A new sort of filibuster
December 11th, 2007 at 12:37 pm by David FarrarNational has played some very smart cards to delay the Electoral Finance Bill without launching a fullscale filibuster against it.
Hell if it was up to me, I’d file 30,000 amendments and as each one takes a minute to vote on this would add on 500 hours to the debate and they would conclude it in around 30 weeks time. Sure the Clerk’s Office would never ever talk to you again, NZPA would send an assassin after you for forcing them to listen to 30,000 votes and the Whips would lose their voices, but it would effectively kill the bill.
But the smart people at National have gone for a much better option. They are delaying the bill by actually debating it clause by clause. They have organised their MPs so each MP can speak on seperate clauses. This makes it very hard for the Committee Chair to take a closure motion when MPs can point to speakers who have not yet spoken, clauses not yet debated and amendments not yet considered. Generally only an hour per Part of a Bill will be given but if you do what National has done, you ensure each Part’s debate lasts several hours.
And so they should. The Government has used eight sub-parts in Part 2 of the Bill, just so it can be rushed through debate. This deals with all the details of party donations, candidate donations, third party donations, party advertising, candidate advertising and third party advertising. If only one hour was allowed for Part 2, then each sub Part would only get around eight minutes debate or two speeches.
National has also avoided using hundreds of time wasting amendments. I’d say 90%+ of their amendments have been constructive amendments based on submissions made. The Government’s even adopted a small number of them.
Finally National has also craftily used a provision in Standing Orders where MPs can lodge questions not just to a Minister (which are restricted to 12 a day) but to any Committee Chair. So last week suddenly ten committee chairs were all asked about progress of work before their committees. A very legitimate and cunning way to delay things a wee bit.
It will be interesting to see how the Government intends to get through the final stages, without resorting to urgency as they have promised not to do. Assuming we trust them, this leaves two major options:
1) Complete committee stage today (they will have from 3.30 pm to 6 pm and 7.30 pm to 10 pm), have a members day tomorrow and then have third reading on Thursday. This will then mean the 11 new bills will only be introduced and have first readings under urgency next week and with 22 hours of debate needed could keep the House going to around midday Thursday.
2) Complete committee stage today and then go into urgency on the 11 new bills and remaining business. This will take the House through until very late Thursday or maybe even Friday. Then resume next Tuesday for the EFB 3rd reading and an adjournment debate.
Of note is that the electoral agencies asked for the EFB to be passed into law by 30 November at the latest if it was to have a 1 January commencement for the regulated period. Even that was very tight – in the UK they had months and months to get ready. But even the incredibly tight one month deadline has been missed (and remember the Government delayed introducing the EFB for months on end while it did secret negotiations about it) and if it is only given third reading next Tuesday, that leaves only three days before basically Wellington closes down.
The sensible thing would be to delay the date the EFB comes into force until 1 April. But no the Government is hell bent on regulating from the 1st of January.
Related posts:
- Labour’s filibuster
- Labour’s $400,000 an hour filibuster
- Govt fails to make anti smacking bill a Govt bill
- 2009 Parliament Stats
December 11th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
DPF said “This makes it very hard for the Committee Chair to take a closure motion when MPs can point to speakers who have not yet spoken, clauses not yet debated and amendments not yet considered.”
It didn’t make it hard for Ann Hartley last week! Her Chairmanship of the Committee was woeful.
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
“Finally National has also craftily used a provision in Standing Orders where MPs can lodge questions not just to a Minister (which are restricted to 12 a day) but to any Committee Chair. So last week suddenly ten committee chairs were all asked about progress of work before their committees. A very legitimate and cunning way to delay things a wee bit.
Since when is Rodney Hide a National MP?
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Great Team work National keep it up
Kill the Bill
Kill the Bill
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Funniest response last Thursday was Gerry Brownlee responding to a question on the progress of the regulatory responsibility bill: he spent about ten minutes talking about the difficulty of two submitters to make submissions on the bill, since travel by the committee is difficult, booking rooms for the committee to meet in has been a challenge, and video-conferencing facilities are not available in every part of New Zealand.
It did occur to me last week that listening to Eric Roy fillibuster sounds uncannily like Harry Duynhoven trying to make an incisive point.
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Oh dear David, im not sure that the ends justifies the means, the people at KBB will have a field day. The only difference between this and filibustering is that this is as you say “a new sort of filibuster”. That does not make it any more ethical or acceptable.
[DPF: Nick - you must be kidding. Are you saying there is no difference between putting up MPs to actually debate the Bill intelligently on topic clause by clause, and merely putting up thousands of trivial amendments? For God's sake - it is their duty to delay the Bill by ensuring it is given a proper debate - especially considering how flawed it is]
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
They need to call a major press conference today with John Key, Bill English and Gerry Brownlee and state the case at its worst how it will effect NZer’s particularly stressing the way it restricts common garden lawfull protest if you don’t agree with the Govt of the day!
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
(and remember the Government delayed introducing the EFB for months on end while it did secret negotiations about it)
Ok, perhaps I’m getting way too paranoid here but am I the only person who thought the timing of the EFB was deliberate – to paraphrase Rob Muldoon’s infamous crack, It doesn’t give the electoral agencies much time, but it doesn’t give the opposition much time to mount an effective response either.
The problem with being a smart alec is that, sooner or later, it backfires – and you’re the only left looking stupid.
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
nick c – filibustering is ethical, acceptable and obligatory for an opposition that strongly opposes an evil piece of legislation
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
It is a prime example of Labour, Progressive, Greens, NZ First, United criminally advantaging themselves as Members of Parliament, in the Service of the Crown, to the disadvantage of other Political Parties, Members of Parliament and the Joe Bloggs of this country.
Simple as that. QED.
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
So, Bill English was lying when he told Morning Report last week:
“How long the debate takes will be largely up to the government. We don’t intend to filibuster…”
http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=822
[DPF: And they haven't. Putting up speakers to debate clauses is what MPs are meant to do. It is their job. Putting up hundreds and hundreds of trivial amendments would be a fillibuster. National could guarantee the bill does not pass before Xmas if it chose to filibuster. Instead it has organised its MPs intelligently so that there is enough good debate on the clauses of the Bill that the Committee Chair uses his or her discretion to allow the debate to continue. ]
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
It’s heartening to see national thinking outside the square on this issue. A bit more along the lines of a government in waiting? They certainly seem more up to it at the moment than they have been previously.
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
tane, i think that is dpf’s point, moron. it hasn’t been a filibuster – it has been a serious debate about serious amendments that has also achieved the objectives of a filibuster.
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
“Nick – you must be kidding. Are you saying there is no difference between putting up MPs to actually debate the Bill intelligently on topic clause by clause, and merely putting up thousands of trivial amendments? For God’s sake – it is their duty to delay the Bill by ensuring it is given a proper debate – especially considering how flawed it is”
David im just as much against this bill as the next guy but we have to ask, why are they doing this? As you say in your post the sole perpose is to delay the bill, which sets a dangerous precident that if you consider legislation draconeon you are entitled to use creative ways to slow it down. This isnt the filibuistering but it has exactly the same unjustifiable goal.
[DPF: And 100% Oppositions should delay bills they consider draconian. It is their god damn duty. Look an Opposition can not defeat a bill - so the only way they can express opposition to a bill is by delaying it. And it is all for a very good cause. The NZ Herald has been doing lengthy half page articles summarising the debate in the committee stages. This keeps it in the public arena, and informs more people about the Bill's details. An Opposition that never ever delays a Bill should go home. The debate isn't black and white - do you delay or do you just roll over. It's about how much do you delay, and by what means do you delay. Now I would say the total time spent in committee stage has been only around ten hours or so. On a very important and complex bill that is not at all unreasonable. Especially when the Government itself has introduced 150 last minute amendments]
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
tane, i think that is dpf’s point, moron. it hasn’t been a filibuster
Strange then he titled the article “A new sort of filibuster” and opened with the line “National has played some very smart cards to delay the Electoral Finance Bill without launching a fullscale filibuster against it.”
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
the govts only weapon in their arsenal on the EFb is public despondency.
They are hoping against hope that the public will forget about the whole thing by next November.
The truth is the public are going to be a huge jury both parties will lobby to as defence and prosecuting attornies. In essence the next election will be a venue consisting of a court room of the nation where the parties will stack up their arguments for the public to consider. Depending on the outcome, this could be the last free election this country knows.
The public has shown their intense understanding of this. If 5,000 protested, thousands more understand and by November Labour will lose on this issue alone. In the future National will only have to threaten the public with the EFB and ensuring Labour losses for many elections.
Could Labour have not only shot themselves in the foot, but bloody shot their feet completely off ?
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
How long SHOULD it take to debate a bill which deals with the functioning of our democracy?
The government has deliberately delayed the bill so as to push it through with minimal public input. National is providing the debate that should rightly have included the NZ public.
That would make them the champion of democracy, wouldnt it?
But you go ahead, Tane, whinge about Labour not being able to rush through legislation without proper debate. Your true colours are showing again.
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Tane,
If National outlaws unions, I expect you to condemn Labour’s tactic of delaying that legislation.
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
tane, dickhead – that’s right, a new sort of filibuster. like when tony blair said “newlabour” he meant kinda like old labour but something new and different. most people get it and understand it. go back to your loser site and do some more posts about john key smelling veges or whatever turns you on.
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Tane as a lover of democracy you should be saddened that genuine debate has become a new form of filibuster under the Labour government. But you dont love democracy at all, do you?
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
I think, given the way Ms Clark has treated the MSM this last couple of weeks and the effect that the EFB debacle is having on the general public, that we are going to see some interesting times ahead.
Almost all the Labour MPs are looking tired and run down (with possibly H1 being the exception who is merely frazzled) and are putting in some really sub-par performances. They really need someone from the back bench too step up. The unfortunate thing may be that there just isn’t anyone there with the chops to do such a job.
The deputy can’t stand up and take it to them – he needs regular oxygen breaks at the mo just to get through the day. The rest of the Labour front bench look like a personification of the Maginot Line in 1939.
Their coalition partners (with the exception of Jim A) seem to have run for cover at the moment while even some like the gordoncopeland-like bumbling of Peter Dunne seem hell bent for destruction. The Greens don’t know what the are doing because at core, they know that the EFB goes against everything they have stood for.
Surely it must be pissing off H1 and H2 no end to see the mess that they are in now.
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
I certainly dont think that this is going to play well in the court of public opinion DPF, it will be seen as nothing less then filibustering. National should absolutly keep this issue alive until the next election, but filibustering like tactics will be lowering themselfs into the gutter that Labour have been in for the last 4 years. National must be above Labour dirty tactics if it is to sweep into power in the next election.
Also as to whether it is a duty of the opposition to slow down bills for the sake of slowing them down, I think otherwise. It is their duty to hold them to account in the house, show the public how Labour is failing as a government and present a credible alternative at election time. Engaging in obstructionism is not a duty of the opposition and not what the public want.
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
And they haven’t.
But David, you called it a filibuster in the title of your post. You’re not even making sense now.
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Tane,
If the Electoral Finance Bill is so great why can’t it go back for another round of public consultation? This bill will change electoral laws massively, there needs to be debate.
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Tane said “Strange then he titled the article “A new sort of filibuster” and opened with the line “National has played some very smart cards to delay the Electoral Finance Bill without launching a fullscale filibuster against it.””
Tane – you probably aren’t old enough to remember Claytons – “the drink you have when you aren’t having a drink”. National’s filibuster is something of a Clayton’s filibuster – just as the Standard could be referred to as a Claytons blog!
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Well said IV2
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
“Of note is that the electoral agencies asked for the EFB to be passed into law by 30 November at the latest if it was to have a 1 January commencement for the regulated period. Even that was very tight – in the UK they had months and months to get ready.”
UK? So is Winston Peters right when he said [Hansard 04/12/07]
Vote:“The campaign period we are asked to have is no different from that in the UK.”
December 11th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Oh Yvette. It’s Winston talking. Does he ever let the truth get in the way of a soundbite?
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Brownie, winstons changed his name to better reflect one of his heroes. Its now Winston Bjeikle-Peterson – the absolute champion of bullshit
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Yvette asks: “So is Winston Peters right when he said [Hansard 04/12/07]
‘The campaign period we are asked to have is no different from that in the UK.’”
Answer: In a sense. They have a one year campaign period but the rules about what is included are very tight and narrow, so most things aren’t covered by the law and can continue right up to polling day. In NZ, we will have a similar one year period but we will have the Canadian rules on what is included. These are very draconian – almost nothing is allowed – which is why Canada limits them to just a few weeks. So we have a definition of what is allowed taken from Canada and designed to apply for a couple of weeks but applied to the whole year. Obviously, the tougher your restrictions the less time they should apply for and the longer your time period, the lighter the restrictions must be. We have the toughest rules from both countries being brought together making this an unprecendented attack on free speech.
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
there is surely an incredible CONFLICT OF INTEREST in those who make themselves subject to the election process making the rules about the election process.
it seems as clear as a crystal clear blue sky day to me.
can someone please ask clark for an honest and full answer to this obvious conflict?
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
I’m listening to Michael Cullen and that hippie leader of that other soon to be wiped out leech Party denigrate John Boscawen.
Just fucking disgraceful. Filibuster away, National.
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
The other difference of course is the electoral cycle in the UK is five years – meaning a 20% regulated period, compared with a proposed 33% for New Zealand. Winston distorts the truth- again.
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Yes IV2, no wonder there is cynicism when they NEVER give a proper answer. Distorting the truth is lying.
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
It sounds as though John Boscawen has attained the same elevated status as the Excusive Bretheren. If they are paying that much notice to him then they continue to shoot themselves in the foot. We are currently living out the most disgraceful period in this country’s history.
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
The Greens are probably blocking an urgency motion so Cullen and Co will just have to work on this a bit harder and it serves them right. I am looking forward so some of the more absurd parts of the Bill being tested in the Courts in the run-up to the election.
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
1 April would be an appropriate date for such a bill!
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
The more publicity this cesspit of a Bill gets, the better – and of course the media can report subsequent legal proceedings without fear or favour, always asking opposition politicians such as Key, English & Finlayson for comments, along the lines of “We told you so!”
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Question Times has degenerated into National MPs asking questions on the EFB and the bottom feeders and their poodle making snide personal comments in response. It’s infuriating that such an important issue is being treated with such disdain.
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
IP says:
If this were a newspaper, that’d be in Kiwiblog’s “best quotes of the year” column!
vto says:
He used to pinch Joh’s “feeding the chooks” phrase and use it when I was off to the Gallery. With the EFB, though, he seems to be falling back on another of Joh’s favourite responses, trotted out whenever someone raised a point to which he had no answer: “Don’t you worry ’bout that”.
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Tane – you probably aren’t old enough to remember Claytons – “the drink you have when you aren’t having a drink”. National’s filibuster is something of a Clayton’s filibuster – just as the Standard could be referred to as a Claytons blog!
The equivalent of a kick in the nuts, Tane never came back after that one …..
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
With you DPF on the way you call this one. National has been a very well-mannered opposition. Too well-mannered in fact. But if there was any legislation that it was worth saving their energy and ammunition for, it was this.
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
No, I just didn’t think it was a serious enough response to bother replying to Bev. I’m a busy man with better things to do than reply to every single comment or accusation that’s hurled at me on Kiwiblog.
But the fact remains David Farrar has admitted National is filibustering the EFB after Bill English told the public National would not be filibustering the EFB. That’s a pretty clear case of dishonesty from Bill, not to mention a pointless waste Parliament’s time and, by extension, public money.
http://kiwiblogblog.wordpress.com/2007/12/11/hypocrisy-watch-farrar-defender-of-democracy-no-more/
[DPF: Ensuring every clause of the EFB is debated is not pointless. It is commendable. ]
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Tane – Fuck off to Albania you delusional little prick
[DPF: And that's 20 demerits.]
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Panty Slut Boy has just banged on about those against the EFB and named DPF and John Boscawen…why do they never talk about Owen Glenn?
Surely he’s more of a threat to democracy in NZ than the aforementioned?
Oh yeah, fuck off Tutae. It’s pot kettle black time again – although you wrote the book on dishonesty
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
But the fact remains David Farrar has admitted National is filibustering the EFB after Bill English told the public National would not be filibustering the EFB. That’s a pretty clear case of dishonesty from Bill, not to mention a pointless waste Parliament’s time and, by extension, public money.
Please feel free to outline which amendment(s) or question(s) that you take issue with National proposing/asking. Or do you just take issue with any party having the gall to stand up for the country?
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
“These are very draconian – almost nothing is allowed – which is why Canada limits them to just a few weeks.”
Now this sounds almost plausible
If Helen had of pushed the EFB for a period of only a month she would have succeeded. It would have actually seemed an honest attempt to keep political sponsorship on the up and up. If,, that was the sincere agenda she was promoting. It would’ve been a different spin for this country and somewhat controversial, but there would not have been protests everywhere with 5,000 attending in Auckland.
Labour have made it very clear they are not interested in simply levelling out political sponsorship. They are trying to stamp out all political opposition.
They went too much, too fast and broke every rule of Fabian Socialism.
Their international masters will be snorting at them with the fullest contempt and curry their other puppets the National Party.
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Thank you Sir – I haven’t been ticked off like that for years. But really – the guy (Tane) is a brainless coot and the level of intellect deserves no respect at all – mind you he does represent a rather scary proportion of the population. And he should still travel to Albania in any manner he choses !!
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
“DPF: Ensuring every clause of the EFB is debated is not pointless. It is commendable.”
It would be if it were for the perpose of better debate. But DPF you conceeded in your post that it is not, it’s perpose is to delay the procession of the bill, which is niether the role of the opposition nor is it commendable.
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Tane: “pointless waste Parliament’s time and, by extension, public money.”
Do you even think about what you write? So you are stating those MP’s that aren’t forming the Government should just not turn up and do the job they are paid for? Why bother debating bills – the Government has the numbers, so propose and pass each bill the same day – think of the savings! The amount of time allow to debate an extremely important change to the rules regarding election conduct should be as long as possible to get a good outcome, not as short as possible to avoid the embarassment of having to justify a very poorly drafted law.
By your logic, employers should ban union reps, because the time they spend on union work is unproductive and thus a “pointless waste of [company] time and, by extension [company] money”.
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Peters has been banging on about David Carter and the selection process use in Rakaia. Which clause in the EFB sets down rules for candidate selection processes in political parties?????
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
By that logic Fost, Labour MP’s shouldnt bother turning up to work after the next election lest they waste Tax payers money debating any bills.
Mind you I suport Tane in that position, Labour MP’s never do any good anyway.
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Lindsay,
I suspect that during Peters’ cheap points scoring call, the Minister of Justice and the Leader of the House were looking at their watches and thinking “just fuck up so we can move on. We don’t have time for this.”
Peters was just being a prick. A bitch prick.
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Buggerlugs,
If it isn’t in the bill why did the chair of the committee not pull him up?
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
The chair pulling up Peters? That would have sparked 10 minutes of points of order…they’re on the clock, mate, and it’s ticking…
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
casual – perhaps you should have suggested that Tane get a job with lots of sex and travel!
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Albania would be far too robust for Tutae. One hard day’s work on a collective farm and he’d be ringing Mummy to send the plane fare.
Anyway, back to the EFB. I think Tutae’s pointless wanking about the negatives of filibustering ignores the fact that National hasn’t been filibustering – they have been debating very important points.
I think in this case, filibustering was used as the term best describing generally what’s going on…the old, ‘for want of a better word’ syndrome.
And anyway, if they were filibustering, it’s far better than what Labour’s offering – the end of democracy and free speech.
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
I’ve decided after listening to the EFB debate in the House that the name should be changed to “The Stop National from Winning the Election Because The Labour Party Have no Money Bill”
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Or the Thin End of the Wedge Bill
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
“casual – perhaps you should have suggested that Tane get a job with lots of sex and travel!”
Don’t think Anettes husband would approve.
And she certainly doesn’t look the type for lots of sex, or in fact getting lots of sex. I realise some would disagree but there’s noi accounting for taste. You sometimes wonder why people bought the car they drive when the amount they spent would’ve got them an awesome vehicle.
On this note, is Anette actually married, or is she one of those despicable political gays who want to brainwash all the school kids. She represents the party that does.
And Mr Goff, where are you as you silently wait for Helens demise and leadership??
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Seems strange to even suggest it’s a filibuster. It’s just points getting debated, and the Nats putting in on something that’s important to them. If only MPs put in this hard on laws all the time.
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Doug Woolerton, is suggesting that the only opposition is from within National Party voters, so there is no actual problem.
He gets it wrong – as I know many left thinkers (much different people from labour loyalists) who find the EFB apalling enough to vote National for the first time ever…
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Just wondering.
Why is there no mention of the EFB on the Labour Party website? Are they secretly embarresed by it? Are they trying to keep it as a “beltway” issue? Do they realise the bill is a dog and are trying to hide it from scrutiny?
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Yes Sam.
I’ve yet to find a right leaning voter that thinks this bill protects democracy as well!
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Finlayson suggested Labour change the name to:
The Let’s Shoot Ourselves in the Foot Bill
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Sam Says:
“—– as I know many left thinkers (much different people from labour loyalists) who find the EFB apalling enough to vote National for the first time ever…”
I hear the liars party is down to only 4000 members thats why they need this legislation. If you cant get the cash from the faithful to win the election you have to steal it from the sheeple.
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Yes hina, from TV3 in July this year:
“Health Minister Pete Hodgson has ordered an investigation into conflict of interest allegations centred on a multimillion-dollar contract at Hawke’s Bay DHB.
Cabinet minister Annette King and her husband are accused of being involved in pressuring a health board whistleblower.
Her husband, Ray Lind, was Chief Operating Officer at the board.”
Tane Tutae will no doubt use the ‘nothing to see here, move along’ defence…
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Ah well, Committe stage over – just the third reading then the lame-duck GG gives it the Royal Assent.
Send the GG a message!!!
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/save-nz-democracy.html
Sign Joseph Mooney’s on-line petition to Anand Satyanand.
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
DPF – it should make it hard for the Chairperson to take closure, but it really didn’t. Closure was voted on after 11 5-minute slots from National on Part 1 – pretty much a travesty.
National were debating clauses, but they never got close to clause-by-clause. There are simply too many clauses per part, and they were denied enough time to get to them all. They weren’t repeating themselves, or discussing irrelevancies, but debate ended early, and the bill suffered. Perhaps irreparably.
No-one discussed the narrowness – or otherwise – of the newspaper exemption. Not National, questioning it, nor Labour defending it by positing a broad interpretation. And so many other things were missed as well – the only place to argue over these now is the Courts, let’s hope it doesn’t get that far.
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Anyone game to ask Winnie who paid his bill for his theft at the last election and the reason why he has to support the Liarbour on this bill
OK Tane you turn to turn Queens evidence if you are game
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
David, have the Nats forgotten that this tactic
is rather double edged, it will come back and
bite them.
As for the bill, Labour should have been a damn sight more honest and gone after the
EB mob directly.
Just dropping all the little favours they get in
Vote:their workplaces would do it.
Oh, and check to see if they supply any
goods or services to any tax payer funded
bodies.
Big boys games, the same rules apply.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Graeme – “No-one discussed the narrowness – or otherwise – of the newspaper exemption. Not National, questioning it, nor Labour defending it by positing a broad interpretation.”
Nice thing for an incumbent Government to have in their bottom drawer during an election, eh?
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
Graeme – “the only place to argue over these now is the Courts, let’s hope it doesn’t get that far.”
of course it will. florida here we come. and labour can only lose if next year is a shambles, which it will be. so labour has just lost the election.
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
I seem to recall that during the 2005 election campaign an EPMU union rep turned up at each election meeting to hector the National candidate. He (the EPMU rep) would always turn up in a prominently-painted vehicle.
Can anyone who really understands the Bill advise whether or not the EPMU would be required to declare the painting of its vehicles as third party spending?
And, further, if that paintwork was to be extensively damaged during the period of the campaign, would the repainting costs be additional to their third party spending amount?
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
EPMU signage wouldn’t be identifiable as supporting any party, don’t see why it would be an election expense. If it was painted Labour, however, that would be an electoral expense. Damaging the paint would be highly illegal, and petty to boot. You’d end up like the Libs where some idiot supporter (admittedly a well connected one) distributed stupid pamphlets in an electorate – an enormous electoral liability. I’d strongly recommend against it.
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 6:01 am
Thanks PaulL. I wasn’t suggesting that I would damage paintwork: I’m just wondering what would happen if the paintwork was damaged, deliberately or otherwise.
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 10:01 am
I hear its going to be done and dusted by Friday – because most of the MP’s have already booked their holidays.
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 11:43 am
EFB this is the bill touted by Labour as preventing anyone from “buying an election”…………….
On hang on ………… the exclusion is Labour and the Unions who can still buy an election under this Bill
Get rid of this lot, they are so bloody corrupt it is breathtaking!
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 11:46 am
‘Get rid of this lot, they are so bloody corrupt it is breathtaking!’
And Doug Woolerton wouldn’t be a union man,,
so add hypocritical!
Vote: