Government to ram Electoral Finance Bill through
NBR Reports:
The government will ram through its draconian Electoral Finance Bill through Parliament by the end of next week – two months earlier than the Crown Law Office told the Wellington High Court.
That will mean that from January 1 all political groups and third parties in next year’s elections will be subject to restrictions in the bill, which the Human Rights Commission called “a dramatic assault on … cherished rights to freedom of expression and the right to participate in democratic elections.”
It also means that the bill will most likely be law before the High Court has had a chance to decide whether it will determine if the law breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
Crown Law officials told the High Court in Wellington on Monday that Parliament would not be considering the bill until January 25 next year. On that basis, the court said it would consider whether it can review the Crown law opinion in the last week of November.
Although the chairwoman of the Justice and Electoral Select Committee, Labour MP Lynne Pillay, refused to confirm the bill’s timetable on Tuesday, the NBR understands the committee members’ reports have been drafted.
November 8th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Rioting in the streets.
November 8th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
It was to be expected really. Self serving ower at any price Labour tactics.
Still once the public realise next year what it’s realy all about this might just be the final nail in Labour’s coffin… either that or there will be massive queues at the airport.
So DPF – What will you be doing next year once you are banned from posting anything political on this blog ?
November 8th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Parliament is sitting for 17.5 hours next week, and Wednesday is not a members’ day. It won’t necessarily be rammed through.
November 8th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Passing important constitutional law under urgency I hope will come to haunt this Labour Government. They will want to avoid a long drawn out debate at all costs fearing such a debate will only further expose the bad aspects of this legislation. It is indeed novel to do this this way and sets a very very bad precedent. I am simply not confident of the thicko’s who are fronting this debate. The National Party is ominously silent. On another note the Solcitior Geneeral has made some very serious criticism of the Terrorism Suppression Act saying that it is unworkable,. This needs urgent attention presumably by the Law Commission. If neceesary further draftees need to be seconded on this urgent task forthwith perhaps even the SG himself.
November 8th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Any minor party that supports this will be signing it’s own death warrant. Honestly, I’m starting to wonder it Tame Iti and his ilk were not actually on to something! However, I await with interest the first successful prosecution for anyone indulging in freedom of speech! Cost’s nothing to stand on a soapbox doesn’t it!
November 8th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Okay, I’m open to the possibility that the Government will move not only an urgency motion, but also a motion suspending Standing Order 292, but I do wonder whether the NBR has confused the ramming next week with the Appropriations (Continuation) Bill.
That bill seems a prime candidate for government desire for quick legislative action, and I would not be surprised to see the Government push that through next week.
November 8th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
I suspect they will not use urgency. By reporting back two months early they can pass it without needing urgency.
However this still means that the public will not be able to have a formal say on the amended Bill which will be very significantly different. For example it sounds like they have put in a ban on anon donations (which is good). But the disclosure threshold they have set it at is very important and the public have missed out on getting to debate at what level are anonymous donations up to, okay?
November 8th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
DPF
Just remember that it’s all reasonably academic anyway. The Labour party said after the 2005 debacle that their additional spending made no difference to the outcome of the election. So just why is there any reason to limit spending at all ?
They must have other reasons as by their own assertion – the amount of money spent advertising etc makes no difference. roger nome think it can make a difference of up to 10%, clearly he’s not a smart as the Labour party who know that only spending by National is bad.
November 8th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
this Bill is as crooked as the PMs teeth.Having to register your free speech in advance is outrageous
November 8th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Can anyone tell me whether National intend (or even if they are able to) repeal this law (if it is passed) if they get into office – that would certainly be a clear point of difference (unlike most other policy areas), and would definitely determine my vote…
[DPF: National has pledged to repeal the bill, if passed]
November 8th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
The appropriation bill was up today after question time.
The EFB apparantly has been changed significantly by the SC in discussion with the Human Rights Commission.
Interestingly followed by the Terrorism Suppression Bill – wonder if today’s events will make them think twice on that one.
November 8th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Why would National repeal this law if passed?
When they make it into the government benches next year then Labour would have a very hard time shifting them out again. Sure they’d complain but National would be able to say “well its your law that you passed”.
November 8th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Well “The Dirty Tricks Labour -led Government’ is entrenching it’s name and cementing its position, in Commonwealth history as its most corrupt Nation.
November 8th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
My fear is as long as this remains a ‘beltway issue’ Labour will get away it.
November 8th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
How incredibly sad.
Count me in on any organised response to this.
November 8th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Rioting in the streets? Where’s your rally mate? How many troops you got? You plan to overturn some fuckin’ cars? ‘Cos judging by the list on the KtB site you’re relying on Roger Kerr, Don Brash and Michael Friedlander, and that don’t seem to be their style. The workers ain’t gonna be seizing any factories over this one mate.
November 8th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
lesterpk – i would hope they repeal it because it’s the right thing to do. i’m sick of self-serving governments! labour have as much spine of a costal jellyfish
November 8th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Then Lindsay – it is your, mine and every other opponent of the government’s respoenibility to ensure that this issue goes beyond the beltway. John Boscawen has made a great start – how can we best do this? Suggestions anyone?
November 8th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Tane, the workers are too busy working. Your union buddies, however, probably have plenty of time for rioting.
November 8th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
“It also means that the bill will most likely be law before the High Court has had a chance to decide whether it will determine if the law breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.”
This is a show time folk – over the witch must go! How dare she challenge the courts jurisdiction and integrity of the High Court and the total judicial system?
Helen Clark is clearly insane. We must rebel against her tyranny and oppression , as our human rights should be protected by law ?
The Labour twisted corrupt politicians have broken a long-standing international pledge (1948). How dare you – Helen Clark ever speak of cooperation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Also, wipe your arse on the Bill of Rights and throw it at Auntie Helen because now it becomes obsolete as Clark has contempt for all decency and fairness. She is well above any jurisdiction of law in New Zealand! What a farcical Prime Minister.
November 8th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Incredible. While I am not surprised, I am still surprised that the Government is so shameless. It just goes to show, once you have hold of the reins of power in NZ, no one can stop you. The public can’t, there’s no upper house or president to veto something as bad law. There’s nothing. All the public can do is hope that if the opposition gets in that they will repeal the law.
November 8th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
must proof read.
while tane and the other leftie trolls gloat about his one can only wonder what they really think (off web so-to-speak). never before has a bill seen such a diverse set of opponents. the truth is our democracy is already critically wounded… as evidenced by the fact that such a bill has been even proposed and pushed through despite the opposition.
labour are cowardly and corrupt. it’s a huge pity that more of their loyal supporters don’t realise that their party is massively abusing voter trust.
i’m going to print (and deliver) 1000 windscreen flyers this weekend. when it’s illegal i’ll print 10,000 and then turn myself in.
November 8th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
i’m going to print (and deliver) 1000 windscreen flyers this weekend. when it’s illegal i’ll print 10,000 and then turn myself in.
Hang on, weren’t your lot complaining about Hone Harawira’s comments about breaking the law?
November 8th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
“The public can’t, there’s no upper house or president to veto something as bad law.”
It all makes sense now Lucyna, why the Attorney General at the time ( Mag Wilson ) was so persistent that she rushed legislation and New Zealand cut all ties with the Privy Council , even though this was against all legal advise !
Look , stuff this , many of these Labour MP’s should be in a prison cell . How much more are you going to take kiwi’s ?
November 8th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
tane, i’ll take responsibility for my own actions. i regard pointing out the corruption of our elected leaders as a mandatory part of responsible citizenship. shame on you for being too blind to think similarly.
November 8th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
hey, who drafted (and posted to kiwiblog) the really good letter to the governor general pleading for him to refrain from signing the retrospective validation bill? I’d like to resurrect it for this latest piece of Labour-inspired corruption.
November 8th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Blair Mulholland?
November 8th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Hello…hello… John Key…are you there ??? Time to stand up young man and show this country you have some gonads !!
November 8th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
Yeah John Key . Would a REAL leader please stand up , please stand up …
November 8th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
DPF…you have the inside running…where is the outrage and the leadership (aside from John’s address in August)…why is it left to the likes of you, whale oil, Not PC and No minister to galvanize opposition?
November 8th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Judicial review of the Crown Law scrutiny opinion may be doomed. Parliamentary privilege and all that. However, the test of the legislation by the courts will be in its implementation.
The Kill the Bill lobby may be better directed towards openly flouting what will become the EF Act, and when the inevitable charges follow, seeking review of the decision to lay charges. This will bring out into the public arena, in election year, the glaring inconsistencies with the Bill of Rights Act.
Volunteers anyone?
November 8th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
me me me me me
November 8th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Well, I guess this just mean we’ll have to step up the activity a bit.
Priapus – count me in.
no-to-efa@hotmail.com for any mail
I suppose it means that anyone who does engage in political expression is in danger of being criminalised.
Unless they are in a union. For now.
November 8th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
PS. John Key = Donkey.
Am I right? The National party just lost my vote.
To think I actually took them seriously.
I will vote Maori Party. At least they have the balls to stand up and be counted.
November 8th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
It is sad that everybody thinks National is another sick joke not to be trusted .
November 8th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
Hey there was a ‘Unemployed Workers Union’ at one point.
How about a ‘Bloggers Union’ ?!?
“Freedom from the EFA is just one membership away” …. Oh joy oh bliss.
Or we could just establish a political party.
November 8th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Regrettably, BORA is not superior legislation. It has however, been around for 17 years and has successfully relieved many people of drink-driving and assorted thuggery charges. It could be argued that BORA has become judicially entrenched by usage, acceptance and custom.
Alas, that will not be enough. The volunteers will need to realise that while a sympathetic court may express disapproval of the EFA, it cannot strike it down. The charges will stand and the value will lie in any publicity that may be generated and reported. Lord Cooke is dead.
November 8th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
wonder what Gerry Brownly would have to say about this?
The link to a radio NZ contained within he story is rather instructive
http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=622
November 8th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
should have been ….
Wonder what Gerry Brownly would have to say about this?
The link to a radio NZ interview contained within the story is rather instructive
http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=622
November 8th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
This issue has had enough piss and wind surround it. What about real action to complement what John Boscowan has already started?
Civil disobedience is one option.
I suggest every election meeting next year is attended by “protesters” holding blank placards.
Enough piss and wind already, lets have ideas.
November 8th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
“This issue has had enough piss and wind surround it. What about real action to complement what John Boscowan has already started?”
The EF Act is going to be completely different to the EF Bill, so you can go ahead and demonstrate against something that doesn’t exist i suppose.
November 8th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
“It is sad that everybody thinks National is another sick joke not to be trusted.”
Yes dad, except a joke at least raises a smile. And the same goes for Labour.
If you really want a sick joke – imagine the celebrations going on at the ‘Very Double Standard’.
Anyway I guess we will just have to wait and see what our political masters in their infinite generosity have decided we deserve after the SC process.
I really cannot begin to express how let down I feel by the ‘patient’ National Party.
Do you imagine that they have something up their sleeves? Am I being stupid to imagine they might, or are they sell-outs just like the Labour Party is?
I notice they have reverted to the old formation vis media and publicity:
“Chris Simpson has suddenly gone as manager of the National Party, and Steven Joyce and Jo de Joux are back. According to The Hollow Men they are the team who ran the hidden campaigns with the Exclusive Brethren and the racing industry in the 2005 election.
This is a strategic shift – it has McCully’s fingerprints all over it. Last year their talk was all about the return to the National Party of Holyoake and Bolger. Now that party’s been rolled, that talk is over, and the Hollow Men faction are back.” (from the very double standard)
Are they gonna kick some serious butt (for a month or so until January)?
November 8th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Tane you blogged on a site last night and said you are a Maori. Please fuck off to Perth and start dissing the Aborigines. It’s very likely we won’t hear from you again.
November 8th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
November 8th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
so roger, you support massive changes to electoral processes without transparency?
let’s be clear- the EFB was drafted in vacuum, far far away from any public consultation. if the SC process changes it significantly then surely it’s open for another round of public consultation? after all, it’s only the most important piece of constitutional legislation in the last, oh, 40 years.
instead the government is going to use is executive sledgehammer to crash it into law. why? what are they hiding? Why are they rushing? Why are they ignoring the HRC? why are they loading the electoral dice in their favour?
so many questions, so little democratic input… and so many ideologically blind socialists banging the drum with their brains in neutral. tragic. truly tragic.
November 8th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
Helen Clark has been accused of Muldoonism.
Now we see that is unfair. Rather, Robert Muldoon will, historically, be seen as the precursor to Clarkism.
Who needs a constitution, just trust Helen Clark, she’ll see you right – or at least most of you.
November 8th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
“gonna kick some serious butt”
That Lee C, that is the million dollar question , however with the present crop of opposition MP’ s I doubt they could bring about any significant change ?
Labour is the most corrupt political party in this Nations history and the opposition are ineffective and selectively silent .
November 8th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
The way things are going, they are going to need the Suppression of Terrorism Act, because it will soon become considered a legitimate form of expression, given that others are being gradually shut off.
November 8th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
perhaps we can use the General Discussion page tomorrow for some ideas about how to deal with this.
November 8th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
“the opposition are ineffective and selectively silent .”
Unbelievable!!!!!!
The govt is ramming through anti democracy laws and the opposition says nothing. What kind of indictment is that.
While the camera’s are on scrapping politicians and unjusustified terroism arrests, the govt is turning the country into a fascist state and the media
say nothing.
I have yet to see one report on any news medium that raises the EFB.
It is just not happening.
How can the govt be allowed to do this. It will be open slather for anything after this. In their silence National can easily be seen as retaining this freedom hating law drafted by a hating govt and therefore endorsed by a hating opposition. There is no other way to describe this unprecedented on democracy and even human rights. All iniatiated by the party of the people.
What I want to know is how long will it take to sink into the public?
November 8th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
“so roger, you support massive changes to electoral processes without transparency?”
Ah now the process, i disagree with of course. The consultation of the public should have been much more intensive and wide ranging. Whether the content of the Act is objectionable, well, I doubt many people will be complaining too much – the amendments that I hear have been made are significant and very good.
November 8th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Hinamanu – forget it. It won’t get across to the people there is evidently not enough political will to expose it.
The activity of political expression has become just a little more polarised by this.
November 8th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
That’s right roger nome. The message is trust Labour. After all, they’ve shown before how much they can be trusted.
Trust Labour. No need for due process. Trust Labour, no need to vote National. Trust Labour, no need for political expression. Trust Labour, no need for elections.
November 8th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Hey Guess what – tomorrow I’m going to find out how to join the Maori party!
Hone has inspired me. His statements yeterday and his interview with Dunne on Radio NZ were excellent. The ‘Rule of Law?’ you can stick ‘the Rule of Law’ where the sun don’t shine. The ‘Rule of Law’ in this country is a joke. A political convenience store where they pick and choose what they want, and discard the rest as they see fit.
Do they take vanilla voters?
November 8th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
milo, why are you wasting your time on that deadbeat?
November 8th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Because I have an optimistic view of human nature. All evidence to the contrary …
November 8th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
LeeC – Talk to me next week about the bill – then you might actually have something to argue for or against. Until then you you’re just spouting off irrelevancies, and as always, looking like a fool in the process.
November 8th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Roger Nome says again – trust us. Don’t worry about democratic processes, just trust us. After all the Party will always look after the interests of the People.
November 8th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Milo – I’ve already said that i disagree with the process used to form the EFB. What more do you want? To vote National? Like having the hollow party in office would make government more accountable to the people?
Like i’ve said before it’s Labour bad, National worse, not Labour good, National bad.
November 8th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
“Do they take vanilla voters?”
We’re one nation Lee.
Europeans just find it hard to understand Maori have a unique cuture.
I actually can’t understand that attitude.
November 8th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
“not Labour good, National bad.”
So whats your alternative Roger?
November 8th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
I recall when I was studying law reading a provocative article by Lord Cooke, entitled “Fundamentals”, which discussed hypothetical situations in which it might be the duty of the NZ Courts to refuse to apply legislation. At the time I thought it was standard sort of theorising about a situation that would never come to pass. How sad that in fact it has come to the point where we may well be relying on the Courts to thwart the antidemocratic practices of the Labour Government.
November 8th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
What I want if for you to stop being an apologist for outrageous behaviour. Instead, support and value our democratic institutions. Your message is simple – democracy is kindof important – but not as important as Labour!
November 8th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Sorry, that last post addressed to Roger Nome.
November 8th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
“So whats your alternative Roger?”
Greens 20%, Maori 11% National 20% would be an interesting government. That would give Labour time to have a clean out while saving this country from National’s 1990s crew. But I can dream…..
November 8th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
What’s next?
labour burning down the Reichstags oops I mean beehive. and framing John key so they can declare marshall law?
Is this how democracy dies?
November 8th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
roger nome – ever thought of volunteering your body to science so your nonsensical character could be misanalysed and processed by micro biologists before going into the incinerater ?
November 8th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
OK it’s show time. I propose some regional get togethers (at a local watering hole of course ) to sort out an action or two. To anyone in Hawke’s Bay e-mail me maidennz@inspire.net.nz.
I’ll contact someone at killthebill to see who we can co-ordinate nationally with; just to make sure we are all singing the same song.
November 8th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
“What’s next?
labour burning down the Reichstags oops I mean beehive. and framing John key so they can declare marshall law?
Is this how democracy dies?”
Probably not John keys who can defend himself with parliamentary privilige, but I think you got the idea.
November 8th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
anyone in wellington email me at kbfosp@gmail.com (that was the ‘kiwiblog freedom of speech party’…. put on hold once KtB came along)
November 8th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
“Your message is simple – democracy is kindof important – but not as important as Labour!”
And that people is the exact reason voters are going to tick Labour at the next elections. If the country falls down around us, at least let it be Labour who’s leading and running it into the ground!
November 8th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
“OK it’s show time. I propose some regional get togethers (at a local watering hole of course ) to sort out an action or two. To anyone in Hawke’s Bay e-mail me maidennz@inspire.net.nz.
I’ll contact someone at killthebill to see who we can co-ordinate nationally with; just to make sure we are all singing the same song.”
Very inspirational Maidenz,,
But what if D4J turns up, he’ll have the whole place in a shambles in 10 minutes flat. Insurrection on day one. Campaign will be in tatters.
November 8th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
“Why would National repeal this law if passed? When they make it into the government benches next year then Labour would have a very hard time shifting them out again. Sure they’d complain but National would be able to say “well its your law that you passed”.
Talking to a National MP or two last week they looked decidedly uncomfortable when asked why they weren’t kicking the Bill to death en masse. When asked if it was because they could use the provisions of the Bill when they become Govt, it was a “my word, will you look at the time! must dash” moment…
November 8th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
I have a plan Hinamanu; I’ll flatten him with a triple shot cappuccino from Ujazi or better still; a glass of Haymakers from Roosters Brewery.
November 8th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
maidennz will be unconcerned hinamanu. it’s the christchurch chapter that will enjoy D4J’s patronage
November 8th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
“LeeC – Talk to me next week about the bill – then you might actually have something to argue for or against. Until then you you’re just spouting off irrelevancies, and as always, looking like a fool in the process.”
It ain’t gonna happen gnome, I have nothing more to say to you.
November 8th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Maidennz,,
Haymakers sounds promising.
I think we need to take a leaf from Asterix and deal to D4J as the boys do to Cacofinix. He makes the same shrieking whining noise and yet tries to pass himself off as a plausible and competent individual.
My long term plan in fact for D4J is to put him in the front line at the revolution. When the Gauls were attacked by the Normans they gave them Cacofinix. The Normans were devastated.
I belive D4j would give us the needed time to find the weakness in the enemies ranks. Binding ropes and gags for him at all other times.
November 8th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
hinamanu – the Romans?
November 8th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Haymakesr is never described as promising, espicially the morning after the night before.
I am worried though that you have visions of tying D4J up even before you have tried the stuff.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
hinamanu – and the modern gauls have just thrown out the socialists too
November 8th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
No lee,,
The Gauls didn’t let a good time pass wasting Cacofanix on the Romans.
Serious bashing time was to precious to waste.
Maidennz,,
Hmm, I like the insidiousness on such an insidious individual.
Little worried about his pissed state though, he is intolerable sober.
he must be a wonder to observe drunk!
November 8th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
Glad to hear of the possibility the bill will be rammed through. With some luck political views from Kiwiblog will be suppress from January 1st.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Well, I’m going to bed. I learned few valuable lessons today.
That is, if you dislike with someone. It is best to ignore them. (Especially if they are a pompous a**hole).
If you rely on others to fight your battles you will be disappointed.
The Rule of Law is bullshit.
People will resort to any form of hypocracy in order to preserve their fairy-tale view of the world.
And
Tomorrow you will wake up ready to fight the good fight.
Also Big is better. (actually I knicked that from Mitre 10) and it isn’t necessarily so. It should be” ‘Drunk is better”.
Goodnight.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
No Advocatus, kiwiblog will still run after Jan 1st, but only gnome, Tane and Sam Dixon will be allowed to post.
Wow – the long winter evenings will fly by!
November 8th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Advocatus Diaboli,,
very naieve and foolish statement.
The blog will flourish. If the govt tries to stiffle public opinion on the internet, radio talk back and letters to the editor, the public reaction will be staggered and delayed but it will be seen at your door steps
November 8th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Hinamanu
If I had my way Labour will remain in power for the next several decades. Labour not perfect but 1000 times better than what we will get under National.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
“Labour not perfect”
Labour has in fact been utterly traitorous since 1987.
The list is too long for me to go into now, but believe me, my mindset has changed so profoundly not only in middle age, but so ideologically. I would not know myself anymore since the eighties.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
“Lee C: “Steven Joyce and Jo de Joux are back. According to The Hollow Men they are the team who ran the hidden campaigns with the Exclusive Brethren and the racing industry in the 2005 election.”
Steven Joyce was the National Party Secretary who complained to the Chief Electoral Officer, 9 September 2005 alleging the Pledge Card rort. The CEO wrote back on 20 Sept and said he had laid a complaint with the Police. The complaint did not go to the Police until nearly 5 months later..
The National Party never pursued this gross misrepresentation.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
We have just had the Labour Party Conference.
Could it be that the powers within this Party are now totally aware they are broke after their 2005 overspend and the Big whip around. For them to be able to fight the election next year they have to get this through and get it through now.
November 9th, 2007 at 12:15 am
What hasn’t been mentioned so far (I think) is that this EFB will join the long list of pre-Christmas “good cheer” legislation. It’s a wonderful way for a government to wave controversial legislation through the roadworks. And, consistent with past practice, we can probably expect that a handful of official reports will be dumped on a distracted public shortly, with tight consulation deadlines. What will it be this year, I wonder?
But this quote (by DPF) from NBR puzzles me:
My understanding was that Justice Clifford signalled that the court hearing may be brought forward if the Government tried to give the heave-ho to the legislative process. This from DPF’s post on 5 November (without a link to the NZPA item):
Can anyone else shed some light on this?
November 9th, 2007 at 1:58 am
Interesting that Tane and the remainder of his professional commenter hit squad (seriously, don’t these people have something better to do?) have given up posting reasoned arguments and gone for the more nakedly partisan approach.
November 9th, 2007 at 3:22 am
Further to my previous post, I’ve found the NZ Herald article. A few choice quotes:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=247&objectid=10474234
I haven’t seen the statement of claim, and so I’d like to hear from Graeme Edgeler et al on this: is this a judicial review proceeding or an action under the Declaratory Judgments Act? Judicial review would focus on process – the Attorney-General’s “decision” based on the Crown Law opinion. A declaratory judgment would relate more directly to the legal content of the Bill and its compatibility (or otherwise) with the Bill of Rights Act.
I can vaguely recall one fairly recent New Zealand judicial review case where the Court made a declaration (as substantive relief was unavailable on the facts).
The appearance of Crown Law officials in Court certainly suggests judicial review. But that raises an interesting side-issue: Crown Law’s opinion addressed the original Bill, not the amended Bill (as it inevitably will be when the Select Commitee reports back). This gives the Government wiggle-room to argue that any declaration is of historical interest only, as the form of the legislation will evolve.
On the other hand, a declaratory judgment proceeding would potentially shift the focus away from the legal content of the Crown Law opinion, and the Attorney-General’s reliance on it, to the status of the Bill itself. Section 10 of the Declaratory Judgments Act confers a wide judicial discretion:
So the Court could make a declaratory judgment even though it lacks power to grant substantive relief.
But perhaps none of this matters. Either way, the Government would be embarrassed if it waved through what is (certainly in its current form) fundamentally anti-democratic legislation.
I still think the Government should revoke the Bill and restart the process. Never mind that that Parliament can debate amendments recommended by the Select Committee. This is legislation going to the very heart of democracy, and on which the public should quite rightly expect to be properly consulted.
November 9th, 2007 at 5:34 am
POC , great you picked up on that High Court point and Mr Graeme Edgeler is extremely silent on a such a critical matter as the whole process creaks of political manipulability, which could undermine functioning ability jurisdiction of the courts to be able to operate within the provisions of fairness ? This in turn could set a fundamental precedent that gives people the opportunity to draw the correct conclusion that our judicial system has been tainted by Helen Clark and is longer to be viewed as a model of balance and integrity .
Hinamooo – get off my case you weirdo , f##k off you creep , what a boring life you must lead you scumbag ####
November 9th, 2007 at 6:48 am
Moderators – How’s D4J going on points?
Like him, I don’t agree with a lot of the posts here on an ideological basis. Like him, I hate trolling, threadjacking, and use of selective truths in arguments, etc. Unlike him, I don’t swear at people and make allusions to horrible fates.
In this thread alone he’s created an image of Roger Nome being incinerated (not technically a threat, but still a disturbing image) and has abused the Hinamanu for a fairly tongue-in-cheek comment.
I think maybe he has always been cut some slack, and it may be deserved… but you just cannot talk to people like that.
D4J – It doesn’t matter how vehement you are, it should be channeled into effective action and powerful oratory, not venom and bile. You undermine yourself and your cause.
In the specific case of Hinamanu, it seems to me that she was trying to convey the same message to you that I am, via some sharp humour. Instead of freaking out, try to understand why she would say that.
November 9th, 2007 at 6:49 am
It has been said that HC was turning into Muldoon by the day. THis was labelled by John Armstrong in the NZ Herald as patently absurd.
To a certain extent I agree, although not for the reasons John would think. Muldoon fought in the second world war. He fought for the right to free speech and would NEVER have passed such appalling legislation.
I still think the best comment I have read on this topic went along the lines of our forefathers fought and died to preserve our basic democratic rights. What has NZ become when a significant number of us now want to vote for a government that is stripping the very rights from us, that our forefathers went to war to retain for others.
November 9th, 2007 at 7:19 am
OK – forgive my ignorance of constitutional law, but is it possible for the High Court to issue an interim injunction against the Minister of Justice to prevent the EFB being read a second time in the House? Given that Judge Denis Clifford’s decision to hear
November 9th, 2007 at 7:24 am
whoops….hit the wrong button!
Given that Judge Denis Clifford’s decision to hear John Boscawen’s application for a judicial review set a hearing date of 27/11 was based on the reporting date of 25/1/08, is it possible for Boscawen to get immediate relief from the Court? By fast-tracking the EFB, the government is not only giving the upraised middle finger to most of New Zealand, but to the High Court as well. I note that Judge Clifford said that he would consider an earlier hearing date in the government pushed forward – can the High Court order Parliament to defer proceedings? I suspect that they can’t, but would appreciate a legal opinion (for free, if possible please!).
November 9th, 2007 at 8:20 am
Inventory2: The Validation Act killed the Darnton V Clark High Court case dead in the water.
It would never have reached this stage if the police hadn’t buried the complaint about Helen’s theft of her Leader’s Funds some 8 months earlier. It is called preventing and defeating the course of justice as much as “Judge Denis Clifford’s decision to hear John Boscawen’s application for a judicial review set a hearing date of 27/11″ will also be dead in the water with the blessing of the Solicitor-General.
November 9th, 2007 at 8:24 am
whatever cacofanix
November 9th, 2007 at 8:25 am
The Electoral Commission has arranged a meeting for all party secretaries for 18 December, in Wellington, for the whole day, to discuss the *Act* and its implications. In the notification Helena Catt said that the meeting was arranged to ‘discuss interpretation of key aspects of the Electoral Finance Act.’
The suggestion was that as far as possible the party secretaries reach a common understanding of how the new regulations work and what guidance can be provided. Helena acknowledged that the Commission did not know when the legislation will be passed but noted that the current bill has the regulated period starting on 1st of January and the meeting should take place this year in case ‘the legislation is passed this year.’
Thought you all might find that interesting.
November 9th, 2007 at 8:30 am
“Thought you all might find that interesting.”
you sound like you’re studying a masters in understatement.
you must be doing very well.
November 9th, 2007 at 8:30 am
Cheers for that Nick – so the government obviously believes that this is a done deal.
November 9th, 2007 at 8:38 am
This must not be allowed to happen. These bastards are pissing on us and laughing at the same time. I have never felt so much anger towards a group of people. Everyone must write to all MP’s – the govt MP’s to express contempt and outrage for their contempt and the Nats to tell them to get off their fucking arses and start fighting.
November 9th, 2007 at 8:42 am
Inventory – “By fast-tracking the EFB, the government is not only giving the upraised middle finger to most of New Zealand, but to the High Court as well.”
Has it been established that the EFB will be fast-tracked? see Graeme Edgeler:
“Parliament is sitting for 17.5 hours next week, and Wednesday is not a members’ day. It won’t necessarily be rammed through.”
and:
“Okay, I’m open to the possibility that the Government will move not only an urgency motion, but also a motion suspending Standing Order 292, but I do wonder whether the NBR has confused the ramming next week with the Appropriations (Continuation) Bill.
That bill seems a prime candidate for government desire for quick legislative action, and I would not be surprised to see the Government push that through next week.”
Also see the article:
“Although the chairwoman of the Justice and Electoral Select Committee, Labour MP Lynne Pillay, refused to confirm the bill’s timetable on Tuesday, the NBR understands the committee members’ reports have been drafted.”
Perhaps there is an element of mischief about this from the NBR and from the Labour Party?
As far as Labour is concerned, it has been established that:
*The EFB does not contravene the BoRA
*The High Court challenge cannot ‘stop’ the Bill being passed
* It is a beltway issue
*It will be a much better looking Act than it was at the Bill stage.
So really all this latest fuss is nothing more than ‘hyperbole’ from its detractors?
Shouldn’t we just be patient?
November 9th, 2007 at 8:45 am
Nick Kearney; Helena Catt, CEO Electoral Commission, did not pass on Steven Joyce’s complaint to the Police until the 10 February 2006, 5 months after the complaint was lodged. Talk about the high and mighty
Electoral Commission dragging its feet in the cause of justice. Tne National Party didn’t complain. Spineless lot.
The police acknowledged the Commission’s complaint on !0 April 2006 complain on 10 April 2006 I recall.
November 9th, 2007 at 9:09 am
casual watcher – I agree – but just WHAT can we do? I have just left the following message on National’s website, in the comments thread from John Key’s speech to the National Press Club. I will be sending a similar e-mail to Key, English, Brownlee and my local MP, Chester Borrows.
“John – NBR reports that the EFB will be back before the House next week, and that the government will seek to push the Bill through the remaining stages under urgency.
I am gravely concerned at this development, and believe that most “informed” New Zealanders, i.e. those who have taken the time to understand what the EFB seeks to do will be likewise concerned. I am also troubled by the comparative silence coming from National on this issue. I would be greatly reassured by your comments that National remains vehemently opposed to the EFB, in the form in which it went to the Select Committee. I believe that the EFB is the government’s Achilles heel, and attacking the government’s credibility over its attempts to stifle free speech through this insidious legislation represents a major opportunity for National to win the next election.
I look forward to your comments and reassurance. “
November 9th, 2007 at 9:22 am
Inventory – “I believe that the EFB is the government’s Achilles heel, and attacking the government’s credibility over its attempts to stifle free speech through this insidious legislation represents a major opportunity for National to win the next election.”
This is a touching appeal. They don’t have what it takes to win the next election. Besides, National don’t have the numbers in the House, have squandered their opportunity to rally public opinion against the Bill, and have shown no real leadership on this issue. What makes you think they will be able to mobilise a mere month or so before it becomes Law? If this is what they are capable of in opposition, do you really want them to govern? On this basis, I don’t think they have what it takes. Just accept it, and plan for the next stage. Whatever the solution to this is, sadly amigo, it ain’t National. You have to know when to move on.
November 9th, 2007 at 9:32 am
IV2 – good letter – if everyone who has any sort of opinion on this actually does something about it then the message will get through. If we take the typical NZ apathy line that “it’ll go through anyway – whats the point ?” then we will get what we deserve – be it Helen Clark or John Key.
The Nats are apparently sitting on a mountain of cash and they can mount a decent campaign against this socialist crap. Do you think that Labour are just going to sit back and let the Nats spend this money to win the next election ? I don’t think so – they get away with this and they will try something else to further stack the deck in their favour. Now is the time for action – not after these Bills go through.
November 9th, 2007 at 10:11 am
As I have posted before the Parliament should not be deciding the matter.
Reason. The members are conflicted.
A search of the web defines Conflict of Interest as follows
“A conflict between a persons private interest and public obligations”
Now would anyone like to explain how the MPs are no conflicted.
They want to get re elected. This legislation will assist those who support it to get re elected
Your comments please.
November 9th, 2007 at 10:40 am
gd – it makes a mockery of the prayer that opens each day’s proceedings eh – the bit about “laying aside all private and personal interests”.
The current government is consumed with self-interest. Nothing matters anymore, nothing, except a fourth term. And Clark, in true Muldoon fashion, has shown that she will stop at nothing to achieve it.
November 9th, 2007 at 11:06 am
Tane
I think that what has happened here Tane is that your (and other Labour apologists) reasoning is being used. You know – like it was OK for Labour to overspend in the 2005 election becasue other parties were doing it. So it’s OK to break the law as long as you are not the only one.
Besides, if spending and extra $800K didn’t effect the 2005 election then distributing 10,000 flyers at a cost of perhaps $100 will not have any impact at all.
November 9th, 2007 at 11:49 am
I2 None of the bastards have the ethics and morals to give a shit about anything other than their own self interest.
And its not just in the Parliament Sadly I see it every day in the world of corproate governance where we have unprincipled company directors lining their own pockets at the expense of the stakeholders and getting away because our business legislation and regulation is a crock of shit passed by immoral and unethical fools and administered by their lackeys with the same low standards
November 9th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
burt – it’s not the law yet, so we can’t break it! I’ve just asked krazykiwi to e-mail me his flyer so I can distribute them locally – then let the buggers stop me!
November 9th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Direct assault on MMP !!!
I also find it unbelievable that the other parties such as Winston first and Dunny boy and the Greens would want to have a bar of this bill as overall it tilts the playing field towards firstly the ruling party then the main parties with the most MP’s and it manifestly disadvantages smaller parties.
It is probably the nastiest attempt to get around MMP ever seen because of the way it tilts the spending power of the incumbent.
November 9th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
To all those who have had to endure Sam, Tane & roger nome’s assertions that National now supports the EFB, this is the reply I got from my e-mail to English this morning:
“We are opposed to the government’s legislation because it’s anti democratic and we will repeal it if we are the government. The media are now getting interested in it – expect more coverage over the next few weeks as the legislation comes back to the House.
Regards
Bill English”
Cheers Bill
November 9th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Lindsay Addie is right. The 30-40% of voters who are safely in Labour’s pocket (beneficiaries, bureaucrats, lefty uni students etc.,) don’t give a toss about their free speech being shut down. They LIKE the kind of government we’ve got and the kind of country this is turning into.
Sorry, we live in interesting times. Things will have to get a lot worse before they might get better, and they might never get better. Next time there are commies in power all over the place you can bet your bottom dollar that they’ll have learnt their lessons from history and there won’t BE another “fall of the Berlin Wall”.
Stupid, stupid rightwingers. All these decades that you’ve been looking for ways to better your lot and the lot of your children, the right conditions to prosper, (free market, etc.), the hard Left have been busily filling all the posts where it really, really matters in the long term – journalism, education, legal circles, social policy, even the “churches”. Here we were at the end of the Cold War, thinking that Marxism was terminally discredited and gone for ever. Sorry guys, it was a classic, classic, classic, Trojan Horse ploy. The Marxists are inside the gates and everywhere you look.
This is the same all over the Western world. Our only hope is that N.Z. will lead the way a little prematurely and the rest of the free world will wake up in time, particularly the Aussies.
November 9th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Peak – I believe it’s a judicial review, presumably on the ground of error of law.
Your point about the Declaratory Judgments Act is an interesting one, but I suspect you have missed the effect of these words “The jurisdiction hereby conferred”. Section 10 therefore only applies if the jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief is conferred by the Act itself. The appropriate section is section 3:
Where any person has done or desires to do any act the validity, legality, or effect of which depends on the construction or validity of any statute, or any regulation made by the Governor-General in Council under statutory authority, or any bylaw made by a local authority, or any deed, will, or document of title, or any agreement made or evidenced by writing, or any memorandum or articles of association of any company or body corporate, or any instrument prescribing the powers of any company or body corporate; or
Where any person claims to have acquired any right under any such statute, regulation, bylaw, deed, will, document of title, agreement, memorandum, articles, or instrument, or to be in any other manner interested in the construction or validity thereof,—
such person may apply to the [High Court] by originating summons … for a declaratory order determining any question as to the construction or validity of such statute, regulation, bylaw, deed, will, document of title, agreement, memorandum, articles, or instrument, or of any part thereof.
November 9th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Graeme – re my earlier question. Could a petitioner get an interim injunction to prevent the EFB being read a second time?
November 9th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
NEWS -Rodney Hide’s on RadioLive now until 4.00 – 0800 723465 ring up and ask him about the EFB
November 9th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
I’ve just had a brainwave. Roger Nome keeps assuring us, just wait till you see the bill in its final form, there’s nothing to worry about………
What’s the bet that it says that members of the Exclusive Brethren Church are forbidden to conduct any political activity, and must register, and wear yellow stars……..
Problem solved, eh, DPF? Would you have any issues with that?
November 9th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Inventory2 – no. The Court can’t order it, and even if it could, it wouldn’t.
November 9th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Thanks Graeme.
No wonder Lynne Pillay was so evasive when asked about the timetable for reporting back the EFB in Questions to Members the other day.
“Questions to Members
Electoral Finance Bill—Select Committee Timetable
1. HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) to the Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee: What is the committee’s timetable in relation to the Electoral Finance Bill?
LYNNE PILLAY (Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee): The House has referred the bill to the committee for report back by 25 January 2008. Further detail of the possible progress is committee proceedings, and is confidential until the committee reports back to the House.
Heather Roy: Does she believe that the Crown Law Office was correct in telling the High Court yesterday that this bill would not be reported back to the House until 25 January 2008, well after the bill is due to become law, and, in effect, by 1 January?
Madam SPEAKER: No, the member has no responsibility.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the member who chairs the committee as to whether she understands the constitutional propriety of a claimant down town using a political party in this House to tell a parliamentary select committee what its timetable should be.
Madam SPEAKER: That is not appropriate, either.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That is entirely what is going on here. It is appropriate when this House is being called into question or is being challenged from outside that we should know the grounds on which it is being challenged. We know why this case is being brought. We know who is behind the complainant and who the plaintiff is, and we know what the plaintiff wants to know. But to use a member of Parliament to challenge a select committee to set its timetable is entirely constitutionally wrong.
Gerry Brownlee: The issue here is that there is an action currently before the courts. There is a matter that the court will have to hear and, presumably, rule on. Where the difficulty arises is that the courts have gone to Parliament’s programme—to the book that is published quite frequently—and have looked at the report-back date for this particular bill, and it says 15 January. So the courts have said that if this matter is to be heard on 25 November, then there is plenty of time for whatever judgment may arise from that to be considered before the matter is reported back to the House. The problem arises from the fact that the time in which a select committee reports back is pretty much in the hands of the committee and, in fact, in the hands of the chair of that committee. So the simple question is whether the select committee will be reporting this bill back to the House before the court can hear the submission by those who are putting the issue before the court, or whether the select committee will respect the process that the court has to go through. I do not think it is unreasonable that the chair of the select committee should be able to outline exactly what her thinking is on the role that the select committee has when there is this sort of action before a court.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I do not remember the exact wording in the question, but it seems to me that the question asked for the select committee chairperson to comment on what Crown Law told the court. She bears no responsibility for that, at all.
Madam SPEAKER: The difficulty we have here, I think, is that this is a matter for the committee and not for the chair alone. It was on that ground that I felt it was inappropriate.
Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think there is just a bit more to it than the issues you have considered. I mean, it is legitimate enough, but we often do have contention about process between Parliament and the courts. Sometimes it is Parliament’s correct role to ignore what the courts are doing, but this seems to me to be a time when Parliament could cooperate with the legal system. This is simply because the judge has made a decision on the basis of wrong information published by Parliament. Parliament has published a date for the report back. The court and the parties to those proceedings have relied on that information. The judge has published a decision. It seems to me to be somewhat churlish if Parliament says: “Well, it’s nothing to do with us. We have published information that’s misleading, and the court has made decisions on the hearings based on it, but it is nothing to do with us.” It is a simple matter for the select committee chairperson to state correctly when she, or the Government, intends that report back to happen, and then the legal process in New Zealand can follow through in the way that the judge and, I am sure, all the participants in the case intend. It seems odd that because Parliament will decide, on the basis of a very narrow technical definition, what a select committee chairperson is responsible for, we are going to frustrate the proceedings of the High Court, when Parliament was responsible for misleading it in the first place.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen: First of all, let me come back to the simple point: a question was asked of a select committee chairperson, a question for which she is not responsible. She is not responsible for what the High Court was told by Crown Law. If anybody is responsible, it is me, as Attorney-General. Secondly, of course, the only report-back date that can be in the public arena is that date by which the committee has to report. The committee at this point cannot say that it is reporting back on such-and-such a date. The committee may or may not do that; that is within its own competence at the present time. I also say that one of the issues in this case is whether the High Court can consider a matter that is a proceeding before Parliament, and I would hope that colleagues might support Parliament over politics of a party matter in that sort.
Madam SPEAKER: I thank the members, but the matter is not as simple as it has been put. This is a matter for the select committee. It is not a matter for the chair of the select committee—or of any select committee—to prejudge what a select committee will do. That ruling is according to the Standing Orders. “
November 9th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Look, I hate to state the obvious, but won’t this Bill become a complete fubar once enacted?
I can’t see the coppers chasing down every person who puts out a newsletter saying “We think the [insert Government idea here] won’t work” or “[Insert candidate name here] is running for Parliament and he/she’s a top joker/sheila and will do wonders for our electorate”.
Never mind all the people who don’t give a fuck about politics getting shitty once they get caught up in it.
Perhaps it’s about time we started seeing the costs of developing and implementing legislation included in Bills when they come before the House.
November 9th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Buggerlugs, you have it in one, however, is it fair for a government to create a whole race of criminals out of the common person because it wants to rort the election? T
he point is, this is all about Labour winning the next election at all costs.
They have already shown that they don;t give a toss about our civil liberties or human rights, only about holding onto power.
Plus I hear various commentators talking about how ‘reasonable’ Helen Clark is in a ‘it could never happen here’ sort of way. But it is happening here. To claim otherwise is to be in a state of denial.
November 9th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Again, can we rely on the Governor General to refuse to sign this Bill into Law?
This country needs a better system than MMP
This country needs a small second House
This country needs a powerful Select Committee process that is not controlled by party-politics of the lowest order.
November 9th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
hawk – in a word – NO. The GG is a Labour appointee – he will not bite the hand that feeds him in such a lavish manner.
November 9th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
Great editorial in today’s Dominion-Post – have just blogged about it
http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2007/11/dom-post-slams-government.html