Electoral Commission on EFB
I’m busy today so am just lightly touching on this issue for now, but will return to it. The Electoral Commission’s advice to the Select Committee is now public, and it is a real shame it was not taken up.
For now just have a look at this story about how the Electoral Commission has said it is “almost impossible” to interpret parts of the new Bill. This is exactly why the Law Society and others have said it should have been scrapped or at the least have another round of public submissions.
As I said I will post later on who makes up the Electoral Commission, their strict neutrality, and their advice. Plus also some surveys they have released on some key issues.
One of the biggest issues for the Commission is what exactly does Clause 80 do, in terms of exempting anything done by an MP in his or her capacity as an MP as an election expense.
Now I would suggest there is a simple litmus test. The 2005 Labour Party pledge card. It was ruled by both electoral agencies to be an election expense in 2005 because it very clearly sought to persuade or encourage votes for Labour. It was as blatant electioneering as one could get without actually using the words “Vote Labour”.
So the question the Minister of Justice should answer for the Electoral Commission, is this: “Is it the intention of the Government that the pledge card would no longer be an election expense under the Electoral Finance Bill 2007″.
The Government must answer this question. Labour complained last time that they did not relaise their pledge card would be an election expense. They attacked senior electoral officials for classifying it as so. So it would be hypocritical not to answer the question, when those officials have specifically asked for the law to be clarified.
My solution is simple. Abolish Clause 80. It should not matter one iota who pays for a publication. If a publication encourages or persuades people to support a party, then it should be an election expense for that party.
November 22nd, 2007 at 7:42 am
Hmm… I was planing some dives for early January. I might test this one out: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10477656
November 22nd, 2007 at 7:42 am
Pity the poor buggers at the Electoral Commission. As overseer of parties, candidates and “third parties”, they have been designated the government’s shitmagnet for next year’s election. If anything untoward happens during the regulated period, it will be THEIR fault, not some inarticulate paranoia of bad law such as the EFB. Call in the UN electoral observers.
November 22nd, 2007 at 8:00 am
When the Govt is asked whether a particular advertisement would be legal under the EFB, it says people should seek legal advice. But the Exclusive Brethren received legal advice form two QCs who told them what they were doing was legal. And the Labour Party attacked them for “rorting” the law! And others do genuinely believe the EB broke the law. The Govt needs to be better than just say “seek legal advice”. It should know what its own legislation means.
November 22nd, 2007 at 8:03 am
<blockquote>My solution is simple. Abolish Clause 80. It should not matter one iota who pays for a publication. If a publication encourages or persuades people to support a party, then it should be an election expense for that party.</blockquote>
But what if it is published by a third party?
[DPF: If it advocates a party vote for a party, it needs to be approved by them and part of their spending cap. This should only apply if it is a traditional ad, not a placard.]
November 22nd, 2007 at 8:03 am
Plus, legal advice takes time and money… many people might shut up rather than seek legal advice before participating. Electoral law needs to be clear enough to allow anyone to participate.
November 22nd, 2007 at 8:10 am
Is this the first step towards an americanised ‘system’ of voting, where, when it suits certain political parties (usuallt that in Government) the ongoing legal arguments that might enuse over how ‘valid’ the votes cast for a hung seat have to go to the Supreme COurt, who then, when the smoke has cleared can ‘decide’ whether votes cast count?
OK, granted in the USA it was FLorida and an electronic counting device (not tomention disenfranchised Black vote – who lost out due to a dirty-tricks campaign of disinformation)
(See opening chapter of ‘Dude, WHere’s my Country by M. Moore)
But picture this: The Government is just under the bar in terms of a majority needed to vote, except two or three seats are contested, because there has been a legal challenge bythe encumbent Labour MP against a Green MP, who has perhaps contravened Electoral Law.
But wait!
After the election a COMPLETELY IMPARTIAL Judiciary declares that the MP’s Spending offences make his (and therfre the votes he received) null.
WHat is the more likely result – that the encumbent be returned to Parliament or?
the seat is re-contested?
I apologise if this makes my shallow knowledge of how the EFB will work,(I, know, everyone else seems to know) but would like to ask for clrification, and about the role the judiciary will be expected to undertake in any questionable result…
Is it :0) or :0( ?
November 22nd, 2007 at 8:11 am
sorry for typos I don;t think I am duxleesic, but might boo
November 22nd, 2007 at 8:14 am
why? i should be permitted to spend my time, money and enthusiasm supporting or opposing any political party and/or their policies. in any case the definition of encourages or persuades ‘ is sufficiently broad so as to allow the rulling party to direct discretion in their favour.
November 22nd, 2007 at 8:15 am
For example, didn’t Winston try to ‘neutralise’ Clarkson last election?
November 22nd, 2007 at 8:16 am
That’s an interesting point Krazykiwi. What is more likely to be electioneering:
Opposing a policy / party
Supporting a policy / party
November 22nd, 2007 at 8:21 am
No doubt the government will take the Electoral Commission’s view seriously. As we speak, there is probably a strategy meeting on the 9th Floor, to be followed by a media conference where Annette King (not the PM) will announce that the government is seeking further legal opinion, and will abide by the High Court decision on the BORA legality of the EFB. At that moment, the skies in Wellington will be filled with a herd of pigs flying in formation.
November 22nd, 2007 at 8:23 am
pascal, electioneering will be supporting the opposition or opposing the government. everything else will be quietly ignored. cuba anyone?
November 22nd, 2007 at 8:24 am
DPF – “abolish clause 80″.
Ummm … clause 80 is an interpretation section. Sure you don’t mean amend? And you’ll need to fix clause 81 while you’re at it.
Zippy – the Electoral Commission isn’t responsible for candidates – that’s the Chief Electoral Officer. I also believe we do have election observers (I think pretty much everyone does).
November 22nd, 2007 at 8:30 am
So, Graeme, My concern is that the lack of apparent clarity of the EFB, and the recent appeal for ‘common sense’ interpretation of the law is about to turn the Electoral Commission into a political football and ths can only benefit a Party in Government?
We have seen ‘straws in the wind’ of this kind of attitude, when on another blog, it was almost suggested that the Electoral COmmission colluded with National to ‘turn a blind eye’ t the misdemenours of the EB.
November 22nd, 2007 at 8:33 am
Is it ‘paranoia’ or healthy democratic instinct to suspect that the EFB may create preconditions for an election win which sets judicial opinion above the will of the voters?
November 22nd, 2007 at 8:40 am
Stephen Franks has posted this piece on his blog today:
http://www.stephenfranks.co.nz/?p=212
November 22nd, 2007 at 8:50 am
You will all remember that great Australian movie ‘The Castle’.
Annette King is reminding me of the main character in that film. When asked by the Judge what law he is basing his argument on he repies “the law of bloody common sence”
Our Minister is relying on the same legal argument as this tragic character.
If it wasn’t so serious it would be as funny as the movie.
November 22nd, 2007 at 8:53 am
Could our friends from the left answer a simple question:
“What would be the WORST thing you think could happen if the 2008 election is run under our existing electoral law?”
We need to then consider that to see how bad it is compared with having an election campaign riddled with politically-motivated litigation amongst the various parties, with the courts having no precedents to draw on.
If you can come up with a worse risk then that under the current law, then perhaps the bill should be passed. Otherwise, it should obviously be withdrawn.
November 22nd, 2007 at 8:56 am
george, the WORST thing is that the public might have their democratic say and vote Labour out. There is nothing sacred in defence of that potential outcome.
November 22nd, 2007 at 8:56 am
george –
“What would be the WORST thing you think could happen if the 2008 election is run under our existing electoral law?”
I thought I’d suggested that – an MP’s vote is not counted after a court decision finds the challenge in breach of the eFB?
No one has rebuffed that idea yet. So, there it is.
November 22nd, 2007 at 8:57 am
George That idea has far too much common sense. Please move on.
November 22nd, 2007 at 9:02 am
Good morning bwakile
good to see you back, you twisted man, you. I’m keeping a blog summary of the day called ‘Monkey with Typewriter’, by the way if you want to add to it:
http://troubleingodzone.blogspot.com/
November 22nd, 2007 at 9:07 am
Lee C – you may have missed the point. the question is what is the worst thing that could happen if the EFB is NOT passed and we run the election under the existing law. I really would genuinely be interested in what the left is so worried about. a repeat of the EB campaign? or something worse? until we know exactly what problem they are trying to avoid, it is difficult to know whether it is possible to just scrap the bill and do nothing.
November 22nd, 2007 at 9:09 am
Thanks Lee, not sure about the twisted bit though.
I’m no expert but I think that yuo are probably right.
If some sitting Labour MP goes down in in a close one next year we can expect all sorts of legal challenges. Kind of makes me wish I had studied law instead of engineering
November 22nd, 2007 at 9:11 am
krazykiwi, I had to laugh at that. I fear that is the way the law will be applied as well. I’ve seen enough “Not in the public interest” cases to suspect that the Labour led government will see to that happening.
But I’m actually serious. The Exclusive Brethren, like the Unions, took a stance against a political party during the last election. The Exclusive Brethren has been demonised and marginalised by the EFB, while the Unions have had their rights to political advocacy enshrined in law.
Now we can all agree that the majority of a political party’s work will be to promote their own policies in an attempt to garner votes, mixed with a bit of pointing out the flaws in the other parties’ policies.
But, it would seem to me that if, as a third party, I were to put out a pamphlet critical of the Labour party’s policies that would not be electioneering. Because I am not soliciting votes for another party specifically – I’m trying to stop people voting for foolish policy. That is a benefit to all the political parties EXCEPT Labour. (If I’m correct
)
However, if I put out a pamphlet telling the world how good and great Labour is and how wonderful the pledges they make are then that is clearly electioneering and should be counted as such.
The two actually seems different to me. What do you think?
November 22nd, 2007 at 9:13 am
George: “What would be the WORST thing you think could happen if the 2008 election is run under our existing electoral law?”
I’m not from the left, but I can answer that one.
The WORST thing: Somebody other than Labour will have the right to form a government.
It seems as if they believe they are the only people with a right to govern in New Zealand (Through divine mandate or whatever). This whole bill’s one purpose is to shut down anyone who could or can challenge the Labour party and their cronies.
November 22nd, 2007 at 9:14 am
Because, if Labour had wanted to actually create a fair and transparent system for our election process they would not have written this legislation as they have. It would not have the flaws and it would truely be fair.
They would not be rushing it through. They would be allowing for public consultation.
The fact that they’re trying to push it through without taking due process suggests to me that they are actually only doing this for their own benefit.
November 22nd, 2007 at 9:18 am
Pascal
The whole bloody country is out there working their butts off for the benefit of the labour government . They have made the right to govern more important than our precious country.
November 22nd, 2007 at 9:19 am
Sorry that should have been “the privilage to govern”
November 22nd, 2007 at 9:21 am
thank you george.
I see now. There are differering opinions about the existing law as I understand. I read someone the other day saying the present EFB is the culmination of a debate which started with MMP and that it was only a matter of time before this came about. However they were working on the premise that EFB is a wonderful piece of legislation.
I think the existing law marginalises the ability of small people to have their say unless they join a larger collective. By this I mean the price of advertising is so great it precludes a meaningful debate from the grassroots when you consider the House sits for a mere three years.
You might argue that National are served by ‘big business’ and Labour by ‘the unions’ so it equals out. But it still leaves the little man (and woman) out there.
However, we have the freedom to speak out, can canvass, attend meetings, protest etc, so really our democratic rights are pretty good.
It has to be remembered that the Exclusive Brethren may have colluded with National to get around spending limits. But also Labour took $800,000 for themselves. Both were contrary to the advice of the Electoral Commission.
So to summarise. The worst thing that can happen under present las is that people or political parties take it upon themselves to break the law and get away with it.
You could argue that has already happened. However, the present Bills (EFB and Appropriations), far from defending the voter against such rorting, have actually enshrined them as a principle of Law.
bwakile – I hear ya, I was advising those with kids to encourage them to take Law the other day – it will be a boom time for the Legal profession!
November 22nd, 2007 at 9:24 am
Very good letter to the editor in today’s DomPost, from “A van der Voort, from Papakowhai” taking Annette King, and by extension Labour, to task over saying (paraphrased) “the EFB will protect us from the Brethren”.
A van der Voort’s point is that try repeating that sentence with the word “Jew” in place of “Brethren”. Yep, that’s our political party of tolerance and inclusiveness.
I’d also ask, just who does Annette King think is being protected by this bill??? I’m not sure I need protecting from the Brethren at all, I’m pretty sure I can read their pamphlet critically and think “good point” or “tripe” as appropriate.
So … what we’re saying is that our Government wants to discriminate against a group because of their beliefs, in order to deny them their democratic rights. Replace “beliefs” with “race” and you’re back to 1970′s South Africa. Or you’re in modern day Zimbabwe.
Go Helen go … I’m sure that’s the sort of ethics your family raised you to hold.
November 22nd, 2007 at 9:36 am
virtual –
Oh, you should have said!
If the EFB protects us from ‘the Jew’ I’m all for it!
S**t, to think I opposed it. What was I thinking?
Now if we can just get to work on those perverts who practice ‘feng sui’…
Bring it on.
Aotearoa Uber Alles!
sorry.
November 22nd, 2007 at 9:37 am
But David you forget “the law of common-sense” – it’s not up to Parliament to draft laws that make sense the enforcement agencies and Courts will make it work…
That line is pathetic. We are constantly fed tripe about “discretion” as if it is ok for Parliament to pass laws lacking in precision. It is lazy drafting and political incompetence undermining the principles of parliamentary sovereignty. Indeed it is a ceding of sovereignty that is only paralleled by the assaults on parliamentary sovereignty by the Cooke P Court.
November 22nd, 2007 at 9:42 am
“The WORST thing: Somebody other than Labour will have the right to form a government.”
Funnily enough, communism isn’t an issue anymore.
winston Peters can go to Nth Korea and then head straight to Condeleeza
Rice’s door and get a warm reception.
NZ can host Chinese warships and gey no official complaint from Washington. Indeed, if Washington wasn’t so critical, They’d open their doors to Cuba now instead of waiting for Fidel to die.
NO, the true agenda modern agenda of the white House in the internet age is ageism. Have you noticed how many American programes advice, especially men , to date people their own age. It’s gone beyond simple common sense. Their is a real thrust by the US to separate people according to age. To make a long story short this is a ploy to diminish communication between youth and adults. The information age is about
mis informing and misleading youth about right and wrong. A valuable lesson they learn from adults. The moral guise they mask this agenda with is pedophilia.
At the moment there are only three groups of adults tolerated with youngsters. The law, teachers (with males very suspect) and parents (being slowly taken out of the picture).
This Labour govt is showing their true communist colours in all these ways interfering in the sanctity of family and marriage and the projections of the future can easily see gay parents more more socially favoured than a mother and father.
It is also curious that gay couples can weather economic conditions better than heterosexuals. Gay’s are always represented in the media as affluent and tolerant and nurturing of children, whereas heterosexual couples are portrayed as clumsy with dire communication problems with their children (super nanny)
So vote for Labour and be labeled as perverse child abusers that need the iron fist of communism to stifle your innate pedophile and child hating natures.
Hint: Choose your mother in laws carefully, they’ll be the first to dob you in for teaching and correcting your children.
November 22nd, 2007 at 9:45 am
hinamanu – that was way out there brother, but I would love to see you print that in ‘The Very Double Standard’ go on – I dare Ya!
Man, they would get the runs.
November 22nd, 2007 at 9:52 am
Are you a parent Lee,,
BTW,,
The first child spanking arrest has occured… many to follow.
Watch US programmes a tad more carefully.
I would agree with you the paragraph of the 3 sets of adults sounds bizarre, but not when you actuallt think about their roles in society.
Remember, there was so much in the past that was deemed impossible.
eg, common market. laughable by todays standards.
Catch up with the times Lee, you’ll be enlightened… or devastated.
November 22nd, 2007 at 10:09 am
virtualmark – that is a VERY interesting comment, when you consider Labour’s so-called culture of “inclusiveness”
“the EFB will protect us from the Brethren”
The letter from the Dom-Post you quoted substituted “Jew”
Let’s look at other possibilities:
Muslim
Christian
Homosexual
Heterosexual
Trade Union
Big Business
Family
AVERAGE “COMMON-SENSE” MAN/WOMAN IN THE STREET
The last one is in capitals deliberately, as to me it underlines the insidious nature of the EFB. It a measure as draconian as this can be enacted to silence a church numbering at most a few thousand (as punishment for the actions of seven individual members), does it not create a precedent for the state to legislate against ANY group who dares dissent?
November 22nd, 2007 at 10:10 am
Whoops – last sentence should start “If a measure….”
November 22nd, 2007 at 10:10 am
Interesting, hinamanu. I do not agree with the entire premise, but I’ve had a colleague who moved here from Belarus say the same thing. He was looking at New Zealand through the eyes of somebody who escaped communism and he is seeing a lot of parallels in what the Labour party is doing to what happened in the former Soviet block.
By breaking ties, such as family, community and so forth one can re-establish those bonds to the state, thus creating a complete dependancy of people on their government. Because, of course, government knows best.
That seems a little bit too “reds under the bed” for me though. Whilst I can see that some of that is happening, for it to be a deliberate scheme suggests a level of conniving and underhanded playing that I simply cannot countenance the Labour led government with.
November 22nd, 2007 at 10:15 am
Inventory2 … to be fair, I’m picking up the letter writers assertion that Annette King actually said “this Bill will protect us from the Brethren”.
I can’t point to where she said that, so she could have been misquoted. I suspect it might have been something she said at Question Time in the House the other day, but I’m not a Hansard bunny so I’m not sure where to search for that.
Anyone out there able to confirm what Annette King actually said?
November 22nd, 2007 at 10:27 am
“It a measure as draconian as this can be enacted to silence a church numbering at most a few thousand”
Exactly.
The EB’s can be thanked for the EFB.
Ironically (or not) the EB’s would probably like to be acknowledged as the patrons of the bill. This ananlogy could lead to some very paranoid thinking. Were, in fact, Labour and National colluding with the Eb’s to introduce the bill.
I will be the first to admit to the lefties this is very irresponsible and a horribly mud slinging accusation that (so far) has no basis in reality.
But I just can’t get the picture of Key and Clark shaking hands over the anti child smacking bill. and he did that supposedly without his parties knowledge. Very disconcerting.
Let’s face it, John Key did not take that initiative alone. If anyone believes that, they’re not old enough to leave school let alone vote.
I completely distrust Key saying he will scuttle the EFB. Goes against human nature to disgard an advantage. And human natures no. 1 rule is self preservation.
Unfortunately, National is the only real alternative and reality to be seen in treasury benches, but Labour need not only losing next year but thoroughly ass whipped from the electorate.
Helen Clark needs to be legally assaulted b4 she legally asssaults us !!!
November 22nd, 2007 at 10:28 am
Clause 80 is the de facto public funding of election campaigns clause. The Government isn’t going to amend it.
November 22nd, 2007 at 10:29 am
Accept your point virtual – but right from the start, Labour has made it clear that this is an attempt to silence the EB and “stop John Key and the EB from rorting an election”. Some of the attacks on the EB from the government have been downright gutless (“chinless scarf wearers” is the oft most quoted), and by and large, the MSM has not challenged the government on this. Another commenatator made the point by way of substitution a while ago – take out “chinless scarf wearers” and insert “towelheads” – would Labour refer to NZ’s growing Islamic community in such a way? Take out “chinless scarf wearers” and insert “carpet-munchers” – would Labour refer to its highly visible Rainbow wing in such a way? This remember is a party which prides itself on its openness and inclusiveness – however, it will stand judged for its hypocricy and corruption.
November 22nd, 2007 at 10:35 am
“That seems a little bit too “reds under the bed” for me though. Whilst I can see that some of that is happening, for it to be a deliberate scheme suggests a level of conniving and underhanded playing that I simply cannot countenance the Labour led government with.”
Pascall,,
I understand your concerns. this all just sounds to terrible to contemplate.
That you heard the same things from overseas confirms but doesn’t help.
I may even be too far ahead of the times but obviouly not grossly inaccurate.
NZ’s saving grace is that the people are more sophisticated than the politicians prefer.
November 22nd, 2007 at 10:38 am
“This remember is a party which prides itself on its openness and inclusiveness ”
Only if you agree with them otherwise you are the enemy ,to be demonised at any cost. The EB’s are just the start , it will probably be those Baptists next.
What National have to remember is that 1 in 4 NZers were born overseas so they need to be open and inclusive as well but in a genuine way.
NZ culture has irreversibly changed now. Multi culturalism has won.
November 22nd, 2007 at 10:53 am
You’re right bwakile – those Baptists have a lot to answer for!
November 22nd, 2007 at 11:04 am
“You’re right bwakile – those Baptists have a lot to answer for!”
How errily forward thinking you people are.
I had no idea you understood projections so well.
The rise of mosques will mean the desecration of Christian churches.
Hypocrtitical Helen said this was a secular nation but the Muslims and the false god they flee to come here and enjoy successful Christian conditions want us to believe in a religion that drove them away from their own countries.
And we are called haters if we recognise and speak out against this apalling analogy.
The truth is HELEN HATES US!!
November 22nd, 2007 at 11:12 am
Point well made hinamanu – and of course, we are not allowed to say anything about the rise of Islam, as that would be characterised as “hate speech” – while on the other hand, Christians, and our Christian traditions and values are fair game. Doubtless, when hate speech laws are enacted, as they inevitably will be by a left-wing government (let’s be realistic; if we vote Labour out in 2008,we’re only postponing the inevitable), hate speech AGAINST Christians will be specifically exempted, whereas hate speech BY Christians will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law as it is “in the public interest” to do so!
November 22nd, 2007 at 11:49 am
Hinamanu
Being a Baptist myself what i was saying was a bit tounge in cheek but actually I agree 100% with you. Under socialism Christian values must be destroyed.
The problem is the dumb commies havent worked out how to control Islam and as we know they cant be contolled so we are going to end up with one hellava ****fight eventually. Probably not our generation but the next.
Which is interesting as my generation is the only one in our known family history who havent had to go to war in some form. History may show that 50 odd years of peace are enough to make a generation lazy and forget the lessons of the past.
November 22nd, 2007 at 12:23 pm
I see none of the usual suspects (sonic, roger nome etc) have been prepared to answer the simple question:
“What would be the WORST thing you think could happen if the 2008 election is run under our existing electoral law?”
Is this because they know they would be no negative effects, in a public policy sense, of doing nothing – because there is no “problem” to solve. Other than wanting to silence Labour’s critics.
[DPF: Indeed most of the problems from 2005 would be fine for the 2008 election because the media and parties will be alert. If say the EB did try to run a big campaign again, the media would make sure everyone knew it was from the EB, and like last time it would be counter-productive. As for the anon/trust donations - that could be handled easily be getting all parties to make a public pledge they will refuse any anon/trust donations in excess of $240,000. It's not ideal - there are many good changes one can make to the current Act - that doesn't mean these changes are better than no change]
November 22nd, 2007 at 12:37 pm
So, just to clarify:
The Exclusive Bretheren, in choosing to spend thier own money, with the knowledge of the National Party, but without using any of the National Party funds, finances, organisation and so on (As the Exclusive Bretheren are apolotical and cannot actually “belong” to a political party), did so, and did so legally! This was a legal expense of $1,000,000.00.
The Labour Party spend $800,000 of OUR money illegally on a pledge card.
Can anyone clarify for me how they have tried to take the moral high ground on this issue with a straight face.
They have attacked a religious group (Chinless scarf wearers)
The have attempted to silence differeing points of view (EFB)
They have criticised National Party Anonymous donations while ammassing a ‘war chest” surplus calculated in the Billions, of OUR MONEY!!!
How can anyone take them seriously any more?
November 22nd, 2007 at 12:47 pm
“That seems a little bit too “reds under the bed” for me though. Whilst I can see that some of that is happening, for it to be a deliberate scheme suggests a level of conniving and underhanded playing that I simply cannot countenance the Labour led government with.”
For fuck’s sake. Wake up. Its no damn secret. There’s nothing underhand, apart perhaps from the device of lying by omission. The global socialist charter is available to be read in a hundred different places. The goals are clearly set out. The plan to (worldwide) incrementally change society until it aligns with socialist political doctrine is clearly stated. What is it with you persistent deniers?? Why the desperation to deny or play down the obvious- with such cliché driven tired old socialist propaganda as “reds under the bed”? You’ve got me bluffed. Is it naivety or deliberate self delusion?
November 22nd, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Right of way is Way of Right – the EB spent nothing like $1m. Around about $100,000 is most professionals’ assessment of the cost of their campaign.