Interesting – and what particularly irks me is the NZ Herald’s predictions:

WHAT WE PICK THE COMMITTEE WILL DO

* Introduce immunity for Government departments’ advertising.
* Set some limits on anonymous and trust donations to parties.
* Stick to a longer regulated period, from January 1 in election year.
* Tighten the definition of election advertising.
* Lift the non-party spending cap to $120,000.

I’ve no idea whether Audrey Young is interviewing her computer, or whether she has some basis for these speculations. But assuming she’s half-way correct, these changes go beyond fixing up identified deficiencies and actually create new measures. This belies the nonsense behind arguments from Phillip John/Roger Nome et al (the Select Commitee will fix up the flaws and we’ll live happily ever after). Frankly, it’s a disgrace that these changes (which go to the very heart of democracy) are being negotiated in secret for reasons of political expedience, without adequate public consultation. What’s even more disgraceful is that the usual partisan hacks feel able to defend this.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10475414

A deal by NZ First, Greens and Labour to allow multimillion dollar ad campaigns advertising Labour policy while the opposition has nothing.

NZ First and the Greens don’t deserve a single vote next election.

Has this contemptable government no shame?

Talk about glitches in the system

That system is why the US has an illegal govt.

The audacity of this legislation amazes me. When did Helen Clark/Labour decide that they can do whatever they like and to hell with democracy? Why doesn’t she just arrange for Labour Party members to count all the votes.

I called Newstalkzb at the end of a stimulating morning listening to people discuss the terror raids.

I asked Leighton if the listeners were aware that next year, NZ’ers will not be allowed to discuss the terror raids under the EFB because it dwells on a government policy. In addition, the protest marchers will not be allowed to peacefully protest etc etc. The world Helen Clark is forming for us is so alien to anything we know that I doubt NZ’ers have any concept of it.

In only seven weeks, the world of freedom we know will be gone. The basic democratic rights of freedom of speech, which our fathers fought to retain, will be taken by a greedy, despicable government who cares not a jot for the effects as long as it allows them to cheat their way back into power.

January 1, 2008, MPs will become first class citizens. Every time we want to publicly comment, write, advertise or even send chain emails, we will need their permission if they have taken a public stand on it. They on the other hand, can ride rough shod over anything we say. Even if we pick on a topic they haven’t got a policy on, they can stop with the threat of prison or fine by simply announcing a policy of any type. Case closed.

To the Rogers, Tanes and others of the world that so freely want to discard our fundamental rights because of their ideological obsession – shame on you.

If you enjoy writing on this blog, sending chain emails, organising peaceful protests or any other entirely legal (at the moment) activity, then enjoy it while it lasts. You could be fined and/or sent to prison after Jan 1.

You are right that the new law changes the restrictions from “advertising” to something much broader “any form of words of graphics”. You are also right that the three month limit now begins on 1 January (so up to 11 months) – and that in the past this three month limit only mattered to political parties and candidates, not everyone else. It also now covers more expressions, beyond things aimed at the election, to basically any political statement.

There is an exemption for ‘blogs in the new law, but it only applies to individuals, and the blogs must be non-commericial. People who are paid to ‘blog (journalists, or the PM’s office staff who ran Keep NZ left during the last election) don’t fall within the exemption and people like DPF, or Russell Brown, who receive money from advertising, probably don’t fall within the exemption etiher.

Looking back, I didn’t express myself very well. What I had in mind was the stark inconsistency between, firstly, the top personal marginal income tax threshold of $60,000, and secondly, the asset/income level at which a person can invest without receiving a prospectus.

To explain this, I have tracked down a parliamentary speech by Stephen Franks which particularly impressed me at the time:

I also want to look very quickly—and I urge the committee to look—at the new exemptions from the prospectus offering requirements. I have already mentioned the exemption for “persons who are wealthy and experienced in investing money” in clause 89(2). That term is further defined in new section 3(9), inserted by clause 89, as people with the experience to be “able to assess—(a) the merits of the offer; and (b) the value of the securities; and (c) the risks involved in accepting the offer; and (d) that person’s own information needs;”.

Why are those exemptions so confined? Why is a Labour Government so anxious to protect people who can well afford to lose money from the consequences of their own folly or imprudence? Why is the Government to impose that securities regime across a whole lot of people who individually have far less than $2 million in net assets, and who have an annual gross income of far less than $200,000, but who ought to be allowed to participate in the kinds of offers that are made outside the Securities Act regime? Why has that threshold been chosen, when for this Government if one earns over $60,000 a year one is wealthy enough to have one’s tax whacked up to 39 percent, and one is wealthy enough to be in the top 5 percent of the population? Does this Government say that the top 5 percent of the earning adults in this country are so stupid that they cannot be trusted to make their own investment decisions and cannot be trusted to opt out of the securities regime, and that the only ones who can do so are those who earn $200,000? That must be such a tiny proportion of the population that I ask what the point of the exemption is.

So to summarise:

(1) You’re super-rich (and taxed as such) at $60,000.
(2) You’re too stupid to invest without (condom) protection until you earn $200,000 or have sufficient net assets ($2,000,000).
(3) Disregard all of the above if you qualify for Working for Families assistance. Check out the applicable income thresholds: http://www.workingforfamilies.govt.nz/tax-credits. The parental tax credit column alone goes up to $196,827 – but “if you have children older than 13 years of age you can earn more and still receive a payment”. Wow, that’s nearly enough for a person to be a sophisticated investor!

That’s why I’m hoping Phillip John/Roger Nome can enlighten me as to how this promotes a “third way” approach on Anthony Gidden principles.

Then if you look at how it has been adopted as a mix and match between ‘socialism and business – basically that equates to totalitarianism dressed up in a pink bow. Or if you will Benthamism dressed up as Owenism.

A lecturer once explained Benthamism to me as this:

“If there are four people in a life boat and there is only enough food and water for three, the fourth one must go over the side.”

Sounds a bit like the thinking behind the recent EFB Appropriations legislation don;t it?

The ‘Third Way’ is a lie – It is the political equivalent to a non-outed bisexual married man with kids. He is conflicted about leaving his wife and kids, in denial about his homosexuality, and yet feels he is morally justified to cruise gay bars as a political statement against his ‘oppression’.

He gets all the benefits with none of the responsibilities, and any responsibilities that might have are sacrificed to the higher need – ‘historical progress’.

To switch back to the real world, it can only end in tears = anti-democratic legislation or wars of aggression against hapless weaklings.

And that’s what happens when it is inexpertly applied!

I’m interested in your comment … for various other purposes, not least in securities market regulation. would you be able to elaborate?

Phillip John/Roger Nome claimed (complete with a Wikipedia reference):

The theorist that best embodies the theoretical underpinnings of the current Labour Party would be Anthony Giddens with his “Third Way” theory.

It would be interesting to see him defend this claim.

I read “third way politics” as expounded by Anthony Giddens quite some time ago. I needn’t have bothered. It struck me then (as now) as a trendy philosophy without a long-term future. As a theory, it supposedly rejects the rougher edges of leftism and rightism – and promotes centrism. Yet under Labour we have seen less “rolling back of the state” and more interventionism. I need go no further than Working for Families as a prime example of Labour’s headlong plunge into socialism, as it moves the level of benefit eligibility further up the income tree (above the super-rich level of $60,000 for various other purposes, not least in securities market regulation).

Phillip John, if you read this, can you please identify three undisputable examples of how Labour has adopted a laissez-faire approach?

“Is this the river?”