Message for Annette
I just been told Annette King had a go at me in Parliament, claiming what I am saying is rubbish. Well of course Annette can and would say that, but what is interesting is she has been refusing to cite anything to back up her answers.
We saw the same from Mark Burton. National sent a letter to voluntary groups which basically just quoted from the Bill – specific clauses. Burton sent a letter full of lies which just said hey National is scaremongering and didn’t even refer to a single clause in the Bill. We now know Burton was wrong – even the Greens have said the original Bill was “appalling”.
King is doing the same thing. She attacks the messenger and dismisses it. But what the Minister has not done, and in fact no one has done, is make a clear concise argument based on the statute that one does not need names and addresses on placards (for example).
The Greens have agreed with me on the megaphone law. Steven Price has agreed (on radio this morning) on the placards (but pointed out existing law required disclosure on some third party advocacy also).
So my challenge to Annette as Minister of Justice is to provide a clear statement to the NZ public based on the EFB that explains how placards which advocate for or against a party do not fall under the definitions of publishing an election advertisement, and hence need a name and address on them.
Either that, or start work on a Supplementary Order Paper.
November 20th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Second degree burn!!
November 20th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Oh no poor Minister of cops , robbers and judges has had another bad day at the hairdressers , or was there another crash in another government tax payer funded car , oops , class what and drunk , what did you say ? Forget it lady and I do like the black lip stick and jack boots Ms Kingy .
November 20th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Dont we need 2 SOPs – one for the oral stuff ( megaphones) and the other to chante the name and address providsions?
November 20th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Annette and her precious “Law of Common Sense”! She has lost it!
November 20th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
And Annette was such a safe pair of hands – until she was passed the hot potato it seems…..
November 20th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
In the exchange with Chris Finlayson just now, she said newspaper editorials were fine UNLESS they encouraged people to vote for a (or against a) party.
November 20th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
This is hilarious, watch: http://images.tvnz.co.nz/flashvideo/windows/one_news/live/parl_live_128k.asx
November 20th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Chris Finlayson was great.
November 20th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Yes the Herald campaign against the EFB would now be (if next year) an election advertisement and illegal.
Expect to see some media backlash on this as they realise this.
November 20th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Ive jut sponen to Annette Kingsprovate secretary. She gave me a clear answer to teh current law, sdtating that that the name and address thing was current law. She refused to say if it would be law after the EFB is passed unaltered, and her answer all of a sudeden was bumbled, and stammering. In fact she backtracked heavily because she knew that to give an honest answer would be to contradict the mInister.
Such is life when your boss lies in parliament.
November 20th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
How long before ALL the lies stop in Parliament madam speaker !!?
November 20th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Methinks Annette King has suddenly developed that rare condition known as Burton’s Syndrome, which transforms the sufferer from being a normal, functioning member of society to a bumbling, blabbering Cabinet Minister. The only known cure is a sharp dose of Helen’s Reshuffle.
November 20th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Without even referring to the other posts, the answer to this entire
EFB drama is to have a public bebate between govt ministers involved and representatives of the various organisations opposing it.
The govt needs to be seen advocating this bill responsibly, sincerely and sensitively to gain public trust and explain their interpretation of how they believe this bill will be a asset to democratic governing and the public interest.
DPF has said govt ministers cannot support their criticisms with solid evidence either verbally or documental. That is the first basic signifier the bill is not in the public interest. Ministers themselves have no visible confidence in it. Yet they want it passed into law.
The simple answer to that is
NO.
November 20th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
I didn’t see Question time but I did heard King and English on Morning Report.
King again repeated the Labour Party penchant for enacting laws that it assures us it wont enforce. Yeah right until it suits. We wont prosecute anyone favourable to us but we might just take a close look at anything that might be a problem for us.
The law has to be neutral. I would like to know who the ethical lawyers are who are advising this rubbish.
November 20th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
I actually feel sorry for Annette King. She’s one of Labour’s better cabinet ministers, but this is a complete hospital pass.
She’s trying to defend the indefensible and I do think Annette’s well-tuned common sense means she’s unable to put her heart and soul into telling the House that this turd doesn’t actually stink and isn’t actually brown and really is good enough to be served in the finest restuarants.
They really should have given the job of defending the EFB in the House to someone who’d just blindly parrot the 9th floor line without doing any critical thinking of their own.
Tane, you there? Wanna be a cabinet minister?
November 20th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
I know cubit9f, these guys just don’t know the law – quite surprising for supposedly intelligent people.
They don’t even know their own bill.
KILL THE BILL!!!
November 20th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
David – she’s right. The police have discretion as to what they do and don’t prosecute. The examples you have used, while technically true, are very unlikely to be a problem in practice – so your examples are kind of ridiculous really – just like the examples that you and wise heads like Simon Barnet pulled out over in the anti-smacking debate- i.e. the jails will be overflowing with parents who merely tapped their toddler on the hand – you were being ridiculous then and you’re being ridiculous now.
November 20th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
roger nome – all the more reason not to outlaw these thngs, then, isnt it
November 20th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Roger – when you talk about discretion over who the police will or will not prosecute, were you thinking about Helen Clark…….or Len Richards?
November 20th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Bollocks, nome
November 20th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
The police don’t have discretion, Nome, when a citizen make a complaint about a technicality (which will happen) and intent is demonstrated. You’ve done a degree in law – you should know this allready.
November 20th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Gnome buggerer … yes, I agree that many of our laws – specifically criminal laws – have low thresholds and rely on the Police to exercise sensible discretion.
But writing new laws that are reliant on that Police discretion is poor law-making. It speaks of ill-conceived legislation put together in a panic.
And what has been clear over the last 9 years is an increasing level of meddling by the Executive in how the Police will exercise that discretion. Sure, it’s been done in a “no fingerprints” way. I’m sure there was a lot of Benson-Popeing about how it’d be hard to work with that, or I’d be less candid with this, or “it wouldn’t be in the public interest to proceed with that”. But there is a lot of smoke about H1 & H2′s pressure on the Police.
So relying on the Police to consistently exercise discretion on a highly politicised issue, while facing political pressure from the Labour party is foolhardy.
I’m not a loony advocating mass lockups of regular people. I am suspecting that Labour would love to take the big dog out of the bag if the Brethren pop up again. I’m no fan of the Brethren. At all. But I respect their democratic right to have a voice.
November 20th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
nome suggested that the anti S59 people said ” …. i.e. the jails will be overflowing with parents who merely tapped their toddler on the hand. ….”
reference please.
I recall nothing of the sort being said by anyone. What was said was that innocent parents wouyld be potted by smartass kids and that innocent parents would be visited by police &/or CYFS after complaints by teachers or neighbours. All have happened.
Never mind roger, don’t let facts get in the way of a good attempted excuse for a bad Bill. There is no “good” legislation which will be selected ignored or selectively applied
November 20th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Roger,
So we should break the law trusting the police not to prosecute? Cool advice.
November 20th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
I try and form coherent arguments and sentences when arguing with lefties advising me to “trust the police to exercise their judgement” over bad law, but I can’t. I just descend into a fit of giggles. Silly lefties.
November 20th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Well I’d be , he never fails to amaze me , the rogered gnomer lickspittle is encouraging people to break the law and burden an already overloaded keystone cop force .
November 20th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Roger,
Are you one of the ehtical lawyers I asked about? It is dumb law to have statutes on the books that don’t require compliance.
I state again I believe the existence of such law that is not going to be enforced simply allows it to be abused when someone wants to fall back on it for probably pretty dubious reasons. If you value freedom then you will agree that we do not need such laws. They are a sham.
If you are a lawyer I believe you must take this ethical view.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
TANE IS ANNETTE KING!
November 20th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Why argue with nome it’s a waist of time he is beyond help, he has embraced the dark side and nothing can save him. You can bet your last dollar that when this bill passes the socialists will be on a religious quest to hunt down and deal to any percieved wrong doers, thats how the bastards work. I hope the population turn on this bill with venom and tell the arseholes where to get off. These people are down right evil.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Trust the police not to prosecute – yeah right.
As a tangential issue see
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10477232
So under the EFB, it would be highly likely that rather than breach protestors rights, they’ll be able to arrest them on a bureaucratic technicality.
Also, why has it taken 8 years for the police complaints authority to rule on this?
November 20th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
But they’ve got the fucking votes to push this fucked up piece of shit through! How do we fix that (without resorting to breaches of the Terrorism Suppression Act)?
Perhaps its time for a few full page ads aimed at Green voters?
November 20th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
while we are talking about law – anyone know if the CURRENT LAW is that name AND address should be on protestors placards?
November 20th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
No because a placard is not publishing an electoral advertisement under current law.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
“TANE IS ANNETTE KING!”
The logic that lead to that conclusion definitely needs this sage piece of wisdom worthy of repeating.
Don’t forget though, a National member pretended to be a Maori on radio talk back. Goose and gander stuff really.
But the one eye persona of both identities is too obvious to neglect.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Has Annette King received the Mother of all Hospital Passes or WHAT?
November 20th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
I mean, seriously, if Labour Party Stalwarts like Annette King and Michael Cullen cannot defend this bill without being made to look somewhat less than competent, what sort of indefennsible legislation is it?
November 20th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
No because a placard is not publishing an electoral advertisement under current law.
Thanks, DPF. You disagree with the Minister. If Annette King doesnt know the current law, how then does she know what to change, or is she just a parrot?
November 20th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
To be fair to Annette King, this isn’t really her Bill. She just picked it up because the original “owner” got chewed up and spat out trying to defend this in the House.
Now Annette King is getting worked over too, only weeks after stepping into a new portfolio and inheriting this bastard child.
Anyone listening to Parliament this afternoon who can give an update on what the Greens said/did re this bill? Were they vocally supporting it? Or are they just sitting on their hands letting Labour take the heat & hoping the shit won’t stick to their fur?
November 20th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Wasnt it interesting that A King didnt get much help from her colleagues in the house today-even M Cullen only had a couple of weak shots in support. It seems to me Labour are aware how controversial this Bill is and are holding their breath hoping they can pull off the most outrageous affront to democracy NZ has ever seen.Eveyone knows its a bash the brethren bill, who at least used their own hard earned funds not the tired taxpayers.My advice to Nats is spend some of your funds NOW , before the law changes, to alert NZers to where they stand.
November 20th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
And if you want to read what ANnette KIng said in Parlament is here
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/QOA/e/a/f/48HansQ_20071120_00000079-2-Electoral-Finance-Bill-Freedom-of-Expression.htm
A commentaery is here
http://big-news.blogspot.com/2007/11/lobby-groups-will-struggle-to-keep.html
November 20th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Interesting:
http://www.laws179.co.nz/2007/11/electoral-finance-bill-new-media-and.html
November 20th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Where do I find Annette King’s Common Sense Law in the Statute Books?
Learned from Annette today that Policy is a Fact.
So all Labour Party Policy is factual. Why bother with a Select Committee.
Pass policy straight into law.
Ooops that happens anyway?
November 20th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Dear Annette!
Having met the lady you will realise she isn’t exactly the sharpest pin
in the sewing box David. I doubt any amount of logic or clear argument or even facts will help the poor love. Another nice but fairly thick socialist spouting whatever she is told to spout. Maybe she left her brains at the Ministry of Health?
November 20th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
So, it’s really difficult to to write laws that meet the commonsense test and we need an overriding “law of commonsense” to apply. What a copout. I reckon, by and large, our legislators aren’t up to scratch and we are seeing poorly drafted laws being produced as a result (ie from terrorism, to dog control, smacking and this latest shambles). Halve the number of politicians and pay them twice as much and we should have some better talent in the engine room to produce legislation that says what it means, and is therefore enforceable without discretion.
November 20th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
By virtue of the fact that there is no consensus of interpretation it is inevitable that the definitions will be decided by the courts. That this bill is already under pressure of definitions means it should be rewritten.
The assumption that the powers of law and order will apply the law reasonably is a reference only to this point in time and what we may consider reasonable. No such guarantee can be made as many years into the future what is considered reasonable now will undoubtably not be so.
November 20th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
I noticed that Annette King attacked Farrar; BUT she did not contradict anything whatsoever that Farrar has said. This continues the line that the Clark regime has continued.
“Denigrate the opponents, but never argue with them because what they say is 100% correct”.
Remember how they denigrated the religious dick wits of the Exclusive Brethren but never ever contradicted any thing that they said.
I need blood pressure pills when radio interviewers let Labour politicians spout derogatory comments but never ask exactly what did the opponents of this awful legislation say that was wrong.
November 20th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
To me, this EFB seems utterly rational, on the part of this current government. Having burnt themselves with Ms Setchell etc. and not wanting to make the same mistake, they create a device (the EFB registration) that captures the individuals political affliation.
This ‘list’ then is supplied to the State Services Commission, who are much ‘better’ at overseeing government appointments, than politicians. Given their bureaucratic risk aversion in serving the government of the day, they have an incentive in a thorough diligently combing of the ‘list’, when CVs are submitted. This ensures that only ‘acceptable’ candidates make it to interview stage.
Benson Pope was fired for poor performance and the embarassment caused, not his interference. His intention/motivation was never condemned. It was his timing and poor execution that let him down.
The government had an epiphany, and realised that this aspect & process of embedding your likeminded bureaucrats, while keeping the garden ‘weeded’ needs to be institutionalised in the SSC as well.
Registration = Blacklist
EFB = Neo McCarthyism
Good weather tommorrow…
November 20th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
I also note with interest that while David Farrarr comments in an open forum, Annette King is rarely heard outside the confines of Parliamentary Priveledge!
November 21st, 2007 at 2:54 am
It just feels like Labour wants to ban and regulate everything so they leave National with a political nightmare just like National left Labour one in 84.
Kiwis won’t know what hit them when all this freedom starts coming back!