King comes clean with her interpretation
As I blogged last week, Annette King was due to reveal today a new interpretation of the parliamentary exemption, so that Labour’s pledge card. She has been forced into this humiliating backdown because her original intepretation excluded statements made outside the House on policy to be enacted by a future Parliament, and the 9th floor realised this ruled out Labour’s pledge card and related campaign activities.
You see Labour is broke and needs to both have the taxpayer pay for its campaign, but also in case they do raise some money, not have the taxpayer spend count towards the limit.
So King has to back down. And she did so today in the third reading. She said:
My original view was too narrow.
She went onto to say that the exemption for MPs should include
provision of policy options and analysis to the electorate
A 180 degree flip-flop from her earlier view. Sounds much like an election campaign to me – providing policy options and analysis to the electorate.
And then finally she referred to how
MPs behaviour governed by Appropriations Act 2007 and Speaker’s Guidelines
In other words having amended one law to over-ride the Auditor-General, they now want the other law (the Electoral Finance Act) to exempt from spending limits anything approved by The Parliamentary Service.
This final act of Annette King’s is the final proof that the motivations of those voting for the Bill is entirely self seeking – it is to allow them to run taxpayer funded election campaigns, and not even have them count as part of the limits they place on everyone else.
December 18th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Oh f*k it – why allthis p**ng around – why don;t they just go to the vote on having a single party state?
December 18th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Annette King’s speech was the most appallingly cynical contribution to a parliamentary debate I have ever heard. Her “definition” was specifically designed to make the pledge card legal — but then she STILL said she wasn’t sure quite whether or not her definition was correct and it was better for it to be a bit imprecice. The reason for this is to allow Klark and Broad to make case-by-case decisions on who to prosecture, based on the Labour Party’s political considerations.
December 18th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Out of interest (DPF you may be able to answer this) – how far can the government go?
In other words, how much power can they legislate for themselves?
If this is the start of a bigger programme of dictatorial moves, when will it end?
December 18th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
It seems that you were right David last week. Although they have still tried to make it as ambiguous as possible this is the confirmation that Labour plans to rort the taxpayer to try and win the 2008 election.
History will judge them as Fucking Cynical Crooks.
December 18th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
gasp! Looks like they are trying to buy the election with big money
December 18th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
The Government could change the electoral term to 10 years if a majority in Parliament would vote for it. Our only safegaurds have been the conventions and this is why what they are doing is so very very bad.
December 18th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
One cannot become a one party state on your own and most definately not overnight. It happens by small increments as more of your citizens sign away their democratic rights to keep away the bogeymen that the government invents.
December 18th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Julian – Michael Cullen has written about the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy a lot. he disagrees with the view of Sir Robin Cooke who believed there were limits to parliamentary powers. Cullen has argued there are literally no limits to parliamentary power. He believes it could legitimately legislate to kill, say, all Maori or blue-eyed babies.
December 18th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Good question Julian, as far as I know if the Gov Gen is required to sign into law anything passed by parliament, there are no limits, other than the consciences of the parliamentarians.
December 18th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Big money taken involuntarily from people who don’t want them in government. Corrupted, theiving and deceitful.
December 18th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Bill English is flaying them right now.
December 18th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Thanks for the interesting responses. If they’re cynical and spiteful enough to pass this bill, who knows where it will end?
Despite the fact that I disagree with almost everything this government stands for, I really didn’t think they were capable of this – particularly Clark.
I stand corrected. Let’s get Key into power.
December 18th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Who would have thought that a Tory leader would quote Noam Chomsky in a debate against a nimoinally socialist government, and be justified in doing so.
December 18th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
The Nats can count me in as a footsoldier this election from now on. This is the biggest rort on New Zealanders rights ever.
December 18th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
He’s apologizing!@
December 18th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Sorry this is OT but Mallard has been given leave and apologised in Parliament to Erin Leigh.
December 18th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Your blatant self interest is obvious since ‘polling’ is allready exempt from spending limits adding a new category of “provision of policy options and analysis to the electorate” somehow is sinister !!
Do you have no scruples.
Just like your earlier blogs ‘supported proposals ‘ to limit election spending its just you would disadvantage other groups rather than the ones labour has chosen
December 18th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
“Mallard has been given leave…”
what does that mean.
That he’s been taken out of caucus before everyone else rises for the year??
December 18th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies.” —Groucho Marx
I cam across this today and thought it fitted
December 18th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Listening to the Interwebby thingo feed of the live debate. How’s about live-blogging this, y’all?
Winnie – so last century.
Greens (speaking as I write) – achingly naive. Heart in right place. Constitutional brain absent. Preaching to the choir, on the Titanic.
Over to the rest of you.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Winnie hates laptops……
Just as the Maori Party was winding up to a good presentation.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Geez, these Maori fellas speak well
December 18th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
The really scary thing as DPF states is that under our current system the Gumint can pass any legislation that it can get enough votes for.
It could pass a Bill that Parliament would only sit for only a few days a year and run the whole programme by regulation and decree.
It could engineer civil unrest and then use this as an excuse to suspend Parliament and prevent elections like Fiji.
We have no written constitution and no requirement that past convention must be followed so its what the Socialist want to do that will be done.
Sadly 99% of the citizens dont understand the power a rogue government like this one has over them.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
“Decadent and depraved piece of legislation”. But that’s just the Maori Party’s view.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Its no wonder Bill Englishs anti-EFB speechs are related to Ronald Reagans “Tear Down This Wall” speech (according to youtube).
http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=TexP6VACeCM
The are both fighting oppresive governments.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Are we hearing a backdown by Peter the Dunne?
December 18th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Winston says:
That’s big of him, thank God we will still be able to talk about the big issues next year!
December 18th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Hone Hawaira has well and truly condemned the EFB, and has clearly exposed Helen and her crony Parties.
Best speech to date.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
UF are outside the tent…
December 18th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Peter Dunne has just said he won;t vote for the EFB
December 18th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
This is an amazing flip flop
December 18th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Really insider! Thats great news, he has been very half hearted in backing this law and doesnt seem to understand it anyway. Do you have a link?
December 18th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Political utu – lovely phrase from PD/UF
December 18th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Ehoa Hone, this Pakeha was proud of your speech, no bullshit, no backing down, plain and simple home truths and spoken with integrity and obvious belief, Kia kaha Hone. This speech was significant for two other reasons a subtle put down of Winston to the point that the silver tongue had trouble saying Te Reo and unabashed clapping from the National bench.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
I’m not sure whether to praise Peter Dunne for finally doing the right thing or condemn him for being such a flake to basically stand up and admit he’s flip-flopped merely because it’s an unpopular bill.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Good on Rodney Hide!
December 18th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Don’t like Hone’s politics but what a superb speech blasting the EFB and Labour.
Trouble is with UF against the bill the Govt still has the numbers.
Finally was Pettis a bloody whining cat in a previous life?
December 18th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Rodders – the anti-slavery and womens’ suffrage campaigns of the past would now have to register and be subject to the EFB.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
“we sure as hell are going to have it” – yes, that’s Labour’s ticket to 2008 all right. The politics of envy.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
OMG, why doesn’t King just have ‘I’m incompetent – please sack me next, Helen’ tattooed on her forehead, and put us all out of her misery? Didn’t think this was possible, but she’s beginning to make Mark Burton look like Lord Cooke reincarnate.
Is it unreasonable to expect a minister of the Crown to be able to speak coherently and consistently on a piece of legislation in their name – rather than just making it up as they go along?
December 18th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Chris Finlayson. Pure gold. Predicts another Amendment bill. Unworkable and uncertain. ‘Out in the field, sir, even the Labour Party is looking for ways around this Bill’. The Wellington Central pamphlet from the new Labour MP.
December 18th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Finlayson just said that National Party will not only repeal the Bill, but reintroduce a non-partisan process for redrafting its replacement. This is exactly the second part of the necessary steps that i have been waiting to hear.
National – (though I despise some of your policies) you have my vote 2008.
December 18th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
That was well called by you last week, DPF.
Now, if some really robust judge decides to ignore The King’s remarks in the chamber in favour of the wording in the legislation………?
December 18th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
Peter Dunne’s last-minute repudiation of the Bill (after he misused his decisive vote as a member of the select committee) demonstrates cynical, populist opportunism.
December 19th, 2007 at 8:16 am
Sam: Finlayson just said that National Party will not only repeal the Bill, but reintroduce a non-partisan process for redrafting its replacement.
Damn, so there goes the arguments of everyone from the left. The National Party is as comitted to cleaning up our elections, but they want it done properly and through the proper channels with everyone involved.
The Labour Party, on the other hand, have only sought to elevate themselves and to line their own nests.
The difference between these two parties are startling. I was not intending to vote for them Sam, but that has just won my vote as well.
December 19th, 2007 at 9:09 am
“King” (when referring to Annette) and “clean” should not be used in the same sentence.
I’m sure she’s got zillions of Chiron corp money in a swiss numbered account from the MeNZB fiasco.
December 19th, 2007 at 10:47 am
I now find myself in the extremely unusual position of wanting to shake Hone Harawera’s hand and buy him a beer!
December 19th, 2007 at 11:04 am
“One cannot become a one party state on your own and most definately not overnight. It happens by small increments as more of your citizens sign away their democratic rights to keep away the bogeymen that the government invents.”
“Oh f*k it – why allthis p**ng around – why don;t they just go to the vote on having a single party state?”
The usual balanced commentary from kiwiblog’s respected pundits. You guys are in perpetual fear of the sky falling, but it never does hey?
This is exactly why this site’s political punditry is taken about as seriously as these guys ….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocCRTJGMVJY
or this guy…
http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=798
December 19th, 2007 at 11:06 am
aye, what Right of way is Way of Right said
December 19th, 2007 at 11:30 am
Oh yes Roger, If that Youtube link is meant to be an example of what you consider balanced commentary, then you suck at it.
Try this one and take the time to listen!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3Hg-Y7MugU&feature=related
December 19th, 2007 at 11:37 am
With regard to the link to Christopher Hitchens. He says mich which is unpalatable, but his references to the likes of John Stuart Mills is particularly relevant in this case.
December 19th, 2007 at 11:39 am
Hitch is awesome in that ‘yeah im drunk, but i am still more eloquent than you!’ way.
December 19th, 2007 at 11:46 am
“f that Youtube link is meant to be an example of what you consider balanced commentary….”
umm, WTF?
“but his references to the likes of John Stuart Mills” ….
who also believed in excluding all non-property owning citizens from suffrage.
Having said that Hitchens seems to be a reasonable chap …. unlike many on the comical right posting here.
February 9th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
King is the master manipulator
A key member of the sisterhood weaving their tissue of political lies and deceit
As we saw in Health where she has made the DHBs nothing more than a sham of “accountability”
Have you noticed there is not the interest in people standing that there was when the Health Boards were introduced with far fewer candidates and votes
Its because the Health Boards have no power except on the Ministers behalf
This is KIngs legacy a system she created to shut down all public debate and comment in Health
This EFA is more of the same, a system to shut down public opposition to the govermenty
How much more damage can she do in Police and Justice
Liberation has an excellent post about Phillip Bagshaw who is well known for his opposition to Labours Health Boards track record
http://liberation.typepad.com/liberation/2008/02/nz-socialist-of.html