argument. Smell the coffee before it is too late.
November 5th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
At the risk of sounding paranoid, but is it a coincidence that the Labour Union movement in NZ never donates money to the National Party campaign?
Aren’t these groups supposed to be non-biased politically? Mmmmmm, suspiciouser and suspiciouser!
November 5th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Dont you see Lee C?
Tane KNOWS that National will never again have an oppoprtunity, because they will never be in government again! Labour is the government for eternity and in the next few months all other political parties will be outlawed!
At the risk of sounding paranoid, of course.
November 5th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Kimble,,
Do you know Tane is a Labour supporter ??
November 5th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
Kimble – Self imposed exile is a tactic used in warfare to trick the enemy into a false sense of security ?Ambush the reds !
How can I shut my mouth when this Labour Government breaches countless Human Rights by even thinking about this mental self preservation bill . This dictatorship run by a dangerous nincompoop with the ” I am God attitude” is extremely detrimental for kiwiland .These creeps are just a deranged bunch of socialist scumbags .
This Labour Government blemishes the names of every soldier that fought in the World Wars so we could enjoy freedom of speech today . What a Prime Minister we have !!
November 5th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Robinsod and Tane, the court action is seeking a declaration that the EFB breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. That Act was passed by a government that acknowledged its citizens needed rights to be protected from the large arm of the State in all its branches. In short, the Act goes some way, but not all the way unfortunately, in protecting the *both of you* from breaches of your inalienable rights that exist because of your very presence in Godzone. John Boscawen, one of the nicest men who will ever walk this planet, and others are going into bat for *you*. You should be grateful because one day, and it may even be late next year, you might need this declaration. And I am certain of one thing knowing John Boscawen like I do, if the National Party proposed a bill like this he would be back in court just as quick.
I am stunned that I live in a country within which the two of you question the very rights and freedoms that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act protects, and then go further to question the motives of someone who tries to acknowledge them on behalf of New Zealanders. If ever there was a reason not to understand control-freak leftists you have provided it.
You don’t deserve to breathe the same air as John Boscawen and the others fighting this bill. Go crawl back under your rocks.
DPF & WhaleOil – I am donating $250 to your cause. You have Robinsod and Tane to thank.
November 5th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
There should be no limitations on election spending. Not anywhere. Not ever. The left want limits because they know their decrepit, poisonous and destructive political system stands no chance of being financed to the same extent as the free market system.
They want limits because they know they’ll never get enough support on a voluntary basis. Even now, what support they do get is to a large extent obtained from the unwilling who are co-erced or forced into “donating” by unscrupulous power obsessed union thugs and the like.
They want limits because they know they must put constraints on the opposition, (especially if they can’t get the subject bill through and are prevented from looting the public purse they way they did in the last election.)
The left are always cynical grubbing power hungry charlatans fakes, poseurs and frauds, and at no time is this more evident than when they whine about “buying” elections, when their whole damn redistributional system is based on that very method.
Socialist politicians buy the votes of losers and bludgers and no accounts by promising to share with them the loot those politicians will legislatively steal after they are elected. The left’s whole intent of limiting election spending is just one more deceitful conscienceless fraud. Its time NZers stopped listening to cheating lying propagandising socialists, and turned away from the destructive political system they promote.
November 5th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
Yo – DPF! Good to finally get a reply from you for something. Do you really think that’s such a good result? I mean you haven’t even reached your original pledges two months into the campaign! Oh and your mate Whale said : The Free Speech Coalition formed by David, Bernard and myself has donated $10,000.00 to this legal action. Which kinda sounds a bit different to “we gave them their donation back so they could use it for something more useful than our ramshackle PR fiasco of a website” – Not that you guy’s would ever spin anything of course.
So how did the refund go down DPF? Did they say something like – “we’re not throwing our $10k down the tubes on your faild PR attempts – give it back so we can spend it on a real PR trick like a court case”? or was it more like “Shit, sorry Mr. Boscawen you better take your money back – I didn’t think anyone would take us seriously an anyway Mr. Boscawen it was Whale’s idea…”
November 5th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Interesting, Rakaunui’s deleting my comments again. “Off-topic” it would seem.
[rakaunui(moderation): Yes copy and paste for these bulk edits. want some more??]
November 5th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
“Its time NZers stopped listening to cheating lying propagandising socialists, and turned away from the destructive political system they promote.”
This is certainly the democratic dream. But I am a bit vague on the electoral finance realities. Correct me if I am wrong but are political parties allowed to spend any amount of their own funds but have a limited amount of taxpayers funds to supplement their campaigns.
I am of couse saying here that I understand there is no cap on personal election spending from a parties own funds.
Of course Labour broke the law by spending money that wasn’t theirs which is the crux of the problem. So am I correct in saying they could have emptied their own reserves with no cap if they had so wished.
November 5th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
My view is that legislative limits on election spending are an attack on free speech.
November 5th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Redbaiter said
True. But then the “right” are sometimes the same. They have been tainted by their socialist environment.
There is no hope. No one but Christ can save us now.
November 5th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
And free speech is supposed to covered under UN Declaration of Human Rights and BOR ?? Go figure, as it is hypocritical for Clark to talk about democracy in any other Nation – when she is railroading a bill that will severely restrict the freedoms of thought and opinion of many bewildered kiwi’s !! I thought a major function of parliament was to pass legislation that was fair and balanced . Obviously I was very wrong in thinking that ?
November 5th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Yo Tane – even more interesting is the fact that he’s turned up at the same time as DPF…
Hinamanu – during an campaign period parties are allowed to spent their own money up to a capped amount. National’s problem with the EFB as it stands is that it extends the election period out to the start of the election year (instead of three months before polling day) and that means they can’t run an uncapped campaign from the start of the year.
If this law was in place in 2005 then two months of their national billboard campaign (bill boards cost between $4 and $10K apiece depending on placement and size – not counting concept and design work) and a lot of their advertising production costs would have been counted into their election spend.
As you can see it’s the difference between being able to spend a lot of money on a warm-up campaign and having to play on a level field.
November 5th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
Tane: You and Robinsod and Roger Nome are cut an unbelievable amount of slack, as act as Labour party brownshirts in the assault on free speech. For you to complain about free speech while promoting the EFB just shows what a visionary George Orwell was. Talk about doublethink!
Oh, and what’s with this bizarre idea that Bob McCroskie’s donation is somehow being kept secret by being published in the press? Eh? How does that work?
November 5th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
“This site is a fuckin farce.”
Nobody forces you to come here.
November 5th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Wrong Redbater. It’s one of their Key Performance Indicators for political advancement in the Union/Labour party.
November 5th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Tane – I’ve been re-posting comments I believe will be deleted over at blogblog (with context) for posterity. I’m considering asking them to put an archive section in so we can all see what qualifies as unacceptable here for further analysis. Perhaps we could also add a few of the more rabid off-topic comments from the right that have stayed just to highlight the double standard? Oh and I’ll be posting this one across for sure.
November 5th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Oh Robinsod, are the other boys being mean to you? Never mind, Mummy’s legislations is bigger than their legislation, so she’ll sort it out.
November 5th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
You mean like using unions?
November 5th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
“As you can see it’s the difference between being able to spend a lot of money on a warm-up campaign and having to play on a level field.”
Ok,,
So understanding this analogy, I don’t know if anyone would agree with me, but I liken the election race to Rugby (as you do) and I see no reason why the incumbent govt should not be allowed the advantage of more electioneering finance as a rugby team who has just scored a try gets the advantage of the ball being kicked to their possession.
How much of that advantage is the question. Unfortunately labour aren’t even happy with a greater financial advantage, they want hook, line, sinker, kitchen sink and control over the neighbours home and contents.
and the silly thing is that is what the EFB is all about and they would deny the above statement; until 2009 that is, which is when they want to bring out their deep, deep , deep shade of red.
November 5th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
Keep up the comedy show
Tane, Robinsod, and co
Just donated $100 of my dough
November 5th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
Funny how the socialists don’t like suppression here, but they love when big daddy Helen does it.
November 5th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
Tane – you have a distorted view of it.
As Rodney Hide pointed out during the Auditor-General’s report into the pledge card spending, political parties spend three years campaigning for votes: that is their raison d’etre. The Speaker has just decided, it seems, that Rodney is correct and Labour, it seems, is going to decide it can, in your words, spend lots of money on a warm up campaign. I agree with that. Good on them. The problem with it is that it is our money, taxpayers money, not money raised by fundraising. I don’t want any of my hard-earned cash going to Labour’s campaign. I don’t believe in most of their policies. If I want to support one of their policies or issues I will spend my money and do so. What Labour is doing is not providing a level playing field. They are corrupting the playing field. How can you not see this?
November 5th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
“Tane – I’ve been re-posting comments I believe will be deleted over at blogblog (with context) for posterity.”
Well I’m glad you mentioned Kiwiblogblog, because it once again gives me the chance to highlight the hypocrisy of the left. You argue on this issue and others, all the while claiming that you are only doing so because you respect the principle of free speech, meanwhile, over at Kiwiblogblog, the owners in the most disgusting betrayal of trust, deliberately deface and alter messages posted by non-leftists. Moderation by comment deletion is one thing. Altering messages so that they say something entirely different to the intent of the author is a cowardly and abhorrent act.
You don’t care for free speech, you care only for whatever strategy is a means to political power, and you care not one jot how unprincipled or immoral or distasteful that strategy might be as long as it brings about the end you desire.
Your opposition to allowing the Brethren to spend their own money on promoting a political viewpoint you don’t agree with is nothing but a spite driven attempt to control and another example of the Lefty’s intent to incrementally impose a totalitarian state. So are your actions in altering the messages people have posted on Kiwiblogblog.
November 5th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
Robinsod & Tane, why are you chatting here… when you could just lean over the office partition and spare us all the hot air
November 5th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Ah, but Redbaiter, you are relapsing. You expect some intellectual honesty, principles or consistency from these brownshirts. But they are only here to try to give people a bit of biffo.
November 5th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Great News re: pending judicial review.
I am of the belief that New Zealand still has a proudly independent judiciary.
The way this case is handled will demonstrate whether this is a correct assumption or not, but the early indicators are looking good.
Lee’s earlier comments regarding the Privy Council are pertinent.
The thing the power hungry control freaks that run the Labour Government found so galling about the Privy Council is that there was no way the could influence or intimidate the British based jurours. So the simple thing to do was to abolish it as our final court of appeal.
Re: donation to KTB
Socialists can’t understand that NZers are so disgusted with the current assault on democracy that the are prepared to donate some of the little money they have left after they have been gouged for tax to support efforts to protect their basic rights.
Socialists think that if any “cause” needs money will you just help yourself from the public purse.
If thats not quite “kosher” you just legislate to validate it.
November 5th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
Yes the billboards were very successful, so successful in fact that there were those who tried to have all billboards banned in the inner city in Auckland. What was stopping Labour from putting up billboards? Surely they could have raised the cash apart from the fact they were broke after having to pay back the rorted $800,000 from the tax=payer of course.
But why stop there? Hager suggested already that all poitical advertising should be capped throughout the whole of the parliamentary term. Methinks the EFB does not go far enough. I think it should include the open and transparent union movement from criticising a government for three years at a time too.
I think that the time and transportation costs of Union-affiliated members who promote pro-Labour leaflets should have an auditing system attached, and that theri efforst are subject to proper srutiny and accounted for and costed. Then that should go towards Labour’s election spend.
If this Bill goes through and National get in, do you not think that that minor amendment would not be a mere formality?
I mean you want transparency, right?
I mean if you do not support Human Rights for one group in society, why would you logically support Human Rights for any other?
But ask yourself this, If National did get in and decide to restrict, criminalise or suppress political expression for any group it felt did not meet its own criteria for deserving the freedom to express itself, would you be able to logically condemn them for it.
After all you voted for the EFB on the original premise: That Human Rights are a movable feast.
November 5th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
Hi David,
The Crown Law Office is not an independent agency – it is simply the lawyers of the government, and will ultimately provide the legal opinion that they are paid to present.
Nevertheless, I was somewhat surprised when I read the Crown Law opinion that no reference was made of the “Oakes test”. An assessment of whether the EFB violates BORA should have an “Oakes test” applied to it – that this was not done suggests that the crown Law Office opinion is very weak indeed.
In the 1930s brownshirts would drown out meetings of liberals through rantings and singing – while the fascists claimed “freedom of speech” in their antics, in reality they were trying to stifle political debate and freedom of speech. A more recent example of this kind of behaviour is on a person’s blog, when political opponents try to threadjack a discussion with offensive or irrelevant opinions – this is about trying to silence free expression. An example is this blog – any discussion of the EFB and its threat to freedom of speech will bring out the ‘Tanes’ and the ‘Robinsods’ who deliberately attempt to threadjack in an attempt to stifle political discussion.
November 5th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
H1 and H2 doing a little bit of late night scheming tonight trying to out maneuver this nasty little thorn that has appeared to rock their EFB boat.
The problem is the Crown Law office has a boss called the Attorney-General and his name is Mickey Cullen so all he needs to do is release an amended judicial review basically addressing the Freedom of Speech issue more and what happens –the public roll over !!
November 5th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
“the operations of executive Government are conducted lawfully and constitutionally; and
· the Government is not prevented through use of the legal process from lawfully implementing its chosen policies.”
so as GC the law says Cullen can effectively use his position to short track Labour’s EFB into the statute books.
Isn’t it immoral and reprehensively wrong for a sitting politician to be the GC ?????
November 5th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
hinamanu Says: “Of course Labour broke the law by spending money that wasn’t theirs which is the crux of the problem. So am I correct in saying they could have emptied their own reserves with no cap if they had so wished.’
You are correct in your assumption. However the Labour Party had emptied their war chest. That is why H2 prevailed on Parliamentary Services to pay for the Pledge Card. The Labour Party were bankrupt.
That’s why they had a whip around the MPs to have the chance to pay back misappropriated Taxpayer’s Funds. Which illegal act was validated by Parliamentarians taking advantage of their positions to disadvantage Joe Blogg, taxpayer. Bunch of criminals protected by the Police Commissioner failing to investigate a complaint of misappropriation of our funds.
November 5th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
What I find great is that about $20,000 can be raised very quickly by a range of people. Labour with their massive union influence and data base finally raised $800k. Who were the donors for the $800k. Why don’t Labour publish their list of donors?
No wonder the trolls are so up in arms about this – there will be crisis meetings and I doubt any intelligent barrister would even want to take on the case for the Labour Government. So they will be left with a dim wit Crown Law solicitor who will be chewed up, and spat out witha carewer that will be doomed forever.
November 5th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
“The Labour Party were bankrupt.”
WOW.
Now,, where they just broke or legally professed as bankrupt ??
If the Labour party had filed for bank ruptcy, surely there was no way they could have legally gagged officialdom and denied their true financial state… surely.
November 5th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
Just ban Tane. He needs him own blog.
November 5th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
dpf, mate, these freaks (yes, you know who you are) really are not contributing anything. you’re the most tolerant of mods, but, come on. they’re just spoilers. leave them to rant on their own sites.
[DPF: Yes I know I am far far too tolerant. It's a weakness.]
November 5th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
Whale said:
I’ve scratched around for some spare notes and donated. Go for it…. Kill the Bill
November 5th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
Just ban Tane. He needs him own blog.
I’m alreamy ham one. He’s at http://www.thestandard.org.nz. Our is interesting if we have a look.
November 5th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
DPF: You are the cunningest PR guy I know. Inventing those sock puppets Tane and robinsod months ago, just for this moment. All those made up comments and annoyances. Just for this moment when you pull the strings just right, and they piss me off so much I donate to KTB.
Even though I couldn’t make the paypal work (again), so had to go and transfer money from my bank account. I put my name on it, feel free to add my name to the donation list. Wouldn’t want people getting excited about an anonymous donation now.
November 5th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
“Inventing those sock puppets Tane and robinsod months ago,”
I have to say, Tane has had me wondering. A PR ploy?
Could John/d4J be another one,, possiblities are endless.
Just stick to the issues with horse blinkers on
Best way to beat non entities.
November 6th, 2007 at 12:07 am
hinamanu: If you owe money and can’t pay, I understand you voluntarily go into liquidation. H2 came to the rescue before Bernard Darton’s case against Helen 1 was extinguished by Helen 1’s Validation Act. Judgement against her would have been embarrassing in this respect.
November 6th, 2007 at 3:59 am
Castafiore-you are probably right about Cullen re-writing the opinion but the likely negative HC finding will be a big headline and more importantly, it puts the EFB back (albeit briefly) in centre stage and THAT is most definitely not in H1/H2’s plan. The acquiesence of the MSM and hence middle NZ is their goal. They seek to relegate this issue to an ‘inside the Beltway’ issue and pass it with a few cosmetic changes. I’ve always maintained that the only party that can stop Labour is NZ1 and the only person in NZ1 who can lobby for that change is Ron Mark as Winston and Wollerton are buying Clark’s line.
Tane and Robinsod are left to snipe around the edges of this debate seeking to create any story out of their review of the KTB donors. There is huge irony in their attempts as the transparency displayed at KTB is what they claim to believe in. Tane says he wants anonymous donations banned and yet shills for Labour who have clearly stated their intention to rely on such donations.
I’m sure had a National Government brought an EFB to Parliament there would’ve been demonstrations of ‘81 Springbok tour proportions with Tane, Rogernome and Robinsod at the forefront. Not even the Democrats’ most left leaning politicians here in the US would ever attempt to do what Labour is trying to do here.
I do hope that the judiciary in NZ shows some balls on this issue and finds against the Crown Law opinion.
November 6th, 2007 at 6:03 am
Heh…after this thread you should have your 20K in actual donations. Donated.
November 6th, 2007 at 7:37 am
I am very curious as to why there has not been an expose of this issue in any of the Sunday Papers, surely to claim that it is neither newsworthy, in the public interest, or lacking a half decent narrative beggeres belief.
The New Zealand media – what a joke. Here are some alternative stories they could have covered, and their headlines:
EFB = ” ”
Titanic = ‘Deck-chair Production up Under Labour”
The Great Flood: “Noah’s Ark – National Rorts Animal Stats”
Moses and the Mount= “Moses – The Honeymoon is Over”
Custer’s Last Stand =”Labour achieves Parity with Native American Mortality Rates”
The Crucifixion = “Chinese Nail imports boosted under Labour”
etc etc
November 6th, 2007 at 8:04 am
DPF & WhaleOil – did you guys cut a deal with Tane and Robinsod last night – you know “c’mon, wind the apathetic buggers up so they pull out their wallets, and we’ll give you a percentage” – if so, bloody good strategy that! If not, thanks Robinsod and Tane for giving people a reason to support the Free Speech Coalition!!
November 6th, 2007 at 8:12 am
Lee – add:
Jesus walks on water = “Self-proclaimed Jewish leader can’t swim!”
Oh, and don’t forget that other self-perpetuating myth:
You’re better off with Labour
Yep, off to Australia, off to the mortgagee sale, off to the High Court to challenge the government, off to…… (feel free to add to the “off to” list)
November 6th, 2007 at 8:21 am
I just donated US$100. Ohhhh… secretive US backer! Big business interests! No, I’m just a Kiwi who lives in the US and would like to have a New Zealand that’s worthwhile coming back to someday.
It didn’t seem to ask me for my name, but I’m happy to be listed. The email I used is the same one I’m registered here with and it’s just firstname.lastname format (the firstname part is Camryn, this isn’t a pseudonym).
November 6th, 2007 at 8:59 am
KIA – I have written to Ron Mark:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Ron,
You will be well aware of the broad base of opposition against the Electoral Finance Bill and also, the also Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill. Never before in NZ’s political history has there been such a broad base of opposition to a bill with the EFB attracting opposition from diverse groups such as HRC, Law Commission, unions, public lobby groups, societies, NZF supporters, greenies, nats, lawyers, political commentators, family first and the legalise marijuana party.
At their core these bills serve to load the electoral dice in favour of the incumbent government and at the expense of electoral equity. Their impact on the future of NZ is to place the muzzle voice of NZ citizens and relegate them to tri-annual voter lemmings. This is not the kind of democracy that I want for me or my family
Ron, you stand at a critical political crossroads. The path down which your party wants you to walk contains the hope of continued electoral power and the promise that history will never forgive your duplicity in the damage that is about to be inflicted on our democracy. Remember that this democracy is the one that many of our fathers died to protect, for your benefit and mine.
Down the other path awaits the sure knowledge that you have demonstrated a level of personal ethics that is, sadly, increasingly rare and by definition increasingly valuable in the NZ political scene. This path guarantees an enhancement of your personal brand and increases your political capital inside and outside of parliament.
There is a saying that ‘Integrity is who you are when the light is off’. That’s true enough, however in this instance you and your actions are well under the glare of public attention. What will it be: duplicity or integrity?
Forget the party-led spin, bluster and obfuscation. You know that these bills spell disaster for democracy in NZ. Everything hangs in the balance. Ron, what will you do?
Kind regards,
Andy
PS. I have posted this letter to kiwiblog.co.nz
November 6th, 2007 at 9:01 am
um, and then i proof read it above, corrected the errors, and pressed ’send’ on my email
November 6th, 2007 at 9:43 am
“I believe that the High Court is likely to lean more towards supporting the opinions of the Human Rights Commission and the Law Society than a widely-disputed opinion from a hitherto-unknown solicitor in the Crown Law office. ”
Yes possibly but remember the test is not an equal weighing of contrasting opinions but whether the AG’s decision is so wrong as to be irriational or so unreasonable that no reasonable decision maker, in that position, could have made it.
My, initial, view is that there is siginificant room for the HC to find that the review fails however the risk is all on the Government. A finding that the AG’s decision to rely on the advice of Crown Law (is that the crux of the Review DPF?) would be a huge pounding. Dimissing the Review would be not unexpected given the high threshold.
It will be an interesting case.
November 6th, 2007 at 11:24 am
GPT1 – I suppose the review could be based on unreasonableness, but have you any reason to believe they wouldn’t just argue error of law?
November 6th, 2007 at 11:31 am
If the finding goes against the socialists they will just shrug their sholuders and pass the Bill. Look what they did to the Auditor General etc etc. They are the absolute corrupt. The end always justfies the means.
They remind me of the Roman Empire in its last days and hopefully they will meet the same fate.
November 6th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
This whole thing is in the hands of the media.
November 6th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
I love reading Tanes comments. Seriously, just makes my day.