Paranoid and odious
Yes, that is the view of two newspapers on the “better” Electoral Finance Bill, and neitehr of them are the NZ Herald.
First the Hawke’s Bay Today says:
The Electoral Finance Bill was inspired by an instinctive hatred of personal wealth (especially when it benefits political opposition, as witnessed by the Exclusive Brethren’s ridiculous attack on Labour and the Greens) and resentment by the Government that it was unable to steal public funds for its election campaigning. However, the overarching impulse, revealed in the desire to raise the weights of any opposition, has been to legislate to remain in power.
Wow “hatred” and “steal”. Wonder if this is still just a beltway issue?
In its revised form, the bill moderates the naked desire to clear the decks of political dissent. Plans to give Government advertising campaigns immunity and to suppress pressure groups were ditched (though the use of megaphones falls under the bill’s ambit and an 11-month restriction on political expression before an election is the longest for any western democracy).
Despite the changes to what many of its critics correctly deemed irredeemable, the bill remains an obnoxious piece of lawmaking for what has driven it, for the disdain it has shown to the principles of freedom of expression and fairness and for the loathing and contempt that it generates for those who, in principle anyway, we ought to be able to show at least a modicum of respect.
Now we turn to the Dominion Post political editor, Tracy Watkins. Now she won’t use strong words such as steal and hatred will she. Oh wait she’s just called Labour “paranoid”. The plan to con everyone that this new bill is wonderful and lovely seems to be failing. Here’s Tracy:
A wise old man probably once said that you should never try to write a law while you’re feeling angry and paranoid.
And if he didn’t, then he should have.
Because all Labour’s problems over the Electoral Finance Bill stem from its decision to rewrite the rules for the next election campaign while it was still angry over 2005 and paranoid about 2008.
Labour’s electoral finance reforms might have been more convincing had it had tackled anonymous donations and secret trusts from the start – but its failure to do so for fear it might cause some of its own funding to dry up made the legislation look even more serving than it already was.
It may even have stayed on the side of the angels if it had kept its eye on the prize, tackled the most disturbing aspects of what groups like the Exclusive Brethren can get away with once they set their mind to it under the current law, and disdained to sweat the small stuff.
Instead it produced a piece of legislation which looks suspiciously like a scratch for every itch that’s ever bugged it or the select committee members on the campaign trail.
Megaphones? Hell yes. Let’s throw that in there as well.
Placards? Yup. We better spell that out.
Indeed. Labour could have done a very simple bill to deal with the Exclusive Brethren type campaign. But instead we have this monstrosity.
The rewritten bill is an improvement on the first. But National will use it to kick Labour with every step of the way to the next election. Which is what you get when you abandon the long standing principal of bi-partisanship around electoral law. And in case Labour forgot, that bipartisanship existed for a very sound reason. It was to avoid tit-for-tat law.
Cough, principle, cough. But the important point is that Labour has shattered the bi-partisanship convention. And frankly National would be mad if they ever allowed Labour to have any input into any future Electoral Act changes. They’ve lost the moral right to be consulted.
November 21st, 2007 at 12:48 am
When I saw the words “paranoid and odious” I thought I’d slipped over to KBB. That’s a pretty good description of your interpretation of what will count as an election advertisement.
[DPF: Pete - in what way is my interpretation, which by last count four different lawyers have agreed with, is wrong? Be specific. Oh and 10 demerits for off topic trolling]
November 21st, 2007 at 1:17 am
The joke wouldn’t have worked on another thread. And it’s not like this one won’t just end up with everyone demanding that Tane out himself.
November 21st, 2007 at 1:27 am
What’s wrong with your interpretation is that you’ve taken a strict constructivist approach to interpreting the bill, when the Interpretation Act explicitly rejects that philosophy.
You’ve interpreted clause 5 in a way that contradicts the purpose of the bill as well as the Bill of Rights Act.
My interpretation (and at last count one law lecturer’s) is consistent with the purpose of the bill and with the BORA.
November 21st, 2007 at 1:38 am
The statute does not leave much gap for interpretation. And the fact Dean is proposing amendments to the law suggests that the problems I have outlined are real.
November 21st, 2007 at 1:40 am
DPF:
Are you sure the two words weren’t “cancerous” and “corrosive”? These words seem particularly apt, given the curbing effect of the EFB on freedom of speech and democratic participation.
November 21st, 2007 at 1:48 am
Dean called the problems you outlined “a storm in a teacup”.
There’s plenty of room for interpretation, as is obvious from the range of interpretations that have been suggested.
Proposing amendments is the sensible response to this confusion. Scrapping the bill, thereby guaranteeing a repeat of the last election’s problems, is not a sensible response.
November 21st, 2007 at 2:20 am
Pete – if you think the EFB will mean less election problems you are sorely mistaken. I guess it will mean that Labour won’t be charged as this law legalises their pledge card so it is not an election advert.
Isn’t it ironic. Someone posting a message on Usenet saying “Don’t support Labour” is an election advertisement, while Labour using taxpayer money to print and promote 1.5 million pledge cards a few weeks before the election is not an election advertisement.
November 21st, 2007 at 7:11 am
Surely those lefties with the capacity to think independently must be getting bloody worried about the political impact of this bill. It’s clearly not just a Beltway issue – the mainstream media are piling into this now.
National is going to be able to bash Labour with this from now till the election, confident that the media support that point of view and will report it. Let alone Labour getting offside with the media thus setting themselves up for unfavourable media coverage of their campaign.
How many votes do you think this bill is going to cost Labour???? Far more than they can afford to lose I’ll bet.
I’m convinced this is a huge strategic blunder for Labour – the potential upside in no way makes up for the headwind they’re creating for themselves.
November 21st, 2007 at 7:12 am
I agree with pete and with dean knight. You’re a storm in a teacup DPF. Show me the 4 lawyers.
Oh, that’s right, you are too busy:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/11/disclosure_requirements.html#comment-369456
November 21st, 2007 at 7:50 am
The four lawyers are Steven Price, Graeme Edgeler, Dean Knight and Stephen Franks. Maybe Metira Turei – if she is a lawyer also.
Sure Steven and Dean may claim actual prosecutions are unlikely (and I have never suggested there will be mass arrests) but they have confirmed I have not made an error in stating the law. In fact not a single person anywhere has been able to point to a factual error I have made.
You can happily join Annette King in the “Don’t worry about breaking the law, we won’t prosecute” brigade. But you know I think that is an appalling attitude to take when it comes to the Electoral Act especially.
November 21st, 2007 at 8:05 am
Common sense over-rides facts. The court weighs up facts before making a judgment. The facts do not predetermine the judgment.
I think you could use clause 3 to argue your way out of a prosecution if no money was involved. Clause 5 just needs to be tidied up so that the definition of advertising is linked to a commercial transaction, which is the intention of the act.
I think the focus of criticism to the EFB is in the process of creating electoral law and that here it is being done too hastily. Also we are not too keen in such a hurry to accept such low spending limits for third parties. That is where democracy is possibly being limited. We don’t know yet what effect these limits are going to have and who it is going to affect. We need more time to work out those limits.
November 21st, 2007 at 8:10 am
Well, after reading the Law Society’s verdict during Select Committee on the Bill I suggested that
‘You can’t polish a turd.”
It appears they are still trying to even now, with the inevitable results.
If you have children of school leaving age encourage them to become lawyers.
When you have politicians appealing for people to use their ‘common sense’ as a means of interpreting law, you are in boom-time kids!
Law will be a major growth industry as of about now…..
November 21st, 2007 at 8:17 am
Also, DPF, I don’t think you can claim that Dean agrees with your interpretation of the EFB:
http://www.laws179.co.nz/2007/11/electoral-finance-bill-new-media-and.html
November 21st, 2007 at 8:27 am
It begs the question – what is the point of having a law, if it is never going to be enforced? Quite honestly, Annette King’s “reassurances” about “common sense” do not reassure me one iota! If Labour is self-serving enough to concoct legislation such as this, solicit support and ram it through Parliament, abusing processes and even giving an upraised middle finger to the High Court – would YOU trust them not to use the full force to shut down dissent? I know I wouldn’t!
November 21st, 2007 at 8:36 am
DPF: Metira Turei is a lawyer. She was a very successful corporate lawyer at Chapman Tripp (as well as a extreme left-wing activist). The partners were tolerant of her views.
November 21st, 2007 at 8:50 am
Kent – people have spent days attacking my views, yet you know what.
The Government has announced one amendment in response to an issue I raised.
The Greens have announced another amendment in response to anotehr issue I raised.
Dean Knight is proposing a third amendment to cover issues I have raised.
Frankly people should thank me for helping get the law improved.
Of course there are more amendments needed. Over at Public Address they have found that TVNZ is now banned form running election advertisements.
Also newspaper editorials which endorse a party are now election ads and may force a newspaper to become a third party.
And in fact even the Herald’s campaign against the EFB could be an election ad if it happened next year. I’ll blog more on this.
When you do rushed last minute law making (see teh Herlad today on the anon donations laws) you get crap law. Now not so bad in minor obscure laws. Very very bad in the Electoral Act.
November 21st, 2007 at 8:52 am
Dean Knight says:
“in the light of its purpose” not only covers ‘common sense’ but also clause 3 which explicitly states the purpose of the act.
This a matter of interpretation, not whether or not the authorities can be bothered to prosecute (Inventory2).
I would, at risk of being demerited, describe DPF’s interpretation of the EFB as ‘simplistic’.
Metira agreed with DPF as follows (from NZPA):
Anyone who is in the money to pay for a bus with loudhailers is into politicking on a bit of a scale and is now required to register and make their expenditure available for auditing etc. Because Metira agrees on this issue does not mean that she agrees with DPF’s rather extreme interpretation which is still being promoted:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/11/the_wellington_march.html
which is bollocks.
I would suspect that the other three lawyers you quote, DPF, do not agree with your literal interpretation.
November 21st, 2007 at 8:58 am
That’s great. It illustrates, what we all know: that the bill is vague and flawed and needs to be cleaned up so that your interpretation of the bill does not even get a 5% validity rating.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:05 am
Kent
The very fact that interpretations are so widespread and disagreements over its coverage so common even before the legislation is passed is enough evidence to me that it is a load of crap.
No-one would tolerate(well perhaps Accountants and tax lawyers would rub their hands in glee) if similarly vague and unintelligible tax law was proposed.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:06 am
Kent Parker:
Um, I think you’d best stop gutter-sniping, as EFB supporters were telling us that all would be resolved during the Select Committee process. It wasn’t. So please spare me the partisan hackery. 5% validity rating indeed.
Oh, and have you managed to find time to read the Select Committee report properly? 151 pages in less than 12 minutes, as we discussed the other day, simply isn’t credible. Nor was your “I skim-read it ” comment – straight out of The Dog Ate My Homework Manual.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:11 am
HB Today have two of the best editorial writers in the country.
They are consistently right on `the mark’.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:28 am
POC, I am not an EFB supporter. I think it needs more work and would be quite happy for it to wait until the 2011 election and get some cross party consensus etc.
No one has produced me anything from the select committee report that I haven’t already read, least of all you. Most of it has been reported in the MSM in some form or other. I have read the content that applies to the topic of discussion.
I think it is important that we focus on what is real not on what is imagined.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:39 am
The editors of HBToday are unabashedly partisan when it comes to election politics. They make no attempt whatsoever to be journalistically ‘objective’ when it comes to election year editorials. They copped some flack at it the last election but they appear to have retained enough readership to remain in print.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:50 am
Their editorials are not limited to political matters. Their editorials on local issues are of the same high standard and reflect the need for personal responsibility, integrity and basic commonsense.
They are never politically correct for the sake of it so I guess that is why you don’t like them Kent.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:56 am
The editors of HB Today are religious fanatics who have an irrational hatred of Labour. There last election eve diatribe against Labour saw a massive drop in circulation for the paper and you can tell the paper has lost readership, as its really a bit of a joke publication these days. Its just a glorified community newspaper and soap box for the extremist views of its editors.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:16 am
Gee I guess free speech is a real pain in the arse eh toms
November 21st, 2007 at 10:18 am
Gee toms, it’s hard to tell what came first “religious fanatics who have an irrational hatred of Labour” or “Labour who have an irrational hatred of religious fanatics”.
I’m no fan of extreme religious nutcases … but I’m not sure I can tell them apart from Labour to be honest. The smug confidence that “we know best”, the complete inability for self-assessment, the complete inability to admit errors, the total paranoia …
Yikes, Labour’s a cult!!!!
Have you drunk the Kool-Aid yet toms?
November 21st, 2007 at 10:20 am
I never said I didn’t like them. I just don’t read them. I prefer, Herald, Stuff, CHCH Press and the like. If an editorial is deliberately partisan it reduces its value for me.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:22 am
DPF, you had a at Sam Dixon for misrepresented Graeme’s views. Perhaps you shouldn’t claim agreement with someone who’s called your views “a storm in a teacup”.
<blockquote>Also newspaper editorials which endorse a party are now election ads and may force a newspaper to become a third party.</blockquote>
5(2)(c) exempts “any editorial material, other than advertising material, in a periodical that is written by, or is selected by or with the authority of, the editor solely for the purpose of informing, enlightening, or entertaining readers”. Presumably you take issue with “solely”, but given the effect Murdoch has on discourse in the UK, I think some protection in this area is valuable.
<blockquote>Frankly people should thank me for helping get the law improved.</blockquote>
Since you’re demanding the law be scrapped entirely, you can hardly take credit for that.
[DPF: At every stage I have also offered amendments. If Annette King rang me up and said David please propose a clause which would exempt placards etc etc I would offer her one. I might still oppose other provisions, but I will always help improve a bill. And you correctly catch on that there are big big issues with solely. But hey nice to see you approve of the Government controlling private media and being able to stop them attacking the Government. Chavez agrees with you also]
November 21st, 2007 at 10:31 am
Given the Herald and Dom Post in particular have editorialised with a `left wing’ bias’ until very recently – rarely attacking the Labour Party or Government it is understandable that Kent and Toms favour them.
However calling the HB Today editors Religious Fanatics is extreme – do you have any evidence Toms.
VM – I loved your response to Toms – good stuff!!
[DPF: I hear the ODT has savaged it also, and they are normally very left. IS there a single media outlet supporting this bill?]
November 21st, 2007 at 10:46 am
Are they “chinless scarf wearers” toms or are they “cancerous and corrosive” or are they both?
Are you, like the PM, “tolerant and inclusive”?
November 21st, 2007 at 11:36 am
hey DPF- did you know that the TV station which chavez had closed down also backed the military coup which was carried out against him in 2002? How long do you think such a TV station like that would last in the US? Patriot Act anyone?
November 21st, 2007 at 11:38 am
“I hear the ODT has savaged it also, and they are normally very left.”
That’s BS David – the ODT is renowned as being the most conservative daily paper in the country – but hey never let the facts get in the way when you’re trying to whip up a bit of public hysteria hey?
November 21st, 2007 at 11:40 am
Gnome buggerer … I don’t think Venezuela is a particularly helpful comparo for New Zealand, on any number of levels. As soon as we start talking about military coups we’re well and truly off the straight and narrow.
November 21st, 2007 at 11:46 am
DPF – of course the papers are against it – the cap on third party spending is almost certain to reduce the revenue the receive from election adds. As such it’s better to look to the independent civil society groups such as the Coalition for Open Government and Greenpeace who now support this bill – as do the majority of political parties.
November 21st, 2007 at 11:54 am
Gnome buggerer, I fear you do protest too much about the papers. The amount of advertising revenue they receive from election ads is a tiny portion of their revenues. It’s maybe 2-3 pages per day for 3 months every 3 years. That’s by no means significant enough to affect editorial policy.
The Herald, DomPost, Press, ODT and others are all objecting to this bill because it’s flawed legislation that restricts the freedoms of every day New Zealanders. I would be sure that those 4 papers I listed above would all editorially support campaign finance reform. What they object to is this partisan paranoid attempt at it.
You can rail on all you like about the papers having no credibility etc etc. But millions of readers says you’re wrong. Way wrong.
November 21st, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Hey virtualmark – do you think that your continued references to anal sex in your play on my name warrant any demerit point, as defined in DPF’s demerit point system? Just wondering.
oh, and the papers – clearly there’s a significant conflict of interest going on there – as such it’s not so surprising that their opposition to this bill is more heavily focussed on rhetoric than factual analysis – i.e. even DPF now admits that there won’t be any arrests for using loud speakers and placards without declaring your name and address – like the university of Victoria Public Law lecturer has said – it’s a storm in a tea cup.
November 21st, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Well, rogering nomes is just too easy a target. But it’s said very much in jest, and no I don’t think you’re out there bothering garden decorations.
I appreciate your contribution to this blog, and I enjoy the banter with you.
November 21st, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Actually gnome I think if the Herald (as an example) was weighing up the impact of the EFB on their advertising revenues I expect their main consideration would be how much Government-related advertising might they lose by taking a stance against Helen’s reign. This is a Government with vindictive qualities … I’d think it’d be more financially beneficial for them being a cheerleader for Helen.
November 21st, 2007 at 1:01 pm
I just want to record my thanks to the Labour Party and its fellow travellers for their totally incompetent handling of this Bill. Its given National a sledgehammer to bash them with up until the day of the election and its going to hurt them big time.
And their loss of touch on political reality is further highlighted by the stench of corruption that now surrounds the ‘Curran Affair’.
Has anyone else calculated the names of those Labour MPs likely to loose their seats it the results of yesterdays Roy Morgan Poll were to be repeated at the election. Makes fascinating reading.
Oh well, never mind, tough shit and totally deserved.
November 21st, 2007 at 1:29 pm
[DPF: Pete - in what way is my interpretation, which by last count four different lawyers have agreed with, is wrong?
David Farrar Says:
November 21st, 2007 at 7:50 am
"The four lawyers are Steven Price, Graeme Edgeler, Dean Knight and Stephen Franks"
not sure about Steven Price agreeing with you either - see his post at below link
http://www.publicaddress.net/default,4625.sm#post
November 21st, 2007 at 1:44 pm
The bloody lawyers are licking their lips thinking of all the ways they can drive a coach and four thru the legislation on the one hand and all the ways they can defend their clients on the other.
It will be champagne in the chambers of some of my colleagues this Xmas as they contemplate the rich pickingf or the New year.
November 21st, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Ross Several months ago when the Nats hit the 50 mark for the first time I half jokingly and without any science said the Socialists would be in the low 30s by Xmas.
Well looks like that somewhat tongue in cheek forecast will be realised.
November 21st, 2007 at 1:59 pm
TRACEY WATKINS wrote this??????????? Well I’ll be. Her credibility just went up from zero to 10 percent.
It is incredible that virtually NONE of our familiar lefty blog-hijackers have even the shred of decency that even the habitual Clark idoliser Watkins now reveals.
November 21st, 2007 at 2:01 pm
What would the Clark mob have to do to actually cause Roger Nome and Tane to NOT support them? Just how low can these guys go?
November 21st, 2007 at 2:18 pm
PhilBest: Everyone I know on the left is disappointed by the bill. But as bad as the bill is, the status quo is worse. National are trying to set up a false choice: “is the bill good or bad?”; when the real question should be “is this bill an improvement over what we have now?”
DPF wants the law to be fixed after the next election, which would give the rich elite a chance to buy the next election and leave National in charge of rewriting electoral law.
November 21st, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Pete … take off the foil hat for a moment and explain to me how the rich elite have bought the last few elections??? Do you really think critically about this stuff before you hit the “Submit comment” button???
And on what basis would National rewriting electoral law be any worse than Labour’s desultory effort?
November 21st, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Pete, realised that perhaps the first sentence in my last post wasn’t quite as clear as it could be. Try this …
Do you really think the “rich elite” buy elections? Since when? How? Can you point to where that’s happened? If not, why do you feel so certain it’s going to happen in 2008???
November 21st, 2007 at 3:58 pm
vm:
“buy elections” is lazy shorthand, but maybe I shouldn’t be so affected by the tone at this place.
I’m much less concerned with elections being bought than with parties being bought. In particular anonymous (that is, anonymous to us) donors buying Brash the National leadership.
November 21st, 2007 at 4:11 pm
The biggest threat from anonymous donations is the ability for individuals or groups to get favours that advantage them and or disadvantage their competitors.
Thats why the citizens must know the identity of large donors. Only then can we connect the donation to any later favours.
And please dont say its couldnt happen here. What evidence can anyone give me that:
A its hasnt
B it never will
Disclosure and transperancey will at least reduce the risk of it happening.
November 21st, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Pete, gd … I’m much less concerned with elections being bought than with parties being bought and The biggest threat from anonymous donations is the ability for individuals or groups to get favours that advantage them and or disadvantage their competitors.
Pete, Brash got the job because English was losing the public’s confidence and National’s polling was heading into a spiral. Your view that Brash got the job because of donors is putting the cart ahead of the horse … why would donors pour money into a party they can see is un-electable??
As for anonymous donations in return for policy favours … where do you think that’s happened in the past? I can’t think of any political party that’s introduced legislation that is (i) inconsistent with their principles and (ii) seen to be unreasonably benefitting an third party.
Actually I maybe can think of a few … I can’t believe the free ride the midwives have had with Govt policy on childbirth. Ooops, who did that one?
Stop the sloganing and think about critically about this stuff. You’re alluding to conspiracies that don’t stand up to critical thought. It comes across like you’ve seen to many episodes of the X-Files.
November 21st, 2007 at 4:37 pm
DPF, I’m sure your bloody blog software introduces random spelling & grammatical errors when we post our comments …
November 21st, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Pete, gd … re your concerns about anonymous donors getting policy favours … FWIW my concern is having fringe groups hijack mainstream political parties in order to extract policy favours.
Specifically, I think the rainbow coalition and some fringe womens groups have too much influence on the Labour party. I have no problem with the union movement’s influence over Labour – it’s the party’s historical basis. But I think a few pressure groups representing no more than 2-3% of the population have an unrepresentative influence over Labour at present.
November 21st, 2007 at 5:36 pm
You seem to think that if there’s no X-Files sized conspiracy then everything is fine. I don’t think anyone’s going around with paper bags full of cash buying legislation. But I don’t like that “more money from donors” was one of the reasons for choosing Brash over English.
Care to elaborate?
November 21st, 2007 at 5:55 pm
did you know that the TV station which Chavez had closed down also backed the military coup which was carried out against him in 2002
Anybody know whether they backed the earlier failed military coup in the early 90′s – the one that Chavez led as an Army officer?