King backdowns on EFB interpretation
The Herald reports that Annette King has backed away from her own advice to the Electoral Commission on how the immunity for adveritsing by MPs in their capacity as MPs should apply.
I had suggested the acid test should be whether Labour’s 2005 pledge card would now be exempt. And the good thing initiall is that the Minister gave an explanation that:
“MPs acting in their capacity as members of Parliament” excluded statements they made outside the House on policy that was intended to be enacted by a future Parliament.”
That sounded somewhat promising, as that would probably mean an election pledge card would not be exempt.
But last night in Parliament she backed down from her interpretation, and said her view was a personal one, not an official one.
So we’re now back to the situation where the Electoral Commission will have to just tell everyone to consult their lawyers. Welcome to Florida.
December 5th, 2007 at 7:55 am
Quelle surprise!! Did we really expect better from the government. As Lee C has said so eloquently, and frequently, the EFB is a turd, and you can’t polish a turd. And this turd has been in the sun too long – the smell is getting worse!
December 5th, 2007 at 7:58 am
Plutocracy is dead…. Long live democracy
[DPF: Wow slogans instead of analysis. Shouldn't be surprised though]
December 5th, 2007 at 7:59 am
The biggest danger in this whole affair is that we get another National Party quisling leader again who agrees with the govt in an 11th hour compromise, and sells the nation down the toilet with the aforementioned turd.
Just like they did with the Anti-Smacking Bill.
Keep your foot on their necks. Don’t try to improve the “turd”. Let them roast in the smell of it for all of next year!
December 5th, 2007 at 8:00 am
Just caught the tail end of Holmes interviewing Dear Leader, and asking about the “inconsequential” clause – her closing remark “If we got hauled before the court every time we broke the law we’d be there all the time” – If only Helen, if only!!!
December 5th, 2007 at 8:02 am
MajorB – National has told Labour to bugger off when offered an 11th hour (or 11th hour, 59th minute) meeting on the EFB. Labour blinked, but this time Key and English stared Clark down.
http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2007/12/labour-blinks.html
December 5th, 2007 at 8:12 am
Oy… I heard that too, and can’t figure out whether Helen has a weird neurological deficit where her own words don’t register on that double-decker brain or just has a hitherto unsuspected (and pitch black) sense of humour.
And in future, perhaps the Justice Minister should know what the fuck she’s talking about when speaking publicly or in the House on matters relating to her portfolio? Don’t think bare ministerial competence is too much to ask for, do you?
December 5th, 2007 at 8:25 am
The legislation steamrolled over 100 years of democracy on the basis of “a two-bit book”, Nicky Hager’s Hollow Men, Key said.
Maybe a Royal commission into hagars allegations, evidence would be a good idea.
Watch national run from that idea
[DPF: I've long advocated a commission of inquiry into all of the 2005 election - the Brethren, the pledge card etc etc. I'd love that to happen. Absolutely love that. For I tell you what - Labour do not want to have to talk about who was consulted on their deliberate decision to lie to the Chief Electoral Officer and break the law]
December 5th, 2007 at 8:25 am
Well, she certainly showed her bizarre sense of humour at Question Time yesterday when she laughed about Trevor Mallard’s “mild by his standards” attack on Erin Leigh. That must rate as one of the lowest moments of her PM-ship.
December 5th, 2007 at 8:27 am
Lets hope that John Key doesn’t change his mind on this one.
For National to get into office next year all they need to do is,
Repeal this law
Repeal the “anti-smacking” law
and finally give us some of the money that this Government has stolen of us.
December 5th, 2007 at 8:33 am
“So we’re now back to the situation where the Electoral Commission will have to just tell everyone to consult their lawyers. “
While this is not at all ideal, it is better than relying on interpretations by the EC. Our system is that Parliament makes the laws and the courts interpret them and apply them, not the EC.
[DPF: I disagree. While a Judge is the final arbiter, the system won't work if the Electoral Commission can not at least offer some advice. The idea is we want people to know how to obey the law]
December 5th, 2007 at 8:35 am
I gotta say, guys and dolls, that I am sickened at the way NZ Politics has descended into farce. Our PM is openly laughing about avoiding breaking the law! Herr Bainimarama will be, quite justifiably, calling NZ a “banana republic” soon.
December 5th, 2007 at 8:38 am
“Repeal the “anti-smacking” law”
That would be a bit strange since they voted for it
December 5th, 2007 at 8:44 am
I take your point, Nick, but I thought the Electoral Commission – and one of three electoral agencies established by statute – had a well-deserved international reputation for meeting its statutory duties to the highest standards?
I think its fair comment to say parties and candidates seek advice from the Electoral Commission and the Chief Electoral Office regularly, which is how it should it. And by and large, that advice is welcome and taken very seriously indeed because these people know their arse from their elbow, and are strictly non-partisan and politically independent.
To be quite blunt, I have a little more faith in the ‘common sense’ and legal competence of the Electoral Commission than the Justice Minister at the moment. And poorly drafted and ill-considered law isn’t doing anyone any favours, least of all the electoral agencies and judiciary who are going to have to try and make sense of it all.
December 5th, 2007 at 8:50 am
Repealing the “anti-smacking” law would be a popular move .
December 5th, 2007 at 9:08 am
Nick: While this is not at all ideal, it is better than relying on interpretations by the EC. Our system is that Parliament makes the laws and the courts interpret them and apply them, not the EC.
The EC is a useful sounding board before one heads down into courts. But even if it heads to the courts, can we have any faith in what our government will do?
Sadly, as we saw last election, not all parties are willing to adhere to Electoral law. Such as Labour who deliberately ignored the EC’s advice to include their pledge card after they had said they would.
And then we are in a situation where the police find it is not in the public interest to prosecute and the private suit brought against them are defeated by a retrospective change to legislation.
So honestly – is there any trust in this government and their handling of electoral law? Can there be any trust?
December 5th, 2007 at 9:20 am
Plutocracy is dead…. Long live democracy
You really have a weird definition of democracy. Hey GWW whats its called when the ruling party legislates themselves an advantage in election year? What would you call it if National were doing this?
December 5th, 2007 at 9:30 am
Obviously the Police cannot be trusted to make the decisions (based on the Annette King Law of Commonsense) on who to prosecute and who not. They may get it wrong and prosecute labour while letting an Act infringement go by. Too many policemen to ensure total compliance you see. ploice are also much more open with information put in OIA requests.
Solution: Put a filtering mechanism in place where there is trhe capability to bury the unwanted issues and highlight the ones where some political mileage can be obtained. You can give the runaround to the disaffected and the cops have to do the dirty work of prosecuting.
Hands clean, total deniability, my work here is done!
December 5th, 2007 at 9:39 am
National should propose an amendment containing Annette King’s definition. Let’s see Labour vote against it!
December 5th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Until she became Minister of Justice, I believed that Annette King had come a long way since her days as a dental nurse.
Astonishingly, after twenty years in Parliament, our Justice Minister has learned nothing about the rule of law.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Simeon opines:
I fear you’re right, Simeon. Because they could, and should use this opportunity to offer to do so much more. To make themselves and future governments truly accountable to the people so that this sort of travesty can never happen again.
They could start by adopting the sort of principles on which NZF was originally founded and which it has subsequently trampled over as it’s whored itself out to anyone with bauble in hand.
Like this one:
Introduce that as an entrenched law (a 2/3 majority required to overturn) and the EFB wouldn’t exist.
Then there’s this one:
No anti-smacking law. But also no other law which National happens to think they know best about (and trust me, there will be one… no politician can resist for long the belief that they know what’s best for us).
But I suspect you’re right… all they’ll need to do is reverse a few of the most controversial actions of this Labour government, then they can sink comfortably back into the “we know what’s best for you” mode favoured by politicians of every hue.