Fisking Annette King

November 21st, 2007 at 5:24 am by David Farrar

Annette King did not have a good question time. Have to feel a bit sorry as she inherited this hospital pass from Burton, but not up to her normal standard. If you have time watch her on You Tube, or just read some extracts below:

I suggest everyone read this post on how the definitions of what constitutes an election advertisement have changed from the 1993 to the Electoral Finance Bill 2007. Then let’s look at her answers:

First Heather Roy pinches one of my points:

Heather Roy: How does this bill not breach freedom of speech under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act when, by closing third party registrations before candidate nominations, a group could spend only $1,000 on speaking out about a candidate whose views it opposes, and is this Government not railroading this bill through the House before it can be challenged in the courts for being inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act?

Hon ANNETTE KING: The date by which a third party can register that it wants to be involved in the electoral system—in fact, wants to campaign for a party or candidate—is, in this bill, *writ day. I believe that the date could be changed to the date for closure of nominations.

So that’s one admission of a flawed law. They really need to change it to be say three days after nominations close. Or why have a period at all where you can’t register.

Hon Bill English: Is the Minister aware that the new definition of “publish” in terms of election advertisements now includes any manner of bringing a political view to the public, including comments on Internet forums, press releases that are put out, even if they are not published by the media, and someone going down the street *door-knocking and saying: “Vote National.”?

Hon ANNETTE KING: That question borders on the ridiculous. The law of *common sense applies, as it always has in electoral Acts. The law of common sense applies, and the member knows that. One could argue that under the Electoral Act now a press release could be covered, but it is not covered because trivial matters are not taken into account. The law of common sense applies. A bit of common sense from the National Party would be appreciated.

Here Annette has real problems. The Electoral Act 1993 does not include a press release as an election advertisement, because such things are very narrowly defined. The EFB however defines anything which communicates with the public as publishing an advertisement.

And sadly Annette’s law of common sense will not over-ride the very specific provisions of the Electoral Finance Bill. Myself, and others, asked the Select Committee to have a more narrow interpretation, but instead they made it worse.

Hon Bill English: Is the Minister aware that if someone goes *door-knocking down a street, knocking on doors and saying: “Vote National.”, then under her law that action constitutes the publication of an election advertisement, and therefore such persons constitute a promoters under the law; and if those persons are promoters, then when they knock on a door, they will have to give their name and address to the person they are addressing, present the authorisation by the financial agent for the party for which they are canvassing, and then say: “Good morning.”?

Hon ANNETTE KING: If the person were a National Party campaigner, he or she would probably be told to buzz off. I say to that member—[Interruption] I am answering the last part of the member’s question about saying “Good morning.” The member is wrong. That example does not apply. No one expects someone who knocks on the door to say: “This is an election advertisement.” That example is patently ridiculous, and everyone who has listened to those examples, given to the member by **David Farrier off the National Party blog, says they are ridiculous.

Note to Hansard: Farrar not Farrier :-)

I agree it is ridiculous, but it is also what the Bill now says, because the Select Committee deliberately added in an extra clause to include oral communications. Rather disturbing that the Minister of Justice no less, can’t defend the Bill by quoting clauses from it, but just keeps referring to the law of common sense.

Hon Bill English: Has the Minister bothered to go and read her own law, which states that any expression of a view that encourages any member of the public to vote one way or another, communicated to the public in any manner, constitutes an election advertisement, and the other part of the law, which states that anyone who publishes an election advertisement is a promoter—that is in her law—and that any such advertisement must include his or her name and address, which is why, for instance, placards must now include the name and address of the person who is holding them?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Under the Electoral Act as it stands, one could argue that a placard should have an authorisation on it. But I have to say that nobody I know of has been prosecuted under the current Act because he or she held up a 1c placard that did not have his or her name on it. The law of common sense applies. I suggest to the member that he apply it.

Now once again the Minister is wrong on the facts. She really needs t read the current Act. The current Act does not include a placard as publishing an election advertisement. The EFB does.

Hon Bill English: Well, they are now. Can the Minister tell the public and the House what will happen when a well-meaning member of the public or community group looks up the Electoral Finance Bill and reads the Draconian provisions that mean that any person expressing a point of view in any form at all about whom to vote for is covered by the Act and has to comply with its regulations; and whom does that person approach to find out which rules now no longer apply because of common sense, and which rules will continue to apply because Labour wants to clamp down on public opinion?

Bill gets to the core point on this. The negative impact will not be that suddenly hundreds of people get arrested for unauthorised placards. It will be that it discourages the average citizen from participating in normal political activity, because the Act states they will be in breach of it, unless they comply with the regulations.

 

Tags:

43 Responses to “Fisking Annette King”

  1. Razorlight (43 comments) says:

    Well I have beaten Tane to the first post.

    I think what is been demonstrated is some of the more rediculous consequences of this ill conceived bill. What is happening in question time should really be happening in the back rooms of Parliament between ALL parties so that an appropriate bill that deals with the problems and is accepted by all can actually be presented to the Public.

    Labour are just doing this so badly. A bill which should really not even be news worthy is being splashed over the front pages now because of their complete failure to seek bi partisan support. Even if this bill was a good one, the process is completley wrong. They have got the countries largest paper off side with less than a year to go until the election.

    Really, could Labour be doing this any worst. They are making bad Press where they didnt need to. Whatever restrictions have been placed on National will be duly compensated through the politcal gift they have given John Key. They will be reminded of this break from convention until the day they are booted from office.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Matt (221 comments) says:

    Well if I read your letter from the Auckland lawyer right (about the securities case law), then even bringing up anything political to any one person whom may be considered “a member of the public” would be caught by the law – even your spouse over the dinner table. Never saw you mention anything about that, David.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. natural party of govt (461 comments) says:

    “Hon ANNETTE KING: Under the Electoral Act as it stands, one could argue that a placard should have an authorisation on it. But I have to say that nobody I know of has been prosecuted under the current Act because he or she held up a 1c placard that did not have his or her name on it. The law of common sense applies. I suggest to the member that he apply it.”

    LOL, who exactly fisked who here?

    Does this mean I will have to get a name and address on my “The End is Nigh” Placard.

    Damn.

    On a serious note…….is it possible that some bloggers are going to be driven insane by the EFB?

    Perhaps David Farrer will next feel the need to say his name and address with every conversation he has during an election year on politics?

    Come to think of it, that wouldnt be such a bad thing next time he is interviewed as a “Political Commentator”, he should add this opinion was authorised and paid for by the National Party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    gee..dpf..

    you are very quiet about (suddenly!) ‘losing’ $1.5 mill of anonymous money..?

    you didn’t see that one coming..?..did you..?

    ka-pow..!

    and..dosen’t it matter..?

    have you already worked out another ‘hollow-men ‘solution;..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    [DPF: Phil - I made a submission to the Select Committee that called for all anonymous and trust donations over the reportable level to be banned or have the source made public. So how silly does that make your comment]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. sagenz (29 comments) says:

    The really absolutely brilliant piece of this is in the comments over at hard news. Graeme Edgeler has confirmed that TVNZ will be prohibited from carrying any election advertising.

    which means the first time they publish any picture of dear helen we can bring a private prosecution against her and TVNZ.

    Pure Gold!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    Well the EFB has already claimed Burton’s otherwise rising star, now it is Annette King’s turn to drink from Helen Clark’s poisoned chalice.

    But still, as long as the Labour Party is united, then they can all go down together.

    Because as some would have it “There are no divisions in the Labour Party.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Craig Ranapia (1,912 comments) says:

    Ah, I love Annette’s Law of Common Sense.

    Some of us thought it was common sense that Tin Selwyn wouldn’t be charged – let along convicted and imprisoned – for sedition.

    Some of us thought it was pure common sense that both National and Labour be prosecuted for alleged breeches of electioneering rules.

    More common sense: You can’t constructively dismiss someone because what their partner does for a living makes you feel all paranoid…

    Even more common sense: Don’t keep promoting a sleaze-bag to the upper heights of Police management, because it might just come back to bite you in the arse one day.

    With all due disrespect to the Minister, what passes for common sense in the Beehive nowadays is not sensible at all, and I sure hope it isn’t common.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. milo (538 comments) says:

    Annette King made it clear parliment yesterday (Question No. 6) that she expects an journalist whose column says “Vote National” or “Vote Labour” to be caught by the bill. Except, under the EFB “Vote X” includes any encouragement to vote for a candidate or party, or a type of candidate or party that is associated with particular views.

    On the face of it, this makes this morning’s Dominion Post editorial illegal, unless the Dompost registers as a third party – although I imagine it would hit it’s cap with three editorials in about March 2008.

    This is a serious error by Annette King. It appears to be fairly major assault on the freedom of the press. Or it could be that it means something else … but if so, what does it mean? How are we supposed to interpret this partisan bill? How will it be applied – rammed through in a partisan manner, only too likely to be applied in a partisan manner.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    milo – “On the face of it, this makes this morning’s Dominion Post editorial illegal, unless the Dompost registers as a third party – although I imagine it would hit it’s cap with three editorials in about March 2008.”

    Well clearly there are holes in Electoral Law through which the Press can drive a tractor!

    As I’ve opined (now there’s a word) before, milo, the logical evolution of Labour’s paranoia after the kerfuffle about the EB – is ‘The Press’.

    You only have to visit the VDS ro witness the immediate and concerted drive to ridicule (dare I say, ‘demonise) ‘Granny Herald’ which followed their audacious attempt to editorialise on this legislation.

    Helen and Heather must be already darkly muttering that they’ll have to avoid a repetition of this kind of thing, once they are back in power next time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Kent Parker (449 comments) says:

    That example is patently ridiculous, and everyone who has listened to those examples, given to the member by **David Farrier off the National Party blog, says they are ridiculous.

    I would have to agree with King here.

    We can all be thankful that we don’t have to rely on DPF to interpret laws for us.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. sagenz (29 comments) says:

    Brilliant!!! if only for the incompetence
    Seen over at hard news. TVNZ is about to be banned from running election advertisements

    Posted at 12:28PM on 20 Nov 07. Permalink.

    But we shouldn’t be depending on the whole-of-house committee to fix new and remaining problems over a few days in Parliament.

    Agreed. On this topic, have a look at the new section 55B:

    The following persons and bodies may not publish or cause or permit to be published any election advertisement:
    (a) the chief executive (however described) of a department of State or a Crown entity:
    (b) a department of State:
    (c) a Crown entity:
    (d) a State enterprise (within the meaning of section 2 of the State Owned Enterprises Act 1986) or a Crown owned company:
    (e) any other instrument of the Crown.

    I’m not sure, but would this prevent TVNZ from broadcasting any of the parties’ election advertisements? TV3 might not mind that, but I’m sure it wasn’t intended.

    The way this is going, I don’t think I trust parliament to remove more errors than they’re going to introduce. If they reduced the regulated period to a uniform 90 days, they wouldn’t be in so much of a rush.

    Tim

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. sagenz (29 comments) says:
    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. iiq374 (262 comments) says:

    Kent Parker – perhaps you would care to quote what in the revised Act makes those examples patently ridiculous?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Craig Ranapia (1,912 comments) says:

    We can all be thankful that we don’t have to rely on DPF to interpret laws for us.

    Unfortunately, we do have to rely on Ministers of the Crown who can do a little better than pulling a ‘Law of Common Sense’ out of their arse. I guess it’s totally unreasonable to expect legislators to not only legislate, but bother to read the legislation being advanced under their name?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Craig Ranapia (1,912 comments) says:

    We can all be thankful that we don’t have to rely on DPF to interpret laws for us.

    Unfortunately, we do have to rely on Ministers of the Crown who can do a little better than pulling a ‘Law of Common Sense’ out of their arse. I guess it’s totally unreasonable to expect legislators to not only legislate, but bother to read the legislation being advanced under their name?

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

    Helen’s pledge card had no authorisation on it. Helen claimed responsibility for it, but said it was Labour Party Policy. The Labour Party said it was government policy because Parliamentary Services had paid for the 2 previous pledge cards?

    and

    Annette King says policy is a fact under the new Common Sense Law?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. slightlyrighty (2,448 comments) says:

    I reside in the electorate represented by Annette King. I have referred to the newspaper she publishes in the electorate which is basically a taxpayer funded rag saying “look at me!, Look at labour!, Aren’t we wonderful!, Look what we have done!”

    Now I have studied marketing. If I am to apply these lessons to this publication, it can only be seen as an exercise in brand awareness and brand recognition, designed to make the public feel more kindly disposed to the brand (Labour). It complies with the rules as it does not explicitly ask for a vote.

    However if we are to apply Annette King’s much vaunted “law of common sense” to this publication, how can it not be seen as electioneering?

    This law is an ass.

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

    Kent Parker: “We can all be thankful that we don’t have to rely on DPF to interpret laws for us.’

    The Labour Party must be thankful that they had the police to interpret the Electoral Laws in their enquiry into the Chief Electoral Officers complaint into their advertising campaign

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Pascal (2,015 comments) says:

    Kent Parker: We can all be thankful that we don’t have to rely on DPF to interpret laws for us

    Well, at least DPF read the laws before interpreting them, eh Kent? I’d trust his informed opinion over your “I sucked it out of my arse” opinion.

    It is interesting to see that Anette King and the government cannot actually defend this policy by referring to particular clauses in it. Those who point out holes in the legislation are told: “But we won’t do that“.

    Well. If you won’t, why write a law that says you will! Take it back to the drawing board and get it bloody well right! That’s what you get paid to do.

    They are not paid to write dumb-ass, stupid legislation that is unenforcable and unclear.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    Common sense and Liarbore go together like used tractor oil and water. These people seem to have the unique ability of baffling themselves with their own bullshit, this crab for power will backfire big time. Once it passes then the circus will begin. The lawyers will be working overtime as I bet every clause well be tested in the comming 11 months.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Craig Ranapia (1,912 comments) says:

    This law is an ass.

    The thing is, slightyrighty, is it didn’t have to be. Of course, you’re never going to write a piece of legislation that will be perfectly water-tight until the Second Coming. It’s perfectly legitimate that laws are, over time, ammended or even repealed to reflect changing circumstances.

    But what really gets up my nose – and I don’t think the current Government is the only offender on that score – is when our legislature shove through hastily conceived, poorly drafted legislation and blithely either blame officials, or blithely say ‘pooh, trust us’ – and expect the Police and judiciary to clean up the mess.

    Well, sorry, it’s just not good enough – we have an at least notional separation between the legislature and the judiciary for a bloody good reason. And I’d actually like our legislators to take their responsibilities kinda sorta seriously.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. bwakile (757 comments) says:

    Socialism and commonsense . Now there is an oxymoron.
    If you believe that commonsense will prevail over badly written legislation then you had better hang up your Christmas stocking because Father Christmas is coming.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Inventory2 (9,788 comments) says:

    Justin du Fresne on Newstalk ZB in Welly is all over the EFB today – he has just given a 90-second summation of what constitutes electoral advertising, and let’s just say, it wasn’t an opinion that favoured the government! He is giving today’s march the kind of publicity that could not be purchased after 1/1/2008! 1035AM or listen on http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz – if you want to call him and keep the debate going, 04-472-1035.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. pdm (842 comments) says:

    I asked this the other day without a response.

    I have some clients who have a sticker on their letter box which says –
    `Party Vote National’. It is a left over from the 2005 election (I know it should have been removed by election day).

    What is their position if it stays there.

    They are not political activists just people who like to help out their friends.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. RossK (277 comments) says:

    I find it disturbing that MP’s who are ultimately responsible for the content of our statutes are so cavalier about the lack of precision in drafting and even more disturbing that upon recognising poor drafting they are too lazy to change it but would rather leave it to the Courts to fill in the gaps. I also find Annette King’s talk about the “law of common sense” to be nothing short of drivel. Lawyers will be familiar with the concept that the Courts are careful about extending law into purely personal domestic matters and also with the application of the “des minimis” principle (“des minimis” being an abbreviation of a latin phrase which is regarded as shorthand for the idea that the law does not have regard to trifles). I am not sure however that the des minimis principle is strongly applied, if indeed at all, in the context of constitutional and electoral law where the upholding of constitutional principles is at issue. Most lawyer’s (and probably people who were adults at the time) will recall the case of Fitzgerald v Muldoon in which the Court declared Muldoon’s purported suspension of something (a super scheme?) to be invalid, notwithstanding that Muldoon had made it abundantly clear that he would use parliament to post validate his actions.

    Of course we have seen similar sloppy thinking about the Anti Smacking Bill where Bradford and her ilk insisted that even if touching one’s child was a technical breach of the law (a point they were loath to concede) the police would never prosecute.

    Why can these people not see that badly drafted law cannot be glossed over by relying on everybody to know what the law is supposed to mean and how it is supposed to be applied – even if that is not what the law says.

    Mind you it does create a strong argument for Hansard to be given more weight by the Courts in interpreting what a statute actually means. The Labour Party and its cohorts seem to have adopted Humpty Dumpty’s maxim:

    Humpty Dumpty: When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Kent Parker (449 comments) says:

    iiq374, the following clause of the EFB makes Bill English’s questions patently ridiculous.

    3 Purpose
    The purpose of this Act is to strengthen the law governing
    electoral financing and broadcasting, in order to— 10
    (a) maintain public and political confidence in the administration
    of elections; and
    (b) promote participation by the public in parliamentary
    democracy; and
    (c) prevent the undue influence of wealth on electoral out- 15
    comes; and
    (d) provide greater transparency and accountability on the
    part of candidates, parties, and other persons engaged in
    election activities in order to minimise the perception of
    corruption; and 20
    (e) ensure that the controls on the conduct of áelectoralñ
    áelectionñ campaigns—
    (i) are effective; and
    (ii) are clear; and
    (iii) can be efficiently administered, complied with, 25
    and enforced.

    While it isn’t clear, anyone using their common sense can connect the dots and assume that this provides the framework for the implementation of the act. However, it needs to be made clear for it to be good legislation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. RossK (277 comments) says:

    Interesting Kent,

    So is it your contention that a Court should disregard breaches of the EFB when, in their opinion, the breaches are not serious enough to be contrary to the expressed purpose of the Act. That would be a most unusual rule of statutory interpretation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. David Baigent (172 comments) says:

    Kent, There is a vast difference between “Purpose” and “Method”.

    The purpose is interpretive and the method is prescriptive.

    Read the Bill, then comprehend the Bill then THINK about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Kent Parker (449 comments) says:

    RossK,

    The purpose of the act is explicitly expressed and is a clause that precedes and can be interpreted as framing both 4 and 5, which have been identified as containing the offending legislation. Clause 3 should be considered as part of the interpretation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. iiq374 (262 comments) says:

    Right Kent –
    and given that
    (d) provide greater transparency and accountability on the
    part of candidates, parties, and other persons engaged in
    election activities in order to minimise the perception of
    corruption;

    is an explicit purpose of the act; and clause 4 & 5 explain what transparency, accountability is required by what people in what general acts; how is the example nonsensical given that it is covered by clauses 3,4 & 5?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. dad4justice (7,406 comments) says:

    I have had a good yarn to a certain hairdressing chain of stores and they have all agreed to ban the mad Ms King from all their shops on Health and Saftey issues .

    The poor young hairdresser girls were always fearful of making a mistake everytime the Kingy dragon walked in the door .

    This women is as insane as Clark and Wilson !!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Kent Parker (449 comments) says:

    iiq374,

    Because it doesn’t involve a financial transaction, eg doorknocking, holding a placard at a rally.

    English is just taking advantage of Labour confusion over the Act they are clumsily putting together.

    Look, iiq, resistance to the EFB is understandable. No one likes to be regulated if they can help it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. slightlyrighty (2,448 comments) says:

    Kent.

    3 Purpose
    The purpose of this Act is to strengthen the law governing
    electoral financing and broadcasting, in order to— 10
    (a) maintain public and political confidence in the administration
    of elections;

    The bill fails in this aspect. This bill gives less confidence, not more, by keeping political discourse in the hands of politicians, and is designed to favour one party over another. This bill has not been written for egalitarian reasons. The purpose of this bill is the preservation of power by Labour.

    (b) promote participation by the public in parliamentary
    democracy; and

    Of course, given the onus placed on members of the public to ensure that “free speech” does not break the law, I would think the general public might well be discouraged, not encouraged to participate in parliamentary democracy. This part of the bill must be read in conjunction with the appropration bill which gives encumbant MP’s more rights than a challenger, who would happen to be a member of the public.

    (c) prevent the undue influence of wealth on electoral out
    comes; and

    unless of course you are a government department, running an information campaign, or an electorate MP publishing a newsletter emblazoned with a logo and a parlilamentary crest, which, while not expressly soliciting a vote, and are therefore not considered electioneering by law, can only be considered such when applying King’s “Law of Common Sense”.

    (d) provide greater transparency and accountability on the
    part of candidates, parties, and other persons engaged in
    election activities in order to minimise the perception of
    corruption; and

    Yeah Right. So the theft of $800,000, which was repaid, the subsequent legislation to make what was a crime, legal. The legislation now passed to make such spending legal in the future provided it does not expressly solicit a vote, is not corruption? But the decision of individuals to campaign against the government, having checked that such a campaign will not hurt those they support financially, all within the law, is? This whole bill is as corrupt as it gets in NZ.

    (e) ensure that the controls on the conduct of electoral
    and election campaigns—
    (i) are effective; and
    (ii) are clear; and
    (iii) can be efficiently administered, complied with,
    and enforced.

    Are they effective? time will tell. I don’t think they will acheive their stated goal for the reasons outlined above. I feel that voter backlash will stop the bill from acheiving it’s unstated goal, that is the preservation of power by Labour.

    Are they Clear? We see from Annette King’s statement in the house yesterday that these laws have been rushed, that the extent of the laws as devised are far reaching with a host of unintended consequences and a reliance on “common sense”

    And since when has political discussion in NZ needed rules that need to be “enforced”. How will that enforcement take place? Who will administer these laws and ensure they are complied with?

    This bill must be killed. We must start again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Right of way is Way of Right (1,125 comments) says:

    Slightly, your interpretation and thinking is well thought out and reasoned.

    Now I have yet to see a single left wing blogger come up with reasoning like that, or is it going to be the again continual referral to kiwiblogblog or the Standard.

    Unlike them, Slightly and I like to do our own research and make our own minds up from all the information available. It’s a time honoured process called thinking.

    And it’s just what the Labour Party does not want to happen. Just all follow on like sheep please, Baa Baa Baa!

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

    RossK my submission to the SC said that the Parliament was not the forum to decide the issue as the members are conflicted under any definition of conflict of interest.

    The matter should bedealt with by a panel of up to 3 retiredHigh Court Judges hearing submissions an then outting up to 3 models to a binding citizens referendum.

    That is the only democratic alternative,

    What we have is a sham and a scam of major proportions

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. PhilBest (5,112 comments) says:

    More Common Sense Law: When your political opposition’s computers are hacked into and e-mails stolen, the fine nonpartisan police force won’t bother to interview any of the “receivers” of the stolen information who will have the information that would enable them to start tracking down the criminal and prosecute him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. kehua (225 comments) says:

    David????? It is not spelt F is king you silly fellow.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. NZTed (42 comments) says:

    Who are the 40% of the population that vote for these corrupt, lying, nepotistic, authoritarian, paranoid, and disgraceful democratic demolition experts?

    What does it take for the public to relegate the tyrants in the pulpit to the opposition benches?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “Who are the 40% of the population that vote for these corrupt, lying, nepotistic, authoritarian, paranoid, and disgraceful democratic demolition experts? ”

    The dull the mindless and the ignorant. The half educated freshly indoctrinated students. The dopey fifty year old dole bludging pot heads. The brainwashed feminazis. The indolent parasites who think democracy is all about politicians giving them money earned by other people. The drooling Goebellian propagandists who call themselves journalists. The paranoid and the psychotic, the deluded and deranged dribblers who fear capitalism the way small children fear the bogey man. The profit haters. The level playing field charlatans. The liars cheats and cowards from Kiwiblogblog. The slovenly shiny arsed regulation hooked bureaucrats, the legislation junkies who dream every day of bigger government and greater empires. The cronyists who curry favour with their political mates and have the fucken gall to call themselves business men. The clod hopping ignorant thugs who control unions, and steal their member’s money and give it to their Labour party cronies. The ivory tower academics who delude themselves they know how the world works yet prefer to indoctrinate children with socialist dogma rather than teaching them the skills to make their own decisions on such things. The scum who hand out taxpayer funded government grants to their political favourites in the entertainment industry. The untalented losers who depend upon such grants to keep a shirt on their back. The research groups who can’t get funding from any real enterprise because their chosen field is pretty much useless to society. The dribbling drooling thieving bludging stealing pathologically immoral dross of mankind. They can all be grouped under one banner actually- socialists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. sonic (2,818 comments) says:

    You really are full of bitterness and rage ratbiter.

    Must be horrible hating so many people so much.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Pascal (2,015 comments) says:

    Redbaiter: The ivory tower academics who delude themselves they know how the world works yet prefer to indoctrinate children with socialist dogma rather than teaching them the skills to make their own decisions on such things.

    And yet, reading through your list, it would seem to me that a number of people have made their own decisions. Would you allow them to make a decision you disagree with?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “Must be horrible hating so many people so much.”

    Sonic demonstrates the left’s strange compulsion to equate contempt for the religion of socialism with “hate.” Its why the concept of “hate speech” is so dangerous. These totalitarian creeps will eventually turn everything into ‘hate speech’, even the merest criticism of socialism, and you will be prosecuted for disagreening with them. Don’t doubt it. Its happened everywhere totalitarian leftists have gained the political and social supremacy they obsess over. Funny isn’t it, the way they disparage the Exclusive Brethren? When doctrinal socialists like Klark and Sonic are even more intolerant and controlling than the EBs would ever be.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “Would you allow them to make a decision you disagree with?”

    What the hell kind of strangled thought process led to an incomprehensible question like that? Get a life Pascal, and stop worrying so much about your navel.

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

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.