How very flawed this law is
December 12th, 2007 at 2:28 pm by David FarrarThe committee stage of the Electoral Finance Bill is over, and the likely third reading is Tuesday 19 December 2007 – an entire three days before the effective holiday shut-down.
This is an opportune time to highlight some massive flaws in the Bill – not the deliberate flaws in cracking down on criticism, but the inadvertent ones which undermine the claims about stopping anonymous and trust donations and the Brethren.
You see as often is the case with any attempt to regulate election finances, the solution proves worse than the problem. Just look at McCain-Feingold in the US. And this Wired article (hat tip: Gonzo) and photo show what happens when you have bad law (and the EFB takes us much closer to US law – not further away)
Here are some of loopholes the Government have introduced due to rushing this process, and being more concerned about advantaging Labour than having a good law:
One can still donate $250,000 a year anonymously
The worst thing about the Greens/Labour compromise to protect Labour’s anonymous donations is that they have said you can donate $1,000 anonymously to a party [Clause 25A(2)] and it does not have to be declared. They should have banned anonymity (which is different to non disclosure) for all donations except petty cash/raffle tickets etc.
You see someone could arrange for $1,000 a day to be donated anonymously through bank cheques. So long as they do not tell the party they are doing it, and the party does not know it is the same donor, then that money can be received and even worse not even disclosed. So $1,000 a day is $250,000 a year or $750,000 an election cycle.
This makes the law worse than the status quo. If someone wanted to donate $20,000 anonymously at present, they would simply make a one off $20,000 anonymous donation. And that donation would be disclosed on the party’s return – so the public would at least see they have received that $20,000, even if not from whom.
Now they are motivated to make 20 $1,000 anonymous donations over time, and the party takes the money, and the electoral commission don’t even learn about the donations, let alone have them count as part of the $240,000 cap. Again – I repeat – no one at all outside the party will know about these donations. The Electoral Commission and the public will have no idea if there have been 20 $1,000 anon donations or 1,500 $1,000 anon donations. It will be totally below the radar.
The way to avoid this was banning all non-trivial anonymous donations, but having a reasonable disclosure limit. But the desperation to protect Labour’s anonymous donations gives us this gaping loophole. They also could have fixed this by stating a person can not make multiple anonymous donations.
One can more easily give $66,000 and not be disclosed
Another loophole, brought about to protect Labour’s donors, is that you can receive not only up to $30,000 over three years [Clause 22A(1)(b)] in undisclosed donations from a donor, plus they can give $36,000 anonymously [Clause 28C(3)] through the Electoral Commission. This is because the law allows for both undisclosed donations and anonymous donations. So the Greens and Labour are allowing $66,000 to be donated to a party without the identity being known.
Trusts can still make donations
The bill which came out of the select committee had a huge gaping loophole in it. One could donate say $100,000 to Trust A, have Trust A donate it to Trust B and Trust B donate it to Party C. The only obligation was on Trust B to reveal Trust A gave it to them, and not on Trust A to reveal who they got it from.
Now this loophole got fixed at the last second (SOP 162) , but it is still relatively easy to still have trust donations – you just collect money from donors without guaranteeing (or having an understanding or agreement) to pass it on to a particular party or parties.
Here’s an example. You set up the Free Market Trust and the Trust (not any Party) seeks donors. It explains it wants to support free market policies in NZ and will use any money received for a variety of activities – it conducts some research, some advertising. The trustees of that Trust independently decide what proportion of their income gets spent on what. They may collect $1.0 million, spend $50K on admin, $80K on research, $70k on publicity and $800k on donations to parties with free market policies. If the Trust can pass a test that there was no knowledge or expectation from its donor, that the Trust would make a donation.
Trusts can donate from their earnings
Here’s another loophole. A trust collects donations. It invests all the donations it collects in various activities. Say they collect $2 million in donations. The trustees are smart people and get a 15% return of $300,000 a year on that money. They donate that $300,000 a year or $900,000 over three years to political parties. Now so long as they never donate the capital which in turn was donated to them, they should never have to disclose who their original donors were.
The Exclusive Brethren can still spend $840,000 or more
The Exclusive Brethren will be able to spend a million dollars again if they so wish. How? Because many of their members are rich, and even the main secret seven could register as third parties and spend $120,000 each which is a total of $840,000. Ten of them could spend $1.2 million.
The law stops one rich person giving money to six poor people, so that he or she can not spend $840,000 through proxies. But the EB tend to be wealthy business owners who can each spend $120,000.
And the secret seven could even run joint ads for a total of $840,000 – the EFB in Clause 105A(3) allows for ads to be apportioned between third parties. Yes the law specifically allows third parties to pool resources and run joint advertisements.
On the other hand – a reputable lobby group such as the Automobile Association is restricted to spending $120,000 on behalf of its 1 million members if it wishes to advocate for or against parties with motorist friendly policies. They can only spend 12c per member, while individual members of the EB can spend $120,000 each.
Lobby Groups can easily become parties
Because political parties only need 500 members, and they have much much higher spending limits, a number of lobby groups may become political parties so they can spend more than $3,000 a week on advocacy such as “Support parties who support Kyoto” or “Punish MPs who voted for the Electoral Finance Bill”. They will need to have at least one candidate but that won’t be a barrier.
Remember the section on donations was cooked up in secret between Labour and the Greens. They showed it to the Select Committee at the very last minute. Despite what the Greens claim, it is primarily about protecting Labour’s anonymous donations and the loopholes they have put into the law is actually going to drive anonymous donations underground so that the public won’t even know about them anymore.
They could have avoided many of these problems if they had adopted a principled approach and had proper public consultation on the policy principles for the Bill. That would have found widespread support for banning all anonymous donations, and a law could have been drawn up which reflected that. Instead though we have a shabby self serving law full of loopholes, and which will undermine, not enhance, the integrity of our electoral legislation.
Related posts:
- Dom Post on Secret Donations
- Anonymous Donations starting to flow through Electoral Commission
- Ban all anonymous donations
- Party donor returns
December 12th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
David,
Thank you for a very informative explanationof many aspects of the bill.
I take it this was an explanation provided by the minister who now that it has passed through the committee stage is able to give such explanations.
Oh silly me, I think she was actually waiting for your explanation so that she can use it no doubt claiming it to be her work.
This bill has to be the most scandalous piece of law making that has been seen for many years. I think it tops the MP’s super scheme scandal.
Next week, pass the bill, go away for Christmas, move on. Somehow I don’t think it is going to go away.
[DPF: The sad thing is we could have got a good law which 80%+ of the MPs and country would be happy with if they had not tried to turn it into Utu. One could have done a proper clampdown on anon donations, some sensible limits on third party advocacy, harsher penalties for breaches etc, if one had had a decent policy process for the Bill.
If you sat Steven Price and myself down in a room for the weekend, I suspect we could come up with a bill on which we agree 90%, and would go through Parliament almost without opposition. The main area of difference would be disclosure levels.
But this bill really is a shocker. Even the Greens know it - that's why they want to start reviewing it in February!]
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Breaking news Winston has just announced in the house that NZF have donated the $158,000 to starship.
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
<i>The EB tend to be wealthy business owners who can each spend $120,000.
And the secret seven could even run joint ads for a total of $840,000 – the EFB in Clause 105A(3) allows for ads to be apportioned between third parties. Yes the law specifically allows third parties to pool resources and run joint advertisements.</i>
I pointed this out a few weeks ago to the staff in two cabinet ministers offices – one of them was Annette King, trhother Chris Carter. They both denied what you have just stated.
I thinkl what will happen once this bill is passed is that DPF and Graeme Edgeler will be rung a hell of a lot of times by a lot of people who want to know what thils law means. Because of all the people in the country who under stand teh EFB, these two would be the cream of the bunch. And DPF is not even a lawyer or a journo…
[DPF: What do you mean once it becomes law. Hell I already get a dozen or so emails or calls a day asking for whether something is or is not covered]
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
JoihnBOy.
Only United Future to go, then?
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Didn’t the Law Society claim that the EFB would ‘encourage, even incentivise covert practices’ in it SC submission?
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
God, they are a bunch of incompetents.
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Great precedent from Winston First. I am donating my tax to my children’s school.
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Sweet, so from now on instead of paying what I owe to people I can donate to the charity of my choice?
Also that Blimp – subtle reference to Atlas Shrugged? “Who is John Galt?”
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
As I told the SC in my submission unless the source of substantial donations had to be declared to the citizens there was nothing to stop an indiviual or group expoliting the loop holes you have highlighted ( there are others that havent been noted yet).
Anyone who believes that political parties wont know or be told who the substantial “anonymous” donation are from and the strings attached are a fool and or in denial.
NZ Government Open to the highest bidder.
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Audrey Young has posted an interesting article in the NZ Herald which also highlights what DPF talks about here but uses a different example from the real world involving Labour’s Wellington Central candidate Grant Robertson and the Key DVD.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10481878
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
David, do you really think the EB spent $1million? If not you may want to ammend “able to spend a million dollars AGAIN”.
You just know Tane, Nome, etc will make an issue of it.
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
DPF – perhaps we need a general discussion post for Winstons devious repayment . If it has of course happened.
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Apologies – as always you are ahead of me.
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Oh yes – for the record I don’t think it was that much. I just can’t be bothered editing the main post.
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
David, great post.
The response from Peter Dunne and most anyone who thinks this bill is a good idea is that what you suggest is simply wrong. A flat out denial.
The references you provide in this post are excellent for refuting that.
Is there anything in the bill that prevents the sort of thing in your first example? No catch-all provision that would be interpreted as making 250 $1000 donations illegal?
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Excellent post, David.
I think that you’re partly right about these loopholes being so bad due to the incredibly poor and hasty process that Labour and the Greens have followed in pushing this legislation. But I’d also add that the interventions of the state into party affairs are always prone to failure. This is because it is in the interests of at least some parties to evade the rules, and they inevitably find legal means to do so. As political finance expert Pinto-Duschinsky says, ‘In country after country, the introduction of new regulations has been followed by the development of new loopholes and new methods of financing politics that escape existing rules’. It is easy to pass laws – but ensuring that legislation produces the desired purpose is quite another matter. This is especially the case with donation disclosure.
Scholars of political finance have almost exhausted the vocabulary of contempt in describing the ineffectiveness of donation disclosure rules in countries all over the world. Everywhere that these rules of disclosure exists, there have been studies to show that these rules are very widely breached. It is in the US that political regulation is most advanced. This is the system towards which NZ is now moving. In the US, those that study the laws regard them as a joke. There are incredibly constraints on political activity. The most that an individual can donate to a campaign is something like $2000. Trade unions and companies are banned from donating to parties. But money will always find a way.
Again, Pinto-Duschinsky says: ‘As fast as legislators close old loopholes, political managers find new ones. The implementation of reform legislation breeds the need for more (and more complex) reform legislation. In other countries such as the US, Italy, Germany, France, it has led to a series of unending “reforms of reforms”.’
The nature of political regulation produces a cycle of legal rulings and reforms that are self-perpetuating. In the US and elsewhere there is an ongoing cycle of revision and litigation involving electoral finance laws. Lawyers do very well out of it – and this will certainly be the case in NZ.
Bryce
Vote:http://www.liberation.org.nz
December 12th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Nope, so long as the party is totally unaware they are from the same donor. One might be suspicious if the bank cheques are all from the same bank, but that is not conclusive. Also someone could just have $1K cash delivered every day, or use different banks etc]
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
great work david, yet again
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
DPF: What do you mean once it becomes law. Hell I already get a dozen or so emails or calls a day asking for whether something is or is not covered
Vote:I`m well aware of that. My badly made point was that it could escalate. You could run a consultancy business out of it….
December 12th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
I could be wrong, but I would have thought that an anonymous donor could quite reasonably pay the money via internet banking or via automatic payment. I assume that there is nothing in the EFB to say that a political party is required to investigate who is depositing money into their account. In fact a donor might anonymously contact the party to inform them that the deposits will be occurring an that the donor wishes that party to respect the donor’s privacy by not investigating the deposits.
Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz
[DPF: Indeed - the bank statements will not show who the donor is or even what bank they use. ]
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
The dunne could be flushed in the next election,peter, GET a real job .
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Can anyone tell me whether time spent by Union staff on matters related to elections is counted as part of the Labour Party expenses, or is it deemed unrelated and why is that the case?
How is such time costed and who audits their involvement?
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
One result of this disgraceful law is that it has motivated me to donate money to the party of my choice (not one of the ones who have supported the bill), I have never done this is the past, but will certainly in the future.
I suspect it has had a similar effect on many people!
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Adam Smith – there are no controls on volunteer labour. And neither should there be. It does raise the interesting issue of why only money is regulated and not labour. I think you can make some good arguments either way on this point.
But the question of an organisation, interest group, or business donating some of their staff to work on a campaign is an interesting one. In theory I guess such contributions fall within the parametres of a political donation, and so if they amount to more than the threshold ($10k etc), they should be declared to the Electoral Commission. But I haven’t seen any examples of this occurring. I don’t believe there is any auditing of this – just as there was never been any auditing of the use of parliamentary funds to electioneer, until 2005.
Such “contributions” probably don’t count towards a party’s election expenditure limit however, as these only really deal with advertising expenses.
Bryce
Vote:http://www.liberation.org.nz
December 12th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Any restriction on party names?
Could the Ohariu ballot paper feature a candidate for the Don’t Vote For Dunne Because He Supported The Electoral Finance Bill Party?
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Bryce
Many thanks for your comments, most helpful.
I agree that volunteer labour, given by party members and supporters as members of the community to a party should not be subject to any restriction.
However, I am concerned about the position why an organisation, business, union or lobby group ‘strongly’ encourages it’s members to provide volunteer labour, especially in any instance where said volunteers are paid by the union, lobby group or buisness.
Rightly, or wrongly, it has always been my impression that the unions make their paid staff available as volunteers and supply facilties also.
It is in as the Americans would say these ‘soft’areas where the demarcation is unclear and the balance can be tilted to the advantage of one side or the other.
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
John Ansell – there are restrictions on party names. Section 65 of the Electoral Act 1993 applies, and is unchanged by the EFB:
“The Electoral Commission shall refuse an application for the registration of a political party if, in its opinion, the name of the party or any proposed abbreviation—
(a) Is indecent or offensive; or
(b) Is excessively long; or
(c) Is likely to cause confusion or mislead electors; or
(d) Contains any reference to a title or honour or similar form of identification.”
For single candidates wanting to have the name of unregistered parties (like the Anti-Capitalist Alliance has in the past), s 151 of the Electoral Act 1993 applies (again unchanged):
“(1) Where a name is shown on a nomination paper, or other document on which a constituency candidate consents to his or her nomination, as the name of the constituency candidate’s political party, the Returning Officer may, if he or she considers it necessary, require the candidate to produce evidence sufficient to satisfy the Returning Officer of the candidate’s eligibility to claim that accreditation.
(2) Where the Returning Officer considers that the name shown on the nomination paper or other document as the name of the constituency candidate’s political party is indecent or offensive or excessively long or likely to cause confusion to or mislead electors,—
Vote:(a) The Returning Officer shall, after consultation with the candidate, show on the ballot paper as the name of the candidate’s political party such name as the Returning Officer and the candidate agree upon in place of that shown on the nomination paper or other document; and
(b) If, on such consultation, the Returning Officer and the candidate cannot agree, or if consultation is not reasonably practicable, the Returning Officer shall not show any name on the ballot papers as the name of the candidate’s political party.”
December 12th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
John – here’s a snippet from something I’ve written about restrictions on names:
The Electoral Commission is able to place some restrictions upon the names and logos that parties register. The main intention of this role is to give parties some protection against other parties that might choose to operate with similar names or logos. Party registration therefore acts somewhat like the registration of a corporate trademark, with registered parties choosing both a full name and abbreviated name.
The regulations include criteria by which registration can be refused – for instance, ‘a party may be refused registration where its proposed name is considered indecent, offensive, excessively long or likely to be misleading’ (McRobie, 1995: p.331). Elements of this criterion are obviously somewhat arbitrary and subject to the dictates of the individual members of the Electoral Commission. Furthermore, in relation to the censorship of ‘offensive’ party names or logos it might be argued that, in a democratic society, all political parties should have the right to be offensive.
Bryce
Vote:http://www.liberation.org.nz
December 12th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
The weakness on the approach suggested is that New Zealand is a small place and such things could easily become known and are likely to rebound on the recipient as it did with the EB issue for National. Same goes with acepting money from front lobby groups.
Parties would be better imposing some kind of internal checks to make sure they don’t get such cheques and any associated image problems, otherwise they may just be creating a rod for their own backs.
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Adam Smith – as I’ve argued elsewhere, I think that in theory it’s a good thing if unions and other interest groups are providing resources (financial or otherwise) to political parties. It’s a way of parties remaining organically connected with civil society.
My impression is that the unions don’t actually donate much in the way of either resources to Labour these days. Of course there are always some examples, but in the greater scheme of things they’re probably pretty insignificant – especially compared to the much bigger resources that the parties get through Parliament.
My understanding is actually that the Labour Government supply parliamentary resources to the unions for campaigning rather than the other way around. A number of Labour’s parliamentary staff are usually dedicated in election year to providing the union movement with material for their “third party” campaigns in favour of Labour.
But, I do agree that there are all sorts of loopholes and unenforced rules in regard to businesses and unions contributing to political parties without declaring it. It does make the current rules (as well as the EFB) pretty absurd.
Bryce
Vote:http://www.liberation.org.nz
December 12th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
The law specifically allows third parties to pool resources and run joint advertisements
Does that mean if 15 people from the Sensible Sentencing Trust register as third parties, they can channel donations through the SST to these parties that they can pool resources for advertising?
Meaning: If the SST sent out a newsletter listing their “associated third parties” – can they ask for donations to third party (a) third party(b) and third party (c) abd wgen third party (a) has reached the limit, send out another newsletter asking for donatins to third party (b) and (c) and when each trhird party has got themoney, pool resorces and do a big advertising campaign against the Govt?
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Adam: get the gas BBQ before xmas.
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
In addition, I think all of the issues around party names is indicative of the dangers of giving the state too much unfettered right to control political activity. The current Electoral Commission and Chief Electoral Officer aren’t likely to be too authoritarian on these issues, but that doesn’t mean at another time they wouldn’t use their arbitrary powers to unfairly decided what sort of party and candidate names are politically unacceptable.
Here’s another couple of snippets about controls over who can stand in elections:
That the state should be given the power to determine what is politically acceptable should be questioned. This is made apparent by the example of the candidate known as Jesus Christ, who was refused the right to stand for office in the 1972 general election. The Chief Electoral Officer deemed that the nomination was ‘offensive and not made in good faith’ and an amendment to the Electoral Act was used to refuse the nomination (Cleveland, 1977: p.143). In contrast, and perhaps inconsistently, during the same election, a candidate with the name Mickey Mouse was deemed acceptable by the Chief Electoral Officer. Similarly, socialist parties have at times been threatened with bans by the state – for example, National Prime Minister Robert Muldoon considered passing legislation to outlaw the Socialist Unity Party.
———–
The Electoral Commission in New Zealand has refused to register some parties – in the 1997/98 year one party was refused registration because their name was ‘likely to cause confusion or mislead electors’ (Electoral Commission, 1998c). Returning officers are also able to reject a candidate’s party name on the basis of ‘elector confusion’ (Electoral Act 1993: s.151).
Bryce
Vote:http://www.liberation.org.nz
December 12th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Looking ahead now.. I will be putting up some roadside signs that may appear to have a political message.
I will comply with the law regarding the showing of name and address.
So is it OK to use white paint for the lettering on a white paint background?
Or can I put my name and address “in clear”, surrounded by a goodly collection of other peoples names in no particular order.
Or can I comply by using a series of “micro dots” giving my name and address?
My real question is where are the Label Copy Regulations for the signage?
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Yep, Bryce is right. When I worked in a Minister’s office in the early ’90s, it was generally verboeten to do any work on the campaign trail for your Minister. Us flaks spent most of the 93 election getting on with the running of the ‘same shit, different day’. Of course, there were a few who crossed over, but bugger all. We all knew that if there was a change of Gummint most of us would end up working for Labour (I was approached by a senior Labour MP who asked me if they won whether I would work for him)
A friend who worked for Klark for along time told me that last election, it was all devoted to re-election, damn the day to day work, and that if they lost, they’d all be looking for jobs.
The human resources put in to play for re-election by the current Gummint will be huge, and only very few Ministerial staff will be left out.
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
I meant a long time. Fucking keyboard.
So Jesus Christ is out for my name as an MP. D’ya reckon Hayseuss Kristo would get past them?
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Bryce:
“In contrast, and perhaps inconsistently, during the same election, a candidate with the name Mickey Mouse was deemed acceptable by the Chief Electoral Officer.”
Now, sometimes one is dealt a statement that is so replete with satirical potential that he doesn’t know where to start.
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
DPF, you’re almost as bad as Labour and their supporters at thestandard.org. “Many members of the EB are rich”. DPF, the media did a massive effort on these people and all the’ve ever come up with is a whole lot of small businesses like lawnmower and chainsaw shops and office interior fitout guys. Would you put a sock in it with this small-minded, politics of envy, “rich people” stuff. If there WERE ANY EB equivalents to Fay, Richwhite and Co, the media would have told us.
Truth be told, the EB seem to have quite a few merely thrifty, enterprising, hardworking, honest, small businessmen. It is noticeable how the REALLY rich people in NZ do NOT bother to pop their heads above the political parapet, for whatever reason. Quite possibly they have little to protest about – they can quite successfully keep doing what they do – making loads of money.
It is people like the EB small businessmen, and people who are trying to work their way to small business ownership, who are finding the current political climate very antagonistic, with stifling regulations and taxation and ACC and other government-imposed costs. It does not help when people like YOU, David Farrar, lump people like this in with “the rich”. Are you a closet stooge of Tane and Co?
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Isn’t it the case that under the EFB the onus is on the receiver of a donation to prove that they did not know from where the donation came?
But then is it not the case that the penalties for the criminalised behaviour this entails are going to to ignored?
refering to Val Sims advice on ‘Retroactive Criminal Laws’ 53. –
60 the last says:
“given that the person could not be convicted of an offence section 25(g) has no application.”
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
let’s not over-romanticise the EB. The majority of them (like Trade Union members) are hard-working and clean living.
The hierarchy, however does contain (like Trade Unions) an internationally linked politicised ‘wing’ which undertakes particulary political agendas in organised way. The hieraarchy are insular, self-serving and elitist, while hiding behind the defence that ‘we are just looking out for the little people.’
Like the Trade Unions.
The EFB to my mind has opened a can of worms called electoral reform.
In my opinion, every politically-charged accusation that has been levelled at the EB could equally be levelled at the Trade Union Movement. (except the ‘chinless’ bit).
I am not opposed to Trade Unions, niether am I opposed to the EB. They both happen to be modernised perversions of a once evangelical movement which are now hopelessly introverted and confused.
In my mind they both deserve to exist, because they can. They hurt no-one, and it is their right to express their opinions as they see fit. But when they (EB or Unions) transgress the law, then they should expect at least to be prosecuted.
If they are accused, and not convicted, though then there was no crime. So they then deserve the protection of the Law and of Parliament from persecution.
However, I will say, if reform is to be realistic, it should examine a wider area of NZ society than a small religious enclave. It should examine the media, Unions, big business and political parties.
That is why a Royal COmmission is needed into electoral reform IMHO.
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
It seems there are only a few people in the whole country that understand the true implications of this bill, David been one. If I were you David I would set up my own consulting business, there is money to be made out of this dog. What about a new book release, something like ” The EFB for dummies” and you could sale it at Dick Smith’s along with all the computer books.
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
If the law is so easily avoided by National and its big money chums, why the hell are you making such a fuss about it?
Mmmmm?
Lovely quote from the ODT
“He has spent $140,000, and rising, fighting the Bill. That money has bought newspaper and radio advertisements denouncing it, printed placards, marshalled involvement in protest marches, and paid — everybody still comfortable? — for a Canadian call centre to telephone 82,000 Auckland homes to drum up support for the last protest.
So much for the spontaneous outpouring of opposition to this dastardly anti-democratic Government’s election finance Bill. “
[DPF: You will never ever understand why I am oppossed to it, because it seems you can't conceive of non selfish reasons.]
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Well said Lee, in my experience they provide an excellent service and there is nothing to suggest that they are members of the EB except for “no fax machine???”. But what is it about them that gets up the nose of the Labour Party? my guess is that it would be their traditional approach to family roles, discipline etc. I think there is danger in any organisation that demands unswerving blind loyalty, exists only through indoctrinating it’s members and through punishments such as excommunication.
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
From the Womans Weekly December 2008:
Radiant Helen recently voted woman of their dreams by the Labour Party Caucus and the CTU put her victory in the 2008 election down to the $80,000,000 she had made available for electioneering by the honest use of the very democratic Electoral Finance Bill.
Rumours by the discredited opposition led by that scumbag rich prick John Key and his political backers, the fanatical Exclusive Brethren, that she had diverted $5,000,000 in election funds for cosmetic surgery (including a major wart removal operation) to make herself more appealling to the voters were described as “The politics of jealousy”.
Helen further suggested that Key should “Move On”. She thought that Fiji had a nice climate at this time of the year and would suit him well. As she moved off through the adoring crowd of welfare beneficiarys Winston Peters without his usual regard for his three piece suit threw himself into a deep puddle so his dear leader would not have to get her feet wet.
Strangely enough Helen did not seem to notice his sacrifice as she trod squarely on his back forcing his head under the dirty water and causing him to blow baubles.
As she stalked off through the adoring throngs Winston was heard to mutter “Next election I might see if the Nats will take me back”.
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
If the law is so easily avoided by National and its big money chums, why the hell are you making such a fuss about it?
Because, unlike you, some of us have principles?
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
<blockquote>DPF: Indeed – the bank statements will not show who the donor is or even what bank they use. </blockquote>
As far as I know, bank statements and online banking both show the account name. Anonymous donors would have to make each daily transfer out of a different account. But, have it your way. I don’t want to remove any fuel from your pretty little fire, DPF.
[DPF: Not my bank or bank statements]
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
Shit that must be the most perverted logic I have read on kiwiblog –
‘If the law is so easily avoided by National and its big money chums, why the hell are you making such a fuss about it?’
Like, by the act of confirming that Labour and the EFB is corrupt, and working on the assumption that the National Party is corrupt, it follows that National should support a corrupt law!
Therefore, by the same logic, National’s opposition to the EFB indicates that they are opposed to corruption, and that Labour are in support of corruption!
So = Natural Party = is this your admission that the Labour Government is corrupt, and that the EFB will incentivise corruption?
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
“If the law is so easily avoided by National and its big money chums, why the hell are you making such a fuss about it?
Because, unlike you, some of us have principles?”
Actually Craig, I was thinking, because unlike me, some people have a spare 120 000 dollars they want to spend anonymously influencing elections and ringing up Aucklanders via Canadian Call Centres to go on protest marches.
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
natural party of govt Says:
” because unlike me, some people have a spare 120 000 dollars they want to spend anonymously influencing elections and ringing up Aucklanders via Canadian Call Centres to go on protest marches.”
They probably have some spare cash because they worked hard for it and did not opt to be a bitter little socialist prat like you pal.
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
DPF
The law of common sense is trumped by the law of unintended consequences as so often happens when shit is done for the wrong reasons.
Labour – you are a bunch of twats – who let you loose running the country ?
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
“They probably have some spare cash because they worked hard for it and did not opt to be a bitter little socialist prat like you pal.”
Good for them. So let them spend on a yachts, holidays in Tahti, beachside houses, european cars and executive apartment suites.
Just not on buying elections and not destroying the basis of public health and public education – the very things that allowed John Key to leave the working class suburbs of Christchurch far far behind him.
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
npog,
Your ideas about buying elections is screwy. Thank goodness your mates will get arsed out of office in 10 months time.
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
NPoG:
Well, at least I didn’t pay for it. I do end up paying for the spam I keep receiving from various politicians whose staff are too retarded – or plain fucking lazy – to understand the words ‘please remove me from your mailing list’.
Still, if the various wings of the Labour Party want to waste their time and money filling up our recycling bin – carry on!
And could NPoG please tell us who these people are who keep ‘buying elections’? I’d also like to know why you haven’t called in the Police, as I understand offering anyone inducements (be it money, goods and services or any other consideration) to vote as you’d like them to is a corrupt act under the Electoral Act.
Vote:December 13th, 2007 at 12:04 am
No problems with interest free loans for students though eh Craig?
And I never realised that John Key was going to destroy public health and education. Did Nicky Hager leave that part out of the Hollow Men?
I always wondered why the Americans have those $10,000 a ticket dinners for fundraising – and now I know it is because there is no law against buying an expensive dinner but there is against giving largish donations. The EFB will really stop the Americanisation of politics won’t it!
Vote:December 13th, 2007 at 6:53 am
Yes, Anthony, enormous problems with interest-free loans for students – even though it’s a policy I’d personally benefit from. Another tiresome occasion where my principles actually matter more than self-interest.
Vote:December 13th, 2007 at 7:08 am
Kent Parker: As far as I know, bank statements and online banking both show the account name. Anonymous donors would have to make each daily transfer out of a different account. But, have it your way. I don’t want to remove any fuel from your pretty little fire, DPF.
*sighs* It depends on the bank, Kent. For example, National Bank only shows:
05 Dec Deposit [monetary sum]
You can walk into a bank with a $1000 in cash and deposit it into an account. They do not verify the identity of the person depositing the money and it is simply listed as “Deposit”.
Fact check. Then open mouth. You know you want to.
Vote:December 13th, 2007 at 8:57 am
[DPF: What do you mean once it becomes law. Hell I already get a dozen or so emails or calls a day asking for whether something is or is not covered]
Look on the bright side David, now you and Greame can start a business providing consultancy services giving advice to the third parties on the EFB.
Vote:December 13th, 2007 at 9:23 am
This next election is stuffed. Labour in their belief in their own infallibility do not know that they have handed a very flawed Electoral Act to a bunch of opposition lawyers who will exploit every opportunity given. Labour not believing they have made such a mistake will leave it too late to outsmart them.
Vote:December 13th, 2007 at 9:56 am
Once again David makes some very good points. But I think the whole premise of this bill — to stop the activities of groups like the exclusive brethren from so-called “hijacking the election” — is incredibly unsound.
Given how much it costs to put a pamphlet in every letter box in New Zealand, it seems that the whole reason we have this bill, is because a group of fundamentalist Christians put one, maybe two pamphlets in every letter box in New Zealand, criticising the Green party. That seems to me to be a very shaky foundation for such radical electoral reform as this bill represents.
Now when we say “the exclusive brethren”, that in itself is probably inaccurate. All we know is that seven businessmen, who are members of that church, are responsible for the pamphlets. As far as I am aware their names were on the pamphlets, so the premise of the government’s accusation of secrecy and deception is that they were representing the church and did not say so.
However it is plausible that the seven could have been acting on their own and were not representing the church. In the same way it is plausible that seven Presbyterians could take a position on a political matter and publish and distribute a pamphlet representing their views. These views may not necessarily be endorsed by or represent the official position of the Presbyterian church. The seven Presbyterians view is their own — not at all representing the view of the Presbyterian Church.
The government’s case is incredibly shaky — have they somehow come into possession of church minutes showing that the actions of the seven were endorsed by the exclusive brethren leadership? Have they unearthed a financial trail showing that exclusive brethren church funds were used to finance the publication and distribution of the pamphlet?
I suspect they haven’t. Rather the whole premise of this bill appears to rest on the government’s hope that the people of New Zealand are so antagonised by fundamentalist Christians that they will support the passage of legislation which will drastically limit free speech during the whole of election year.
Vote:December 13th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Now now Scott, you mustn’t think for your self it will lead to you needing re-indoctrination.
The great and mighty Labour Party known throughout the world for its Human Rights credentials and encouragement of minority Rights has decreed under the benign tutelage of its Dear Leader Helen Clark that the Exclusive Brethren are a “weird cult”.
Vote:These “shadowy white men” (Pete Hodgson)are nothing but the “devil” (Jill Pettis) who should be “dragged out of the country” (Geogina Beyer-Worlds first Trans-sexual MP).
Scott you mustn’t believe the EB when they say that the information in their anti-green pamphlet was true, just because it came off the Green Party web-site. Its not true because they “lie” (Phil Goff) and are the “Christian version of the Taliban” (David Parker) and whats more the “chinless scarf wearing” (Trevor Mallard) “nutters” (Michael Cullen) have “bucket loads of covert cash”(Helen Clark)
You can see now Scott why the EFB must be passed and we must happily sacrifice those rights and liberties we hold so dear, its because that “weird Sect” (Helen Clark) that has no “legitimate” (Michael Cullen) right to speak, might again attempt to “rort” (Mark Burton) the electoral system by expressing their views.
December 13th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Anthony:
Whoops… apology for the snark directed at you in my last. Didn’t get that you were being sarcastic rather than dishing me for hypocrisy.
Scott wrote:
Indeed. For a lengthy period in the 90′s, the Alliance and National were both lead by Catholics. I think any media claim that, therefore, the Catholic Church supported either (or any) political party would have drawn quite a sharp response from church authorities. And deservedly so.
Vote:December 13th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
SCOTT, WELL SAID. If the Nats and Farrar had a spine, they’d have fought right from the start to stop dumb Kiwis from swallowing this utter rot.
REG, well said too.
I keep saying this, but we’re at a similar stage in NZ now to what Germany was at when the Reichstag burnt down in the 1930′s. We have a government, democratically elected nevertheless, which takes advantage of a compliant media who are willing to go along with a program of LIES about a minority that has never had a fair chance to defend itself, so as to take to itself unprecedented dictatorial powers – to the injured surprise of that media.
Editors of NZ, you are so fakkin’ THICK where this issue is concerned. They’ll come for YOU guys next. You’ve left it TOO LATE, allowing a Watergate-style hit on a opposition leader to go unaddressed and a blatant piece of propaganda by a self-declared Communist, Nicky Hager, to frame the terms of the political discourse.
Vote:December 13th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Those dreadful “pampleteers” must have been far more successful than we all thought for the Labour Party to go to such extraordinary lengths to attempt to muzzle free speech like they have.
How about putting some back up on here to see how good or bad they were ?
Anyone still have one – They could send it in to DPF to post up ?
Vote:December 13th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Lee C Says: the eb hurt no one .
Well let me just say if this is your conclusion it is serriously flawed as well , but allowing that you are Probably just letting your emotions of your hatered of the bill take over the fact that you most likely havent done a lot of research into this conclusion . It is not at all surprising . But still let me inform you dont know what you are talking about on this matter .
http://www.cults.co.nz/e.php ….. Here is but a small amount of imformation on them .
And before people jump to the conclusion that just because the secret seven or who ever of them says ” oh no it had nothing to do with our members ” blah blah etc. What the fuck ?? people who put their faith in belieaving cultish twits just because they say so when facts show they have been just as deviate and deceitful over the tasman in Australia , i personally think these people show very poor form in personality judgement and have a need to see a brain surgen . It as bad as having judges in our courts making judgements of no criminal offences , just because the suspect says “oh no we didnt do it your honor “.????????????????????????
What a joke !! i suppose people expect that just because these people read a bible that makes them totally honest ? . And like if it was a group effort by the members of this cult , that they are likely to just come out plain jane and honestly admit to it ? .
Hell no !! not likely !! .They are not silly , after all they have fooled so many for so many years .
But there sure is a lot of evidence that these people like to be very deceitful , both here and overseas !! .
Funny how so many in their one track “hate the bill minds” are so willing to overlook any evidence and facts that point to these eb people being non trustworthy , and want to use them like some totally innocent sacrificed lamb and bleet on about how hard done by they have been .
How very flawed that is !!
Vote:December 13th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
“Another tiresome occasion where my principles actually matter more than self-interest.”
Presumably, Craig, if your principles are so important to you, you must be donating the interest that IRD refuse to charge you to the Starship hospital.
Vote:December 13th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Pascal
Vote:December 13th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Sorry, didn’t close the , should have read:
Sure, that is true. If you were making it an automatic transfer then it wouldn’t be the case. So, someone has to physically draw out $1000 cash and then deposit it into the account in order to make it anonymous. Sounds like a lot of work. If you look at any situation hard enough you will find a loophole, which I think is what is happening with this thread and most of the others that cover the EFB.
I was chatting this evening to someone who was at Uni in the 1970s. In those days students would get up and protest about anything. The lack of obvious student involvement in the protests against the EFB illustrate either of two things:
Vote:1. the EFB is a non-issue
2. students (and the rest of the public) these days are politically apathetic.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
Ah Ha Dusty above must be a new recruit fresh from the 9th Floor spin department.
Quickly shoot the messenger and ignore the message.
Demean and denigrate the Eb’s as quickly as possible.
Quote some wacky website to support you spin line…..
Your becoming another quick learning student from the Potiburo !!
Vote:December 14th, 2007 at 12:03 am
Kent -
Would have thought you might have realised by now that 1. is absolutely wrong and 2. “The Otago Polytechnic Students’ Association (OPSA) supports the aims of the Electoral Finance Bill, but endorses the Human Rights Commission’s comments that the current bill is flawed, and also calls for a re-write.” One of a few student ones knocking around.
Apathetic? Get out of your tree and start catching up man.
Vote:December 14th, 2007 at 12:04 am
NPG – you’ll be quiet when it comes out that NZ First have claimed it back in their tax return…
Vote:December 14th, 2007 at 6:33 am
Sorry, Buggerlugs,
I’ll stay in my tree for this one. Talking to the people around me this is a non-issue. Faulty legislation? What’s new? Loss of freedom of speech? Hardly. Only affects those people wanting to spend oodles of cash (like Boscawen and unfortunately the AA and SST), which in my books represent an absolute minority. Add to that it is such a shambles as to probably be unenforceable.
If the EFB is a threat to freedom of speech then right wing bloggers need to take back derisory comments made about the claim by http://www.aclu.org/ that the Patriot Act in the US was also an attack on freedom of speech, which it isn’t.
Me, I’ll wait for a credible issue to come along before I get out of my tree. If it was a credible issue then it wouldn’t need Boscawen spending up large to get the word out. Opposition would happen via word of mouth, emails etc and people would be out on the streets for $0. That’s true democracy. When you have to put multi thousand dollar ads in papers, then you have a non-issue. End of story.
Vote:December 14th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
It’s been great. I didn’t have a clue about this bill until people started kicking up a fuss. Good to see that Annette King is paving the way to repealling all laws and replacing them with the doctrine of ‘common sense’.
Fact of the matter is that politics has become so petty, so nasty and so hypocritical that the general public becomes immune to it, and sometimes we really do need it spelt out in huge advertisements to tell us we should be concerned.
Vote: