Oh for all those claiming I am wrong

November 19th, 2007 at 6:17 pm by David Farrar

From NZPA:

The Free Speech Coalition spokesman David Farrar, who also runs a right wing website, said the bill would now cover megaphones as well as other materials such as placards which were always covered.

Ms Turei said that was technically correct. The bill aimed to include commercial use of loudhailers — for example on the top of a bus hired to drive around. The Greens would put up changes to amend the bill so individuals were not caught by it.

Now that the Greens have agreed with me in my interpretation, I guess this might calm down the nutters claiming I’m making this up.

Incidentally while I wish this Bill not to proceed, I am very happy to work with any party to draft amendments which will make the bill less oppressive.   But I also caution that having a constitutional bill such as the patched up in committee of the whole stage is very dangerous.  Mistakes will get made, and there are errors in the current bill yet to be recognised.

Tags:

157 Responses to “Oh for all those claiming I am wrong”

  1. Kimble (4,410 comments) says:

    “Greens would put up changes to amend the bill so individuals were not caught by it.”

    So there will be singing anti-Labour songs with more than one person through a megaphone under a Green Party government? What would be the point of living?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Kimble (4,410 comments) says:

    be NO singing

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. pete (428 comments) says:

    ghostwhowalks:

    The loudspeaker/megaphones is aimed the roaming cars with recorded messages which drive around suburbs annoying the hell out of everybody.

    DPF:

    You can’t invent things about who it is aimed at.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Whaleoil (766 comments) says:

    Kill the Bill

    It is a dramatic assault of Free speech.

    It will be a race to see who will be locked up for speaking their mind.

    I will not register, i will not authorise and I will not stop making my videos. In fact i will step up making my videos and they will be harsher.

    i want to see labour try to take down youtube, that will be something to see.

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

    I’ve not had time to digest this. The trouble is that one of the strongest advocates for this Bill to proceed is the detail. The devil is indeed in the detail.
    May i suggest that we are able to look at the ‘pros and cons’ of this bill from the viewpoints of those who support it, and those who disagree (without all the attending viriol).
    The reason I say this is because the ‘left’ have done little to address the actual issues, rather they threadjack and dissemble.

    Alternatively we have anti-Bill posters getting involved in ‘fisticuffs’ while all the time the good ship EFB sails on regardless.

    i do not think that the left has won this debate, but they have done a great job of confusing people abot what the actual debate is. Who is up to the job of clinically breaking this down and getting to the truth?

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

    Forget about the EFB for the moment, I just watched TV1 & TV3 news, if these 2 items were an indication of how this Bill is going to be presented to the public via TV we are all wasting our time. The delivery and opinion put forward was not “news“ it was corrupt and deliberate. Duncan Garner shouild be taken to task and made to sit and watch it in front of an impartial entity. I would like to see the result.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Santa Claws (54 comments) says:

    David, I can’t believe you are quoting Metiria Turei as an authority. She is the same MP that accidentally sent out a press release saying she and Nandor were going to “fuck shit up” last election! I have to say I’m not that happy to take the greens as a credible source for anything let alone a legal interpretation. Well, maybe I’d listen to their opinions on morris dancing or cooking with lentils… I’m surprised you are citing these backwards lefties for credibility.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. David Farrar (1,871 comments) says:

    An MP on the select cmte can make an informed comment about the intention. However the intention means little in terms of interpretation, and Turei has agreed the bill as it stands would affect protest marches.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. dad4justice (7,976 comments) says:

    “backwards lefties for credibility.”

    Swamp things that lurk in urban sewer systems .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. MajorBloodnok (361 comments) says:

    DPF: Incidentally while I wish this Bill not to proceed, I am very happy to work with any party to draft amendments which will make the bill less oppressive.

    There is a great danger here.

    IMHO, it would be better to let the left suffer the consequences of their bad law than to attempt to “rescue” it. This is the same mistake John Key made with the Anti-Smacking Bill.

    My prediction: JK works out a sell-out compromise with H1; the EFB passes in a flawed stated; and National has no incentive to repeal it. Again.

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

    DPF, there is no right or wrong. There is only interpretation. Ask a lawyer.

    So you demonstrate that your interpretation is at the same level as Metira Turei. While I respect any public servant for the work that they do, is this the best you can provide us?

    I’m still waiting for your authoritative definition of ‘election advertising’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Murray M (455 comments) says:

    I would like to ram a megaphone up the arse of every MP who votes for this bill. I don’t care what party they belong to or what gender they are.

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

    I think that if I was on a megaphone promoting some political cause (a strike, SST, kiwiblog) I may have leaflets to hand out (which would carry the name and address of my organization) or I would report to the press (for some free coverage) the name and address of my organization. I cannot imagine that I would want people NOT to know the name of my organization or how to contact them, otherwise there is not point in being there.

    DPF, I stand as bewildered by your reaction to the EFB as you appear to be by it.

    You are providing very little to hang the EFB by.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. pseudonymous (71 comments) says:

    This has got be die in a ditch stuff for the National Party.
    No backing down, no compromise, debate it with all the indignation, fury and scorn that can be “mustered” . Afterall it’s only the sheep that can’t see the denial of democracy about to be foisted on us all.
    I will happily win the race to be the first locked up for speaking my mind, but second place behind whaleoil will do just fine
    KTB

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Kimble (4,410 comments) says:

    Hey Kent,

    What if you were protesting against the tour of a rugby team from a country that practised racial segregation and did not allow certain races to vote?

    What if this was really embarassing for the government of the day? What if the public service wasnt truly independent?

    Surprise! You just got audited by the IRD!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. dad4justice (7,976 comments) says:

    Do not support the tour in 81 now we got kill the bill , not much changes except a minto bar becomes a Louise bar , while Scott sits in jail whale and Rob eyes up the gamekeepers job at the animal farm ?

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

    Not sure where you’re coming from, Kimble. Life and politics is essentially complicated and no-one, no matter how professional they confess to be is 100% free from bias. All we can do is do the best that we can. While I believe the EFB to be flawed, it would not be the first piece of flawed legislation we have had.

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

    Kent – it makes it illegal to promote or oppose a candidate or party unless you publish your name and address with your comments. You cannot stand on a soapbox, or address a public meeting, or hold a placard, or write on a pavement with chalk without adding your name and physical address.

    That is not free speech.

    So if you want to oppose somebody’s election, just be aware – they’ll have your name, and they’ll know where you live.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. dad4justice (7,976 comments) says:

    Kent ; name me any recent legislation that is not flawed and I give you a ticket to the rogered gnomer play which is a Otago Swamp Production ?

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

    This may be slightly off topic – but!!

    I have some clients who have a `Vote National’ sticker on each side of their roadside letter box. They are there from the last election (I know they should have been removed on election day). They are not political activists – just people who like to help their friends and they probably make a donation of $100 or so to the National Party each year.

    What is their position if they don’t remove the stickers?

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

    Milo,

    it makes it illegal to promote or oppose a candidate or party unless you publish your name and address with your comments. You cannot stand on a soapbox, or address a public meeting, or hold a placard, or write on a pavement with chalk without adding your name and physical address.

    None of the above can be classed as an ‘advertisement’ unless the placard was specifically tackling either a particular party or a policy that could be closely identified with a party or parties. As I said in a previous post, if you were an organization promoting a useful cause, then you would want your name and address to be known. It adds kudos to your argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. slightlyrighty (2,499 comments) says:

    I haven’t got a reply on an ealier thread so I will pose the question again.

    Can anyone tell me why we need a 151 page document to tell New Zealanders who can say what, about whom, when and how in this country?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Barnsley Bill (982 comments) says:

    Slightlyrighty, because despite an enormous amount of money they had raised themselves and an enormous amount of our money they took…. labour nearly lost the last election.
    This cannot be allowed to happen again. there is only one true message and none others may be heard.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. dave (986 comments) says:

    Kent.
    Have you read the select committee report? Because your ignorant comments are getting annoying.

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

    and lets spare a thought for dpf..

    there he has beenmouthing the official natty party line..

    of..’oh..!..we are opposed to anonymous donations..but what can we do..?

    our hands are tied..

    but..the greens have engineered a savaging of the nattys’ main source of funding..

    so..i guess..

    you’ll just have to ‘grin and bear it’..eh dpf..?

    mind you..

    you don’t need it now..eh..?

    seeing as dodgy/hollow-men campaigns are also banned..eh..?

    but still..ouch..!.eh..?

    can i suggest..crochet..?..

    maybe some indoor bowls..?

    y’know..!..to take your mind off it..

    and hey dpf..

    i told you way back when..

    that the one outcome fromthe last election you nattys could put the house on..

    ..was that clark was going to knacker your financial base..

    albeit the greens had a large role in the anonymous donations area..

    this has indeed come to pass..

    eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. slightlyrighty (2,499 comments) says:

    and hey dpf..

    i told you way back when..

    that the one outcome fromthe last election you nattys could put the house on..

    ..was that clark was going to knacker your financial base..

    So Phil, you agree that the purpose of this bill is to hamstring opposition to the incumbent party?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. greenjacket (436 comments) says:

    It is fascinating that the only justification now put forwards by defenders of the bill is that it is to nobble the opposition before the next election.

    I just hope that when National comes to power they behave in exactly the same way to Labour and the Greens – change the election laws to suit themselves, screw the opposition…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Michaels (1,318 comments) says:

    DPF, lovely to hear your luscious tones with Larry this afternoon. At least you speak some sense. (now may I have my 10 points back please?)

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

    it is a combination of dealing to nationals funding base..

    (just because they can..)..

    that and revenge for the hollow-men secret/dirty eb campaign..

    and haven’t the greens had the last laugh on you..eh..?

    and revenge is best served cold..eh..?

    but hey..!

    you can’t say you didn’t bring it on yourself..eh..?

    that ‘silly’ rightwing coup/takeover of the national party..eh..?

    with the wisdom afforded by hindsight..

    you’d have to agree..that was pretty shortsighted..that coup..eh..?

    given the way things have turned out for you..

    on this blackest of ‘black mondays..eh..?.’

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. mudmum (31 comments) says:

    I have spent quite a bit of time trying to get thru’ to the unenlightened just how bad this bill was before. Now it just seems so ludicrously obvious that if people don’t get it, it’s because they don’t want to.
    Any and all opposition is basically now restricted. Benevolent dictatorship? No, something more sinister I think.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Michaels (1,318 comments) says:

    eh?

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

    or..you try some music to ease yr troubled souls..

    whoar fm one is a good bet..

    http://whoar.co.nz/

    (you just missed sly doing ‘dance to the music’..

    but a vast/choice array of musical delectables await the discerning listener..

    (whew..!..did i just say that..?..)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. idiotboy (67 comments) says:

    DPF says:

    “…I am very happy to work with any party to draft amendments which will make the bill less oppressive.”

    Though earlier today you were saying:

    “There can be only one response – Kill the Bill. Now.”

    What changed your mind DPF?

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

    now..the clashh..rocking the casbah’…

    (mmm!!.the clash..!..)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. dad4justice (7,976 comments) says:

    philu – rock the casbar bro , rock the casbar – cool idea dude ? Want an interview ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. dad4justice (7,976 comments) says:

    Maybe we write kill the bill song , I bags drummer spot , haha the Queen pulled off the jet fighters , jet fighters , sharlene don’t like it , rock the casbah , this is ….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. idiotboy (67 comments) says:

    philu i’m listenin’!

    what u got on right now is not to my tastes mind.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. idiotboy (67 comments) says:

    Eagles – tsk, tsk, tsk. i bet d4j likes the eagles. $10.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. dad4justice (7,976 comments) says:

    Eagles are better than liarbour vultures .

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

    come come now..

    the eagres have their place..

    (not a huge one..i agree..but one nontheless..

    and the reasonthat ditty makes it over the programming hurdle..

    is because it’s so goddam tight/seamless..and small in subject..

    yet epic in tratment..

    (whew..!..did i just say that..?..)

    woody guthrie..

    now the verve..

    mm..!!..’lucky man’..

    choice..!

    y’see..i delight in what i am doing..!

    heh-he..!

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Rex Widerstrom (5,330 comments) says:

    What Whaleoil said.

    If the amended Bill passes the only appropriate course for anyone who gives a damn for democracy will be civil disobedience insofar as the provisions of the Bill pertain.

    As DPF and others have pointed out, if the government changes then these measures will be able to be used against supporters of the Labour and other left parties… thus it’s to be hoped that at least some of those supportes who are astute enough to see the longer term implications of this poorly conceived and drafted legislation also refuse to abide by its provisions.

    If even a handful of left activists stand with those who oppose the EFB it will make it that much more unpleasant for the government to initiate prosecutions against those who fail to comply.

    And those of us outside NZ’s shores – and thus much harder to prosecute – also have a role to play here as a conduit for any material (and I include pro-Labour material, if we truly believe in free speech) which would otherwise fall afoul of the Bill.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. The Double Standard (72 comments) says:

    Listen to that well know right winger Bomber Bradbury on the EFB:

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/national/aft/the_panel_part_2

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. idiotboy (67 comments) says:

    very eclectic philu – i’m enjoying it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. infused (646 comments) says:

    “# kehua Says:
    Forget about the EFB for the moment, I just watched TV1 & TV3 news, if these 2 items were an indication of how this Bill is going to be presented to the public via TV we are all wasting our time. The delivery and opinion put forward was not “news“ it was corrupt and deliberate. Duncan Garner shouild be taken to task and made to sit and watch it in front of an impartial entity. I would like to see the result.”

    I saw that. Could not believe it. The media made it seem like the amended bill was something to be praised.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. PaulL (5,983 comments) says:

    Infused, of course they did. That was always Labour’s plan, why are you surprised? Refer: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/11/the_herald_front_page.html#comment-365334

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

    but rex..rex..

    are you willfully not realising that all the bits the lefties wanted taken out..

    have been taken out..

    and theanonymous donation scam has been knackered..for both national and labour..

    as well as..!

    what’s not to like about that aspect of the beast..?

    and um..!.how/why exactly to be civil disobediencing..?

    can’t see it myself..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

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

    cheers i b..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Chuck Bird (4,765 comments) says:

    David, I am helping collect signatures asking for a referendum regrding Bradford’s anti smacking legislation. I am doing this along with many others around the country at tables on footpaths with signs such as smacking is not abuse. Would this come within the EFB?

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

    chucky chucky..

    still re-fighting all the old/lost battles..

    eh..?

    chin up..!

    eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

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

    conchords are on prime..now..

    (this has been a public service announcment..)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. virtualmark (1,514 comments) says:

    DPF … question for you … am I right in thinking that the EB could do the same thing they did in 2005, except they’d have to:

    (1) present themselves as multiple individuals rather than a consolidated group of seven, so as to each spend $120,000 each? and
    (2) put their name and address on the bottom of each pamphlet?

    Presumably they could each ostensibly issue a separate pamphlet, print as many as they each could for $120,000 and … whadya know … have the pamphlet’s quite similar in design, content etc.

    Seven or eight of them totals up to $840k – $960k, which buys a lot of pamphlets. And they showed in 2005 they were prepared to ‘fess up in public, so I doubt that having to put their name & address to the pamphlet would be a total deterrent to them.

    Wouldn’t that just make the whole EFB a mockery? Here’s Helen so frothing at the mouth that some people she despises had the temerity to say unwelcome things against her that she’ll trample the freedoms of 4 million people … but still isn’t able to silence them.

    [DPF: Indeed the EB could well be able to spend around the same amount of money as last time, so long as they each spend their own money and do not collude on having the same design or message]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Chuck Bird (4,765 comments) says:

    Phil, 225,000 signatures and 75,000 to go. The battle is not lost unless collecting them will soon be illegal. Would you be in favout of that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. virtualmark (1,514 comments) says:

    Oh, but don’t worry. Peter Davis says it’s okay.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    “that she’ll trample the freedoms of 4 million people”

    If only four million people KNEW their freedoms were being trampled.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. virtualmark (1,514 comments) says:

    Hinamanu, I was a little bit wrong in my earlier post. Helen’s going to trample on the freedom of 3,999,996 people. Tane, Gnome-rogerer, toms & philu are giving theirs up voluntarily.

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

    don’t worry chuck..

    i’ll defend your right to collect..

    but..um..!..what then..?

    (after the collecting..?..)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

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

    Dave,

    what select committee report? Show me the document.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,148 comments) says:

    Kent:

    Dave,
    what select committee report? Show me the document.

    Sorry, but you’ve just exposed yourself as an ignorant tool who’s not here to engage in serious debate. What select committee report, indeed.

    Google. It. For. Yourself.
    The. Truth. Is. Out. There.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Lindsay Addie (1,180 comments) says:

    Kent,

    The select committee reports are at the start of the pdf file which contains the redrafted legislation (sorry I don’t have the url).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Inventory2 (10,177 comments) says:

    hinamanu said “If only four million people KNEW their freedoms were being trampled.”

    And that’s the guts of the issue hinamanu. The government will rush this legislation through its remaining stages in early December as the country readies itself for Christmas. The timing of the EFB’s reporting back is every bit as cynical as the intent of the Bill itself. However, this time, the MSM is showing signs that it will play Helen’s game by its rules, not hers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. dave (986 comments) says:

    Kent,

    Why dont you just crawl back under your rock. You`ll probably be a lot happier. Ignorant tool indeed.

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

    And here I was, innocently planning to hire a loudspeaker before an election and go around serenading the neighbourhood with sea shanties.

    And now the Helen Klark and her lesbian minions is preventing my neighbours from my little treat.

    Infamy, infamy…everbody has it in for me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    “Infamy, infamy…everbody has it in for me.”

    well apparently npoo, if you’re not spending over 12,000 you can start a political party without registering. How this works befuddles me. If you don’t register, you aren’t visible and won’t be added to the ballot.

    You’re not registered, the system can’t see you.
    you’re invisible.

    You could be called the “SHARRRRON!” party cause you’re invisible.

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

    Ignorant tool indeed.

    Typical response from people who don’t have the stuff to back up anything they say. I guess I am supposed to accept all your conclusions on the basis of your poor interpretation of badly written legislation. Who is the ignorant tool?

    Every law can be interpreted as a reduction in freedom. The more complex our society becomes the more laws we accumulate, but also the more freedoms we have the opportunity to explore. While this legislation, once cleaned up properly, will restrict our freedom in some respects, our freedom to express ourselves politically has dramatically increased thanks to the internet, U-tube, kiwiblog, e-mail, TV etc etc.

    Thank-you Lindsay, but a search of google produced little of use. I’ll stick to what the legal experts say, such as:
    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0709/S00371.htm. Like them I oppose badly written and insufficiently scrutinized legislation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,148 comments) says:

    Kent:

    Thank-you Lindsay, but a search of google produced little of use.

    *Sigh*

    Your research skills really aren’t the best:
    http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/SC/Reports/3/6/2/48DBSCH_SCR3906_1-Electoral-Finance-Bill-130-2.htm

    It took me less than a minute – and I’m not even your research librarian.

    And:

    Typical response from people who don’t have the stuff to back up anything they say. I guess I am supposed to accept all your conclusions on the basis of your poor interpretation of badly written legislation. Who is the ignorant tool?

    I’m afraid you are the weakest tool of them all.

    You’ve been asking pesky questions all day – questions designed (I suspect) to disrupt threads rather than to assist your understanding. You complain that others can’t back up anything they say. I’ve been reading through the threads, and there’s some fairly detailed comments. Please try engaging your brain, and read the select committee report (now that you can’t claim not to have access to it) – and then you might be able to keep up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. virtualmark (1,514 comments) says:

    hinamanu, Inventory2 … I agree that right now very few Kiwis understand the full impact of this bill.

    However, an election campaign will throw this bill into stark relief. And whadya know, we have an election campaign next year …

    Personally I think the EFB and it’s partner Appropriations Bill are a huge mis-step by Labour and the Watermelons. The EFB’s only going to be useful if Labour are prepared to prosecute people, but any prosecutions will result in far more public attention than these Select Committee shennigans have received.

    I’m confident the vast majority of Kiwis have a finely tuned sense of fair play. Any prosecutions are going to be seen to be cynical politicking by Labour, and I think it’ll cost them votes – in the same way the EB’s campaign in 2005 cost National votes.

    Certainly this is an attempt by Labour to tilt the playing field. But I think if they try and enforce it it’ll backfire on them and cost them votes not win them votes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,148 comments) says:

    I’ve had only a cursory look so far, but this aspect of the commentary section stinks:

    Minority views are included in the report only by agreement. A
    majority of the committee has concerns with a number of the comments
    of New Zealand National’s minority view. Despite these
    concerns members respect the right of all members to participate and
    therefore agreement is not withheld.

    National’s minority view appears to be a thoughtful, well-reasoned contribution. For all all the rhetoric about the “number of comments” it only takes up 9.5 pages!

    Talk about politicising the select committee process! To be fair, this isn’t exactly virgin territory, as select committees have gone here before.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. virtualmark (1,514 comments) says:

    Clarification … “The EFB’s only going to be useful if Labour are prepared to prosecute people”. Yes, I know it’s not Labour that prosecutes people. I guess the right wording would be “only going to be useful if Labour’s prepared to see people prosecuted”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. dave (986 comments) says:

    Kent Parker,
    Typical response from people who don’t have the stuff to back up anything they say, huh. So I dont back up everything I say?.

    Wny dont you read Big News. You can click on the name on the post but just in case you have trouble doing that, and cant find it on google perhaps this may help.

    http://big-news.blogspot.com/2007/11/electoral-finance-bill-reported-back.html

    Oh yes, you have to click on the link or cut and paste it to read the post. If you find that difficult please do another comment and we`ll give you a step by step tutorial.

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

    Thank you for the link, POC.

    The report really has nothing in it that hasn’t already been said: faithfully reproduced by the media and fellow posters. What I haven’t seen yet is what you and others have been reading into the legislation. DPF has got so tied up in knots about this issue he has begun to quote Green MP’s as sources of ‘rightness’.

    I am satisfied that I will never read what you see in it, so my questions are at an end. This is a molehill that you have turned into a mountain, a right wing version of the lefties GE issue, smoke without a fire, insults without an argument, so now I can return to my ignorant slumber, satisfied that the topic has been fully dealt with; tool or not; and that the sky is not about to fall on our heads, democracy is not about to be swept from beneath our feet and the end of the world is not nigh etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. dave (986 comments) says:

    Yay! hes going to crawl back under his rock!

    Tool!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,148 comments) says:

    Kent:

    Apparently you’ve managed to read a 151-page document in 12 minutes (assuming, charitably, that you clicked on the link as soon as I posted it).

    In your whistle-stop tour of those 151 pages, you found “nothing … that hasn’t already been said: faithfully reproduced by the media and fellow posters”? I could be wrong, but I rather suspect the reason you didn’t find anything was that you didn’t go looking for it. After all, by your own admission, you hadn’t seen the report before.

    And:

    I am satisfied that I will never read what you see in it, so my questions are at an end. This is a molehill that you have turned into a mountain, a right wing version of the lefties GE issue, smoke without a fire, insults without an argument, so now I can return to my ignorant slumber, satisfied that the topic has been fully dealt with; tool or not; and that the sky is not about to fall on our heads, democracy is not about to be swept from beneath our feet and the end of the world is not nigh etc.

    Ignorant slumber indeed. I’m wondering if it’s a permanent state for you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. pdq (82 comments) says:

    Well, lets just ignore this stuip law and do what we want … and remind the socialists that they are here to serve us, not the other way round.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. francis (712 comments) says:

    And, given Police resources, you’ll probably get away with that, pdq. Unfortunately, there will be no well-resourced, nation-wide response to Labour that will. And that’s the rub.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Colonel Masters (420 comments) says:

    Kent Parker wrote:
    “As I said in a previous post, if you were an organization promoting a useful cause, then you would want your name and address to be known.”

    What if you were a member of Women’s Refuge? Or anybody who had a protection order against an abusive ex. Would you want your address known? Are such people now to be muted in election year?

    The proposed law is an absolute disgrace.

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

    Peak Oil Conspiracy: Apparently you’ve managed to read a 151-page document in 12 minutes

    *laughs* Well caught.

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

    Colonel:

    What if you were a member of Women’s Refuge? Or anybody who had a protection order against an abusive ex. Would you want your address known? Are such people now to be muted in election year?

    You would be able to supply a relative’s address, or even that of the Women’s Refuge, so long as you could be contacted by electoral authorities if needed.

    POC, I skim read the amendments. I am looking for specific infringements against my ability to exercise free speech. There is nothing in there. Rather than draconian, this document is clumsy, vague, unenforceable, all that kind of stuff. It is nothing to be scared of. A perusal of it reinforces what the media is reporting about it.

    From what I can see in this blog, the mob rules; balance and rational discussion have been sacrificed.

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

    Kent Parker: From what I can see in this blog, the mob rules; balance and rational discussion have been sacrificed.

    Which you probably skimmed through as well, eh? Kent, if the Bill is clumsy, vague and unenforcable as you suggest – what is it’s purpose? Do we need what, according to you, clumsy, vague and unenforcable legislation?

    At best, we get a useless law. From a medium perpective we’ll get what people here are discussing. And if you want to look at the bad? [shudders] People surrender bit by bit of their freedoms because the government said so and eventually wonder why they have none left.

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

    The purpose, Pascal, was to limit third party spending. The rushed nature of the process has meant possible unintended consequences. The left are in a hurry to put it through before Jan 1, so it can apply for next year’s election.

    We have plenty of useless legislation. For every freedom we sacrifice due to increasing need to regulate our activities, we gain a new freedom as a result of our technology (eg internet, airplanes, cars, TV etc). Having increasingly complicated laws is a reflection of an increasingly complex and integrated society.

    Also, it’s one thing to have laws, but then they have to be enforced. Half the time posters in this blog are criticizing the govt for not enforcing the laws that already apply. If the police have an office full of unsolved murder and theft cases, they are not going to waste time on a soap box ranter who hasn’t signed their placards.

    Here in NZ, the police and judiciary interpret the law for themselves, they are not directed by the govt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Craig Ranapia (1,915 comments) says:

    You would be able to supply a relative’s address, or even that of the Women’s Refuge, so long as you could be contacted by electoral authorities if needed.

    Want to come up with a citation for that, because my understanding is is that none of our electoral agencies – or the legislation they operate under – are quite that laissez faire. “This is my Uncle Bob’s address, leave a message and I’ll get back to you…” Correct me if I’m wrong.

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

    Kent Parker: We have plenty of useless legislation.

    So do I take it that you are in support of useless legislation? What a waste.

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

    Kent Parker: “Here in NZ, the police and judiciary interpret the law for themselves, they are not directed by the govt.”

    Rubbish!

    I have copies of directives from the Office of the Minister of Police to the Office of the Commissioner

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

    Hi Frank,

    Technically the state and the judiciary are independent. Humans being humans, that doesn’t always apply, that is why we have to remain alert.

    However this:

    I have copies of directives from the Office of the Minister of Police to the Office of the Commissioner

    refers to directives going from police to state!!

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

    Kent: Technically the state and the judiciary are independent. Humans being humans, that doesn’t always apply, that is why we have to remain alert.

    You have an interesting perspective on things, I’ll grant you that. Useless laws are alright, corruption is okay because they’re human. All seems very odd to me.

    If the State and the Judiciary are independant, how do you explain the recent spate of cases where the Labour party and some of it’s members were not prosecuted despite the police finding there was sufficient evidence to prosecute?

    If that is how you remain alert, you might want to go back to that ignorant slumber you were in not too long ago before you’d even read the bill.

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

    Kent Parker: Pardon? The Minister of Police is a member of government.

    I agree that the bill was rushed, and as i pointed out in my submission. It had a Hollowness about the intent.

    The following was the fiorst part of my submission and I thinkfrom yesterday’s outcome I had it right:

    “You state: The purpose of this bill is to strengthen the law governing electoral financing and broadcasting, in order to provide more ”transprarency” and accountability, prevent undue influence of wealth, and promote participation in parliamentary democracy. The highlighted word in your copied and pasted Mission Statement is indicative of the desperation, carelessness and urgency with which this Bill has been written and presented to the House.

    The whole present process is criminal. I say criminal, unreservedly, because the Bill with its present provisions by reason of its support from “persons in the Service of Her Majesty in right of New Zealand” now lies before the Select Committee.

    The Electoral Finance Bill is a proposal to add to our statutes another shameful Act, which is intended as a justification to the unlawful Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Act. This latter Act was legislated despite the Auditor-General’s and Solicitor-General’s reports on Political Parties Advertising Expenditure in the last election.

    New Zealand Law Society: “This bill is fundamentally obnoxious and should be scrapped. It will penalise private citizens who have the temerity to interfere in politics, while doing nothing to deal with the major electoral funding issue we face: the misuse of taxpayers’ money on a huge scale to ensure the re-election of the incumbent Government.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Craig Ranapia (1,915 comments) says:

    And once more for Kent’s benefit:

    Want to come up with a citation for that, because my understanding is is that none of our electoral agencies – or the legislation they operate under – are quite that laissez faire. “This is my Uncle Bob’s address, leave a message and I’ll get back to you…” Correct me if I’m wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. virtualmark (1,514 comments) says:

    Kent Parker said it’s one thing to have laws, but then they have to be enforced.

    Kent … if the Exclusive Brethren pop up again in the 2008 election do you think Helen will let that just slide by? Or will she push the Police to prosecute?

    And do you think Helen will push for prosecutions if say a trade union breaches any of the (badly drafted) provisions of this Bill?

    The repugnant part of this bill is that Labour know it’s generally unenforceable but they want it to use as a threat against people they disagree with. I am sure that prosecutions will be very selective. I expect the selectiveness will be justified by nice terms like “not in the public interest to prosecute” or “it’s just a technicality”. But I have no doubt there’ll be strong political pressure placed on the Police to prosecute certain “undesirables”.

    Not much different from any other Police state then is it? Sure, Helen’s a bit more subtle and she doesn’t prefer to wear the epaulettes herself. But if you don’t think she is prepared to exert strong pressure on the Police to suit her political will then I’ve got a tractor for you to drive up the steps of Parliament. And a pledge card for you to fund. And a speeding car to get you to Christchurch quickly. And a painting for you to sign.

    Kent, I can’t figure out if you’re just a slightly cleverer troll than the norm, or just a stupidly sanguine naivete. As Pascal wrote You have an interesting perspective on things, I’ll grant you that. Useless laws are alright, corruption is okay because they’re human. All seems very odd to me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Craig Ranapia (1,915 comments) says:

    virtualmark wrote:

    But I have no doubt there’ll be strong political pressure placed on the Police to prosecute certain “undesirables”.

    Nah… after the last go-round, the Police made it perfectly clear they knew nothing about electoral law, cared even less, and regarded the whole fuss as a distraction from ‘real’ crime. And you do have to admire the sporting attitude of the Police that it would have been really bad form to single anyone out for prosecution, so everyone was let off the hook.

    I guess Kent would call that an appropriate exercise of discretion, you’d call it political interference. Me? Rank, apolitical incompetence and cowardice would be closer to the mark.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. david (2,553 comments) says:

    Ouch Craig!!

    And the likelihood of a repeat performance? I’d say zip, nada, NBL (proviso – unless it is in the 9th floor – nah – PUBLIC INTEREST – that’s better – to look the other way. Nothing to see here folks, now move right along)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. virtualmark (1,514 comments) says:

    Craig, I agree that the 2005 election proved the Police don’t have their head around electoral law.

    But I still think that if there’s another Exclusive Brethren-like event in the 2008 election Helen will be putting Howard Broad’s balls in a vice to prosecute under the terms of the EFB.

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

    Frank and Pascal:
    http://www.justice.govt.nz/judiciary/
    As citizens we have principles to uphold. One of them is independence of judiciary and executive.

    corruption is okay because they’re human.

    Swap “imperfection” for “corruption”.

    Regarding useless laws: revisit “imperfection”. Half our DNA is junk according to scientists. Nature is full of apparently useless stuff. No reason why legislation should be any different. Sideswipe at NZHerald recently published a list of 10 most useless laws in UK.

    Virtualmark. I totally agree that HC is trying to hold onto power at all costs and I will most definitely be voting National. That doesn’t mean that we are facing the end of democracy as we know it in the interim. We can thank kiwiblog for helping keep the govt more honest than it might otherwise be, but that doesn’t make the position held here beyond reproach.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Craig Ranapia (1,915 comments) says:

    And the likelihood of a repeat performance? I’d say zip, nada, NBL

    Well, I’d like the next National-lead Government to show some real balls and give our electoral agencies (who have a well-deserved international reputation for transparency and apolitical integrity) real teeth – because its blatantly obvious to me that the Police don’t give a shit. And as long as they don’t, a ‘repeat performance’ as you put it is inevitable. And while that might suit the self-interest of political parties, it does nothing for the health of our democracy.

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

    Kent: As citizens we have principles to uphold. One of them is independence of judiciary and executive.

    Kent, you are mouthing ideology. Look to reality. What happened during the last election when the Labour party / responsible people were not prosecuted because it was not in the public interest?

    Do you believe that rorting our electoral system despite warnings and attempting to buy the election is not in the public interest?

    Or, would a more likely explanation be that the judiciary is currently under the executive’s thumb? So to speak.

    And pardon me, but if we can acknowledge that a proposed law is garbage before it is made into law, then surely we have the obligation to oppose it on that premise before it is codified and written into the law books.

    Or are you seriously suggesting that garbage laws should be written into the law books because of our DNA?

    Do you honestly believe the tripe you write?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. david (2,553 comments) says:

    Kent, consider for a minute this.

    Just as there is a heap of stuff that is “useless” there are also degrees of usefulness ranging from “imperative to survival” to “sometimes handy”

    Now take that thought over to political activism. There are those who take their rights extremely seriously and there are those who wouldn’t know or care because they a) don’t have an interest (i.e. they have never registered that political actions have an effect on them) or b) have absolute faith in the system and will take whatever is dished out.

    Now consider that the second group actually is in a majority.

    Does this make it legitimate to deprive the first group of their ability to stir shit up and express their views to all and sundry?

    I suppose we only need to look at the lack of general outrage at the Trotter article about “acceptable corruption” to see that the population at large doesn’t give a flying f**k about propriety, rights, principle and the individual’s role in a properly functioning democracy but that is all the more reason for those who do to actively defend those rights.

    In the end, not many will miss what they cannot see and which has been taken away so there will not be a lot of moaning about removal of rights that are rarely exercised but hell – we will all be the poorer for it.

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

    And pardon me, but if we can acknowledge that a proposed law is garbage before it is made into law, then surely we have the obligation to oppose it on that premise before it is codified and written into the law books.

    I oppose the legislation and would march against it if there was a march here in the provinces. The Law Society and Human Rights people are calling for a scrapping. However, I disagree with many of the arguments put here as to why it should be scrapped.

    Yes, I agree that we should find a way to cut down on useless law before it happens. (Most current useless law is useless because it is out of date, just as much of our junk DNA might be from some previously discarded adaptation). Maybe the EFB issue is illuminating in that it reveals how legislation is currently created, and the controversy might lead to a more thorough process. However, thoroughness requires more legislation and ultimately in weaker govt which in turn has its drawbacks.

    I would be interested in supporting a 3 term limit for a PM/government, which would nip all this in the bud. The longer a govt is in power the greater the chances of interference between executive and judiciary, in this imperfect world in which we live.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. dad4justice (7,976 comments) says:

    “Or, would a more likely explanation be that the judiciary is currently under the executive’s thumb? So to speak.”

    Never have I read a more correct statement .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Chuck Bird (4,765 comments) says:

    don’t worry chuck..

    i’ll defend your right to collect..

    but..um..!..what then..?

    (after the collecting..?..)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Chuck Bird (4,765 comments) says:

    don’t worry chuck..

    i’ll defend your right to collect..

    but..um..!..what then..?

    (after the collecting..?..)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

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

    Frank,

    Does this make it legitimate to deprive the first group of their ability to stir shit up and express their views to all and sundry?

    As I keep saying, I think you and others are reading too much into what the legislation literally says and you need to keep in mind that social context is taken into account whenever law is tested in court. This legislation does not make it legitimate to deprive the first group of their ability to stir shit up and express their views to all and sundry. End of story.

    In the end, not many will miss what they cannot see and which has been taken away so there will not be a lot of moaning about removal of rights that are rarely exercised but hell – we will all be the poorer for it.

    That is a good point and this has happened time and again over history, most notably recently in Nazi Germany with the gradual erosion of rights and transformation of social attitudes. While the extreme view taken by this blog is commendable, it shouldn’t be kept sheltered from criticism. The real threat may be somewhere else.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Chuck Bird (4,765 comments) says:

    Sorry for the repeat but the main part of my message did not get posted.

    Phil, I would have thought the answer was obvious. There will be a referendum. It will be non binding but it will force National to take a clear position.

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

    Kent Parker: “As citizens we have principles to uphold. One of them is independence of judiciary and executive.”

    Nice in theory, but out the window in practice. How do you think that the EFB has reached a second reading?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    The bill aimed to include commercial use of loudhailers — for example on the top of a bus hired to drive around. The Greens would put up changes to amend the bill so individuals were not caught by it.

    Is this really the best you guys have now? Oh dear. Clearly our Davey has so much emotionally invested in this KTB campaign, he just can’t let it go. It’s rather sad to see actually.

    Like the coalitiion for open government I used to have many reservations regarding this bill, if the objections from the right that i’ve read from the right are the worst remaining aspects of the bill I have to say that there isn’t a whole lot to whale and gnash teeth over.

    Coalition for Open Government welcomes revised Electoral Finance Bill

    The Coalition for Open Government welcomes the revised the Electoral Finance Bill, saying it is greatly improved by the changes announced today.

    “We are particularly pleased to see that the bill now abolishes secret trusts and tackles anonymous donations,” said Steven Price, spokesperson for the Coalition.

    The Coalition also welcomes the tightening of the definition of “election advertisement”, and believes the bill now strikes a much better balance between freedom of expression and the need to protect the democratic system from the corrupting influence of big money.

    The Coalition notes few people will have to undergo the administrative burden of registering, because it will only apply to those who want to spend more than $12,000 on electioneering. What’s more, hardly anyone will want to spend so much money that they’ll be affected by the $120,000 cap.

    “The bill is not about trammelling people’s right to free speech,” said Price. “The revised bill clearly supports democracy by requiring greater transparency of donors and levelling the playing field so that groups like the Exclusive Brethren can’t use their big chequebooks to swing elections.”

    The Coalition is also glad that the bill now:

    * restricts overseas donations;

    * further increases the penalties for almost all the electoral offences;

    * no longer requires people to sign statutory declaration before engaging in electioneering; and

    * allows third parties like Forest and Bird to protect the identities of their donors who aren’t trying to influence the election.

    However, the Coalition calls on parties to tighten the rules for anonymous donations even further.

    “The bill makes real progress in dealing with the huge sums given to political parties in secret,” said Price. “Still, we think the restrictions on anonymous donations should be tighter.”

    Under the bill, a political party would still not have to tell the public the name of someone who gave it $30,000 in an election cycle.

    “A simple solution would be to get rid of the new process by which anonymous donations can be funnelled through the Electoral Commission,” said Price. That would effectively ban all anonymous donations over $1000.

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

    Well team, I have to say I think ‘we’ have lost this one.

    I would like to say it is because Labour out-manouevred Her Majesty’s Opposition, but I fear I am wrong. Because Her Majesty’s Oppositon have been:

    ABSOLUTELY F**N USELESS ON THIS ISSUE.

    If this fiasco is an example of National’s ability to make a difference, then they have lost my vote. If you can’t organise something as basic as a campaign to avert something like the EFB, then what credibility can you claim to have for running a country?

    However, It is more likely that National have launched a ‘full of sounding furie’ protest but know there is much more political capital to be gained but letting the Bill pass.

    So in that respect, we are all merely ‘cannon-fodder’ as far as the Majors are concerned.

    So there are the options: National are incompetent, or National are so cynical they will use the passion and outrage of own supporters to further a ‘secret’ agenda..
    So much for the defence of ‘Transparency’.

    How does it feel?

    I think that the only option now left is to continue with John Boscowan’s initiative, and to formulate a series of ‘test cases’ and provocative gestures to stretch the credibility of this shonky piece of legislation.

    I think that Boscawan should start a political party, and it should have one clear manifesto – ‘Scrap the EFA’.

    ps this is not trolling – this is a genuinely experienced and expressed viewpoint. I don’t think that Labour deserve a modicum of respect for their shameful activities either.

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

    Frank:

    How do you think that the EFB has reached a second reading?

    Because our current system allows for this process. The judiciary is not involved in lawmaking. Their job is to (independently) enforce the laws created by the politicians. The Law Society are protesting against this bill because they don’t think it will make much sense when it comes to trying to enforce it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. PaulL (5,983 comments) says:

    Kent, yes the purpose was to limit third party campaigning (except of course third party campaigning by unions – which can largely continue). But they’ve had two years to do it, why is suddenly such a rush? Incredibly poor planning perhaps? It could have been done properly, it wasn’t and suddenly the laws we have worked under for decades need to be modified in an unseemly hurry because we cannot possibly leave things alone for another election. Why? Because this election Labour have a good chance of losing, and it is important to tilt the playing field in their favour as much as possible. It is that simple.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. casual watcher (289 comments) says:

    In response to the written submission I made, the select committee has just sent me an update on the amendments they have made. They trumpet they have spent a whole 52 hours working on the amendments. Submitters have received this executive summary as a result of a recommendation by the Human Rights Commission. The Select committee say they were pleased to be able act upon the HRC recommendation. I feel privileged and I am humbled !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    Oh – and the link for that last quote

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0711/S00322.htm

    And a little something to cheer up our poor dear rabid righties to pick up those droopy bottom lips. DOesn’t it make you feel like getting out in the sun? Life’s good hey?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. dad4justice (7,976 comments) says:

    Has John Key got his head up a penguin? As soft cock National display the ice berg do nothing approach ; AGAIN !!!

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

    casual –

    “They trumpet they have spent a whole 52 hours working on the amendments.”

    That’s about 51 hours more than they spent on the cut and past option to create the original Bill.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    wail

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

    Because this election Labour have a good chance of losing

    Labour had a good chance of losing the last election and would have if it wasn’t for Don Brash. Chances are the EFB will actually help Labour to lose this one. Key doesn’t have to do anything except move his mouth occasionally in opposition to it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. dad4justice (7,976 comments) says:

    ” wail ” don’t you mean nail the bitch to a tree ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. virtualmark (1,514 comments) says:

    Gnome buggerer. The Nats & DPF have both consistently said they’d be happy to see measures taken against anonymous donations. The Nats & DPF have both consistently said their opposition to the EFB is because, in quick highlights:

    (i) places onerous restrictions on individual’s rights to free speech,
    (ii) introduces a new & sweeping definition of what is political communication,
    (iii) places ridiculously low restrictions on third-parties ability to pay for that political communication,
    (iv) introduces restrictions on third-parties ability to take part in political debate that are both unreasonable and against natural justice, and
    (v) places an unjustified term of restrictions, being from Jan 1 till the date of the election.

    The revisions to the EFB address the anonymous donation provisions that National & DPF were happy to see introduced.

    The revisions to the EFB change only 1 of the 5 broad problem areas I’ve listed above – through raising the spending caps a little.

    So your comments are either naive & unintelligent (I despair of today’s university students …) or they’re just blind partisan trolling that should be dismissed out of hand.

    I look forward to a future National government using these EFB provisions against you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. dad4justice (7,976 comments) says:

    “So your comments are either naive & unintelligent (I despair of today’s university students …)”

    Unfortunately Mark , roger wabbit is a harebrained plebeian living in a fantasy world as part of the state funded parasitic academic mucus brigade .

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

    But the Bill still doesnt stop an individual or group donating to a party and doing a deal with that party to buy favours if that party forms part of the government.

    This can be down thru runners not directly as those with a brain know.

    The citizens will not know. Forget the crap about informing the Electoral Commission.

    Tell me if Im wrong but I believe a number of the Socialist supporters agree that the citizens MUST know whose giving significant sums otherwise we cant judge if the politican bastards arte being bought.

    No public funding for the politicans.

    Full disclosure of all significant donations

    Long jail terms for those who break the law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    Vmark- Actually all of those aspects have been favorably, amended bar the last one – and that’s not a huge issue.

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

    Roger: I would suggest you allow for a full and proper investigation into the bill before you start crowing victory and resorting to all sorts of “I told you so, I win! I’m so pretty!” arguments.

    If you recall correctly, you were telling us how wonderful everything was BEFORE things went to select committee. Then you told us it would be improved. (But wasn’t it good before? If it was so good, why did it need improving?)

    And yet, people found flaws in the old bill. Drastic, anti-democratic flaws. Already lawyers have found flaws with the new bill. Including Sam’s beloved quote on the Standard :) The Human Rights Comission has already admitted to the bill being improved, but they still have their reservations about some aspects of it.

    Give people time to analyse it as they had before. Put it up for public consultation again (Unless you honestly believe Electoral Law should be changed without public consultation) and then, only then, once it has been passed into law with a majority consensus across all parties can you crow that things are now well and good.

    Otherwise? Well, you look like the “I told you so, I’m so pretty” boy. Your choice, but then, you were also the person who cried so happily about a slight bump in the polls and was predicting election victory and all sorts of things out of that. Remember?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. dad4justice (7,976 comments) says:

    “Long jail terms for those who break the law.”

    Great idea gd , however prisons are that full inmates are celled up in laundry cupboards . Where will we put all those corrupt politicians . A floating ice – berg ?

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

    Roger: Vmark- Actually all of those aspects have been favorably, amended bar the last one – and that’s not a huge issue.

    And thus our democracy is sold, Philip John. Thus it is sold.

    Lee: I’m afraid I have to agree with you. National is a disgrace and they do not deserve the benches anymore. And even if they did win it, I don’t believe they have the balls to fix this country. Which, sadly, means we will most likely see 3 more years of a Labour party government.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. virtualmark (1,514 comments) says:

    Lee C. I suspect National aren’t too worried about the EFB at all. If I were them I’d be thinking along the lines of:

    (i) Make sure all your anonymous donations via trusts are in the bank well before 1 Jan 2008. Rattle the tin in 2007. Who cares what restrictions are placed on anonymous donations in 2008 … the money’s in the bank.

    (ii) Recognise that there are ways around the EFB. As long as you’re prepared to organise yourself well and “out yourself” in public then third parties can still campaign effectively.

    (iii) And who cares if the EB can’t/don’t play a role in the 2008 election? They cost National the 2005 election, who wants them on the scene in 2008. I’d be quite happy to see them stymied.

    (iv) Clearly position yourself now with the public as being against this bill, get the “mindshare” that National is pro-freedom of speech.

    (v) Try to engineer an event in the election campaign that highlights how intrusive the EFB/EFA is, and which highlights how Helen is trying to restrict traditionally accepted freedoms. Actually welcome a prosecution of this bill, in the same way that any prosecution of a regular Mum-and-Dad for smacking will resound against Helen.

    Remember, the swing voter who will decide the next election is not a partisan pro-EFB voter like Gnome buggerer, or a partisan anti-EFB voter like DPF. It’s the “soccer Mums” in middle suburbs who are comfortable switching their vote between National & Labour. I think those swing voters are unaware of the EFB so far. And I think they’ll really not like it once they see it in action.

    For my mind, if I was Tane et al I’d be against this bill because I think it’ll cost votes, not win them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    “If you recall correctly, you were telling us how wonderful everything was BEFORE things went to select committee”

    Not at all.

    “Already lawyers have found flaws with the new bill.”

    Oh you mean the one that means you have to put your name to any overtly political, commercial communications you make during elections? Yes, it’s the Reichstag fire all over again. Only popular revolt can save our democracy now! Whale Oil, D4J, Redbaiter, are you with me men?

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

    Kent Parker: “I think you and others are reading too much into what the legislation literally says and you need to keep in mind that social context is taken into account whenever law is tested in court.”

    Discard the theory and get down to reality.

    You first of all have to get to court to test the law.

    In the Darnton V Clark High Court Case did Helen’s misappropriation of her leader’s funds get tested? It was wiped with the appalling “Validation Bill. Why did the office of the Commissioner “bury” a complaint of misappropriation of leader’s funds? Why was the Governor- General petitioned on the Validation Bill?

    This evidence was laid before the select committee.

    There was nothing wrong with the Electoral Laws that applied in the 2005 election. Wrongdoing was exposed and the Police lied when they reported their corrupt “comprehensive investigation”. They were proven to be hopelessly incompetent in that they escused the wrongdoing because most involved had broken the law. We still don’t know who ordered the Pledge card?

    A Royal Commission of Inquiry would expose the whole of the corrupt proceedings that enveloped the last election.

    If an election was held tomorrow a transparent election under the existing legislation could be held.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. dad4justice (7,976 comments) says:

    Nice try roger gnomer , however I would rather deep throat kiss a skunk rather than have anything to do with such a mental cot case, baecuse your foaming socialist spittle could contain contagious communist bugs ?

    F##k up silly Philly Jerk and you know where to shove your demented idea you !!@@!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. virtualmark (1,514 comments) says:

    Gnome botherer said Vmark- Actually all of those aspects have been favorably, amended bar the last one – and that’s not a huge issue.

    Oh really? Favourably amended to who? Let’s think about …

    (i) places onerous restrictions on individual’s rights to free speech,
    So you’re saying that I don’t have to put my name & address to any political communication, placard, megaphone announcement???? That’s seems pretty onerous to me. And I don’t think it’s been meaningfully changed.

    (ii) introduces a new & sweeping definition of what is political communication,
    Talking about megaphone announcements … aren’t they now captured? As far as I understand it the few exceptions are general established media, “non-commercial” blogs (please define) and a few other niches. That seems a pretty sweeping definition to me, and I don’t believe it’s been meaningfully changed.

    (iii) places ridiculously low restrictions on third-parties ability to pay for that political communication,
    $12,000 before you have to register, and $120,000 once you do register. Sure, those caps have been raised in this amended bill. But they’re not large caps, and there’s no mechanism in place to adjust them with inflation. Seems pretty low to me.

    (iv) introduces restrictions on third-parties ability to take part in political debate that are both unreasonable and against natural justice,
    Once the campaigning begins then unless the third party has had the foresight to register they can’t respond to any candidates slurs or attacks. Is that natural justice gnome style? And again, there was no meaninful change to this in the new draft.

    (v) places an unjustified term of restrictions, being from Jan 1 till the date of the election.
    What rationale could you have for this? Other than a partisan one? Why should any of us spend nigh on a third of our lives restricted in our ability to speek, write & advocate? And again, no meaningful change to this.

    Roger, you’re a tool in both senses of the word. Both “blindly partisan” and “not the sharpest tool in the shed”. Perhaps you should stick to what gnomes do best (rogering root vegetables? being pissed on by dogs?)

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

    virtualmark,

    I agree. There are many ways to circumvent the anonymous donations, however, the $240,000 applies to the whole 3 years and not just the election year.

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

    Lee C I can see where you are coming from,it does look like we have Flacid and Placid leading the charge on this one. A trio of Brownlee, Lockwood-Smith and Tony Ryall might be a louder, clinical and cutting frontline.They maybe better concentrating on the fact that what pissed most people off last time is now legal and in reality is worse with the incumbant now able to spend more and for longer, with our money. Most Kiwis believe in “fair play“ forget about `level playing fields`that concept isnot in their vocabulary so play to it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. MattiBruce (3 comments) says:

    When is a march in ChCh going to take place?

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

    In the Darnton V Clark High Court Case did Helen’s misappropriation of her leader’s funds get tested? It was wiped with the appalling “Validation Bill. Why did the office of the Commissioner “bury” a complaint of misappropriation of leader’s funds? Why was the Governor- General petitioned on the Validation Bill?

    Frank, if election law was so weakly applied following the last election what makes you think this new law is going to be any more rigorously applied. In other words, what have we to worry about?

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

    roger nome: “The Coalition is also glad that the bill now:

    * restricts overseas donations;

    I vaguely remember an Investigate article re a $1/2M donation to the Labour party by some overseas individual, who had some sort of cotract cargoeing shipments of tobacco round the world

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. virtualmark (1,514 comments) says:

    Kent. Any restrictions on anonymous donations will only apply from 1 January onwards. I’d be confident that National will have the coffers full already … that’d be the prudent thing given (i) there’s always the chance of an early election and (ii) they’ve known for a long time these sort of provisions were coming in.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Brownie () says:

    Great link to youtube, nome

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. dad4justice (7,976 comments) says:

    Good question MattiBruce, as the anti -smacking March in Christchurch was a good turn out of a varied cross section of concerned citizens who are worried about the communist tactics displayed by a corrupt Labour Government .

    The square will rock again to the voices of disgruntled constituents ? I hope so ?

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

    virtualmark

    I was thinking of the next election as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Santa Claws (54 comments) says:

    Thousands and thousands words written about the EFB And the result in most people minds.?
    National have been stopped getting large anom donations.
    Meanwhile Labour closes the gap.
    Fuck who his running Nationals PR, what Tossers
    Focus on what we stand for be honest about our policies.. We can’t rant a n rave and say fuck all
    any more.
    Point out the differences
    Champion what we stand for
    Be upfont about who we are
    We are just giving Labour a big stick to beat us with in 2008
    in 2005 we came within a knats cock (Don) of winning with good strong right wing policies.
    Since then either silence or agreeing with Labour
    Fucking pathetic.
    Come on National get a grip

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

    virtual mark I see where you are coming from more later.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    Vmark –

    1) the police have descretion over what they prosecute and what they don’t. i.e. Remeber the “anti-smaking Bill”? Everyone who tapped their toddler on the hand was going to end up in jail? So far it hasn’t happened to one single person has it? Why? Because the police are free to apply their common sense. Similarly, you won’t see the police rounding up people for every minor infringment re forgetting to put your name to a banner that you mad for a protest. If they choose to do anything about it, it will be a verbal warning. This is where your hysterical arguments inevitably fall down.

    2) Same argument

    3) I doubt there are too many organisations that would spend over $120,000 in an electoral year on poltical campaigning. There are probably a few Unions, a few business organisations – overall a doubt that more than a dozen organisations will be affected by this – it’s a misnomer.

    4) So if you want to be a major player in the politcal debate you register? Big deal.

    5) It’s now widely acknowledged that modern political campaigns run for well over 3 months, so it’s only reasonable that the rules apply to all, not just some of the campaign.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. dad4justice (7,976 comments) says:

    “Come on National get a grip”

    Yeah right , no contest, roll over Batman and Robin, they’re just pc socialists on the tax payer gravy train .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. casual watcher (289 comments) says:

    Virtualmark – National should not be confident about anything. Labour will selectively apply the law to disadvantage them in particular – they will try to keep as much of that money in the coffers as they can. They will also spend as much public money as they can either directly or indirectly promoting themselves. They will be brazen and we will be outraged but they will still do it. And they just might get away with it.

    National are too complacent, too lazy and they think they just have to turn up whenever the next election is held. They have to STOP these Bills or they and this country are fucked. It is the thin edge of the wedge and they must make a principled stand and show some genuine leadership – if there is not a good turnout at the Wellington march it may already be too late.

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

    The Select Committee on the EFB has just emailed those who made a submission and listed the alterations under the following:

    “The Committee received and considered 575 submissions and 101 submitters were heard in person. We appreciated the high level of public engagement regarding the important issues of electoral finance reform….”

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

    Kent: Frank, if election law was so weakly applied following the last election what makes you think this new law is going to be any more rigorously applied. In other words, what have we to worry about?

    Again, if the bill is unenforcable and poorly designed – why codify it in law?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. virtualmark (1,514 comments) says:

    Kent,

    I think there’s a very strong chance of National winning in 2008, and they’ll then revisit this whole issue of campaign financing etc.

    And even if they don’t win in 2008 I’m sure there will be ways around the restrictions. For example:
    (i) you can spread the anonymous donations across more people, in order to use their allocations to the fullest – think of a family trust making the largest possible anonymous donation for each beneficiary,
    (ii) you do what they do in the States, lots of very expensive fundraising dinners. Not donations, but profits from functions etc.
    (iii) you have some of your donors prepared to disclose their identities and just go for gold in public.

    If National don’t win in 2008 they’ll win in 2011 – I just don’t believe that any Govt can hold power that long in today’s electoral climate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. dad4justice (7,976 comments) says:

    When National win in 2011 , will there be any kiwis living in New Zealand ?

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

    Is there going to be any Dunedin march? Shame, since two of the worst labour cabinet ministers in recent history could do with a reality check from the public, loudhailers a must!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. Billy (125 comments) says:

    Rogernome is right. It doesn’t matter what the law is, the police won’t enforce it anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    Maynard’s yet another D4J sock-puppet?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. virtualmark (1,514 comments) says:

    Gnome botherer …

    1a) Why introduce laws that aren’t enforceable or won’t be enforced? If you think legislators don’t intend for laws to be enforced then you’re smoking something.
    1b) Ah, but I concede that legislators are happy to see laws selectively enforced. And that’s repugnant. One law for all. Not “one law for my buddies and a big stick for my enemies” … that way leads to Mugabe-ism.

    2) See above

    3) Agreed there’ll be few organisations caught by this in 2008. But over time those limits will bite more and more … take a look at Cullen’s 39% envy tax for a simple example. Sure, the caps can be revisited, but Government’s have so much inertia they simply don’t do this anywhere near often enough.

    4) The offense against natural justice I referred to is mainly to do with when you can/have to register. It’s stupid & ill conceived. Panicking lawmakers rushing badly conceived laws into place without adequate thought.

    5) If you want to take that line of argument then surely we’d all say political parties are constantly campaigning. So let’s put these restrictions in place permanently. To my mind you either say (i) campaigning happens once the election date is set, or (ii) in today’s world campaigning is a permanent state of affairs. But going from 1 January has no rational basis … what happens in 2011 if Helen calls an early election for April 2008??? Do we say then that in 2011 the restrictions only apply for 4 months from 1 Jan 2011 to April 2011? That’s stupid, inconsistent and ill-conceived.

    Gnome buggerer, this legislation is sloppy. It needs a lot more work, it needs a lot more opportunity for independent non-partisan input, it needs to be taken out of the hands of self-interested and scared politicians.

    Personally, I don’t think it will make a significant difference to the outcome of the next election. I object to it because it’s bad and partisan law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. dad4justice (7,976 comments) says:

    rogered gnomer – I know you needs a severe socking you coward . Dunedin is a very small place Mr Mason .

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

    Kent Parker: “if election law was so weakly applied following the last election ”

    There are no “ifs” about it. It was a “nothing” application which is corruption. So we had a corrupt election. Show me it wasn’t and this corruption is being embellished in our Statue Books.

    As long as we have a corrupt Office of the Commissioner and corrupt politicians we have a lot to worry about.

    This is what it is all about

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

    Roger: 1) the police have descretion over what they prosecute and what they don’t. i.e. Remeber the “anti-smaking Bill”? Everyone who tapped their …

    Discretion. Sheesh man, you’re supposed to be s.m.r.t! Would you agree that it is better to have a law written where the police are not required to apply discretion to determine who to charge and who not to charge?

    That leaves it far less likely for us to have repeats of the “Not in the public interest to prosecute” rort like we saw with the last election.

    Roger: probably a few Unions, a few business organisations – overall a doubt that more than a dozen organisations will be affected by this – it’s a misnomer

    Yet, Unions ran a campaign last election that directly campaigned against the National Party. (Research it Gnome – I sat in Auckland hospital and read one of the pamphlets)

    But because this was seen as communication with their members it was not counted and will not be counted even under this revised bill. This has effectively given the Labour party the free support of the Unions, thus imbalancing the whole process and biasing it towards the one party that has the support of the Unions.

    Is this the fair and transparent democracy you want, Roger?

    Roger: 4) So if you want to be a major player in the politcal debate you register? Big deal.

    No real quibble there, except for … well … think of Setchell. This government has a track record of disadvantaging people who oppose them. If I wanted to criticize them I do not want to risk my employment or my business prospects because I dared to shed a negative light on the government.

    Roger: It’s now widely acknowledged that modern political campaigns run for well over 3 months, so it’s only reasonable that the rules apply to all, not just some of the campaign.

    And during that time, as we have seen with the ramp up in government advertising every election year under the Labour party, the incumbent government (Be they National or Labour) will have the full public purse at their disposal to publish thinly veiled electioneering in the guise of “policy announcements”.

    All tastefully done in red.

    Are you 100% sure, on the off chance that National makes it in, that you want a government with an unlimited purse, the ability to silence all critics and having the discretion to selectively enforce and prosecute electoral law against those they disagree with in opposition?

    Fortunately, National remains committed to repealing this once they get into power. At least somebody retains some integrity and honesty.

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

    Hell, I hope we don’t have to wait until 2011 for the next Nat govt!

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

    D4J: rogered gnomer – I know you needs a severe socking you coward . Dunedin is a very small place Mr Mason .

    Okay. I’ve had enough. D4J, fuck off back to your hole with the personal threats. There is no reason to threaten people you disagree with with violence. You need to learn the manners and behavior that God gave a goat. Maybe then you can be allowed to have a discussion amongst the adults. But until then, go watch My Little Pony or whatever it is you amuse yourself with.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. Brownie () says:

    Well said Pascal. Moderation, please!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. dad4justice (7,976 comments) says:

    A personal threat was not in my words pascal , I just know people that know Phillip John . Is that a crime to say that ? Stop twisting the truth pascal, as I did not portray any violence in my comment . A severe socking is another name for a gagging order , you know suppression of freedom of expression that type of thing . Keep your powder dry darling .

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

    Jeeze, first time posting and the trolls have a go straight away! There is some intelligent debate going on however, between the childish vitriol.

    Serious question though, I’ve tried finding out myself, but can’t so need to ask – will there be a Dunedin march? I’m there if there is. Have a go as much as you like you nomes and sods, your rhetoric is so abrasive it only serves to entrench my position, not to persuade me otherwise.

    I’m ashamed to say I voted Labour last election -j ust for the interest write off on my student loan. This time I won’t be so selfish, it’s an easier decision to choose who to vote for when ones basic freedoms and human rights are being slowly but surely eroded and lost.

    It’s pretty simple really.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. dad4justice (7,976 comments) says:

    Maynard , don’t let these trolls put you off this blog, as they try every angle to upset people . Auntie Helen has trained them well .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. WebWrat (516 comments) says:

    Gnome:
    Can you tell me why the government is sucking up to communist countries?
    Why did Winston go to North Korea?
    Why is the government talking of giving Nth Korea ‘financial assistance?
    Why did my father bother to spend half a decade fighting for our democracy?
    Why are you and your traitor mates so desperate to errode said democracy?
    Why do you think you are so ‘gung-ho’ when you consistantly and deliberately offend the very people that financially support you so you can sit on your arse in Dunedin and offend them?
    Why do you think it is such a joke to denigrate our democracy that so many people sacrificed their lives to acheive?
    Is a frontal lobotomy mandatory for socialists?

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

    The Socialist supporters still havent addressed the anonymous donations

    I repeat An individual or group can still make a $I million donation to a party and the citizens will not know who the donor is.

    The donor can do a deal with the party to benefit the donor and the citizens will not know unless they can connect the dots.

    So if the favour is obscure the dots dont get connected.

    Great governance.. For goodness sake.

    Why cant you dimbulb get your heads around this matter.

    Its bribery and corruption and this Bill has nothing in place to prevent it.

    Or dont you care if your luvvies are bought off/

    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.