Comments on: Electoral Finance Act now law

By: gd

gd — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 22:43:32 +0000

I predict that the Nats will be able to form a government on their own after the next election except that wont be because of all the pending Court cases that will go on and on well into 09.

By: krazykiwi

krazykiwi — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 22:02:52 +0000

This off course is the last thing that H1 wants, the sight of normal law abiding NZers getting dragged off to Court for criticising the government would her political death knell!

The price is not too high. I’m ready.

By: Adam Smith

Adam Smith — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 21:53:58 +0000

I have sympathy with what Grant McKenna says above. My concern is the large number of statements made by Ministers and others explaining the purpose of the bill and the Electoral Commission seeking guidance on interpretation. This inferes to me that enforcement will be selective – the law of common sense – ie political.

This is not acceptable. See my comments in this regard on the next thread.

By: Right of way is Way of Right

Right of way is Way of Right — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 21:38:13 +0000

Seems the only way this Government will listen to the expressed will of the people is via the ballot box, so let’s stick it to em!

By: vto

vto — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 21:20:19 +0000

and the absence of their red boxes.

and the swamping of the media with other political news to drown out the EFB – Mallard’s quakery and Cullen’s influencing-elections-with-big-money tax cut announcement.

No wonder they are treated with contempt and cynicism.

By: Reg

Reg — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 21:20:17 +0000

Grant Mckeena said:
The law isn’t arbitrary in its application- everyone is affected.

The law hasn’t been applied yet Grant.

My take is that the ambiguity inherent in this shoddy piece of legislation will allow the law to be arbitrarily applied to the detriment of the Governments opponents.

My basis for this assumption, includes Michael Cullen’s explanation that the Law wasn’t aimed at legitimate groups but the Brethren. -What does this imply?

I don’t believe the government would risk a show-down with Tim Shadbolt however blatantly he calls for a change of government, but I can assure you any hint that the unpopular groups like the EB might be planning something will evoke the full force of this law including its draconian and intrusive police search powers.

The only hope for fairness in the application of this bill, is in the Chief Electoral Office being kept free of political interference.
If this is the case and the requirements of the Act are impartially enforced they WILL need a veritable army of investigators and prosecutors.
This off course is the last thing that H1 wants, the sight of normal law abiding NZers getting dragged off to Court for criticising the government would her political death knell!

By: slightlyrighty

slightlyrighty — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 21:16:32 +0000

Here’s a challenge for you all.

Go to the Labour website and try and find one mention of the EFB.

It ain’t there. Are they that embarrassed by it that they, having passed it into law, do not want to be associated with it? Does that explain the absence of a large part of their caucus in the house yesterday??

By: Grant McKenna

Grant McKenna — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 20:54:25 +0000

The Rule of Law is not abolished by this act; simply because a law is bad does not mean that it is not law. Everyone is governed by the same law; special privileges accrue to a class of people [MPs] based on a written, publicly disclosed law adopted and enforced in accordance with established procedural steps. The law isn’t arbitrary in its application- everyone is affected.
Sure, the law is unfair in its restriction of speech. But it is actually fairly clear what it means and does.

By: Frank.

Frank. — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 20:13:19 +0000

Lee C. A Royal Commission of Inquiry is the only way to deal with a new Electoral Act.

Fran O’Sullivan called for a Royal Commission after the last election.

A Roal Commission would need to headed by Dame Margaret Bazely and would need to need to investigate the last election thoroughly. That is a starting point. It would pin point the rorting that went on in the last election and go on from there.

If the people do not have confidence in an electoral system then all we have is anarchy reigning, as now is happening.

The Rule of Law has gone.

By: Jim_Benson

Jim_Benson — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 20:03:07 +0000

Is there a video of the debate online? I know it was streamed live but I can’t find an archive of it…

By: Lindsay Addie

Lindsay Addie — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:12:22 +0000

Emmerson’s Cartoon from today’s NZ Herald:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/500814/story.cfm?c_id=500814&objectid=10483126

By: Lee C

Lee C — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:02:38 +0000

Can we take a straw poll of Lefties:

How many would like to to see a Royal Commission set up to examine proper electoral reform?

Any takers?

By: Lee C

Lee C — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:01:08 +0000

As NpOG has said:

“Trouble is I don’t have a spare $120 000 to spare on advertising.

God damn.”

DOn’t worry NpOG I am sure the EPMU and CPU can help you out.

Let’s persecute Rich pricks, and ignore the parallel campaigning by the ‘transparent’ union movement, though, shall we?
Isn;t it easier to work under a slogan like:

‘Rich prick’
‘Foreign Investors’
‘Corrupt media’?

I think Orwell once wrote something along the lines of:
“If I was organisisng a revolution the first to be shot would be those with the cleanest fingernails.”

I would like to see a Royal COmmission set up to examine proper electoral reform, not jsut one-sided rorting to suit Party-Political ends.

By: toby1845

toby1845 — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:47:08 +0000

“Police are likely to ignore any breaches besides the really major ones so your civil disobedience will go un noticed. ”

No – Police are likely to ignore any breaches committed by supporters of the Govt, but will be all over any committed by the Govt’s opponents. Indeed, there won’t even need to be a breach – a suggestion from Annette King to the Police Commissioner, with a tip-off to the media, will be enough.

By: GNZ

GNZ — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:23:18 +0000

Police are likely to ignore any breaches besides the really major ones so your civil disobedience will go un noticed. And if you have rather more money than NPOG above then you might just end up being a perfect ‘bad guy’ (ie rich and politically active) to get hung by the law.
But I guess we will see.

By: Robert Palmer

Robert Palmer — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:17:49 +0000

npog
$25 per week to a party of your choice, without giving them your full name and address will do it – you will be Mr Civil Disobedient. Hope this helps.

By: natural party of govt

natural party of govt — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:16:18 +0000

“New Year’s Resolution: Civil Disobedience.”

Well I would like to be civilly disobedient.

Trouble is I don’t have a spare $120 000 to spare on advertising.

God damn.

By: duncan_bayne

duncan_bayne — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 10:27:47 +0000

You guys are fucked. Looks like I picked a good time (March) to move to Australia.

By: Sean

Sean — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 10:06:20 +0000

Its a sad day when citizens potentially become subject to criminal prosecution for spending their own money to say what they want…

By: krazykiwi

krazykiwi — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 09:56:56 +0000

sean – yes.