Trotter on Electoral Finance Bill Third Reading
December 23rd, 2007 at 9:50 am by David FarrarI’m reading a column in the SST about Labour’s performance in the third reading of the Electoral Finance Bill:
It’s the little things that get you. Those dismissive, off-hand, arrogant little gestures that suddenly throw the bigger picture into sharp focus.
I’d tuned into the live-feed from parliament to watch the third reading debate of the Electoral Finance Bill. Here, at last, I thought, is Labour’s, New Zealand First’s and the Greens’ big chance to make their case. … But, what did I see on the government side of the House? Row after row of empty seats. The contrast with the Opposition could hardly have been starker. Around the figure of Opposition leader John Key, I counted off practically all of National’s key spokespeople, and behind them sat most of the party’s backbenchers.
Where was Helen Clark? Where was Michael Cullen? Where was Phil Goff? Where were the serried ranks of the centre-left, proudly demonstrating their solidarity with the bill’s authors? For if ever there was an occasion for the whole of the house to be in attendance this was it.
How well I recall my old political studies professor, Tony Wood, lecturing his New Zealand politics class on matters constitutional. No, he said, this country does not have a written constitution, but it has something which is almost as good the Electoral Act. The clauses of that act, he told us, were entrenched meaning that they could not be repealed or amended except by referendum, or by a majority comprising three-quarters of the House of Representatives. The law pertaining to elections, he solemnly informed us, was the cornerstone of our democracy.
So where, on this day that vitally important aspects of “the law pertaining to elections” were about to be amended and repealed without the mandate of a referendum, and without anything approaching a three-quarters majority of the House of Representatives, were Helen Clark, Michael Cullen and Phil Goff?
Their seats were empty.
They should not have been. By their absence from this crucial debate, Labour’s leaders sent everyone their fellow MPs, their loyal supporters, the electorate as a whole a devastating (and some have said electorally suicidal) message.
They simply didn’t care.
Accused of holding New Zealand’s democratic traditions in utter contempt; charged with harbouring authoritarian, even dictatorial, ambitions; Labour’s leaders simply couldn’t be bothered to defend either themselves or their bill. They had other places to be; other people to see.
John Key knew where he had to be on Tuesday evening and he was there. The cameras captured the image for the whole of New Zealand to see. A young man, his eyes alight with passion, defending New Zealand’s democratic traditions and promising the nation that, should it repose its trust in his party: “We will repeal this bill.”
And as he sat down, all his colleagues rose to give him a standing ovation. The chamber rang with their applause.
He should have been answered by a prime minister. In response to Key’s charges we should have heard the thundering rebuttal of a Labour leader every bit as committed to upholding New Zealand’s democratic traditions as the National Party. We should have heard her prosecute the case against the malefactors of great wealth; against the economic royalists who would buy elections in the same way that they had bought everything else belonging to the people of New Zealand.
And when she sat down, all the government members, and with them all of those representing NZ First and the Greens, should have risen to their feet and cheered her to the echo.
And following the prime minister, Michael Cullen should have stood and eviscerated the Opposition with his rapier wit. And following him, Phil Goff should have bruised them with his wrath. It didn’t happen.
This unmandated, unloved, and probably unworkable bill was voted into law to the noisy condemnation of its enemies and the sullen silence of it friends.
It’s the little things that get you.
As you read about how the Government has broken the constitutional conventions around the “cornerstone of our democracy” you would be forgiven for thinking you were reading Matthew Hooton’s column. But no, that was last week. This was Chris Trotter’s column.
Related posts:
- Electoral Finance Bill (not) to have third reading today
- Electoral Finance Bill passes first reading
- Government to ram Electoral Finance Bill through
- Electoral Finance Bill timeline
December 23rd, 2007 at 9:57 am
I would seem that the only defenders of the Bill are Roger, Tane, Ghost and Sleepy.
Vote:December 23rd, 2007 at 10:00 am
Someone call a Doctor quickly – Trotter is taking Labour to task.
The man cannot be well.
Vote:December 23rd, 2007 at 10:00 am
Trotter must have been hungover when he wrote this. It is the most scathing and critical-of-the-Government column I think I have seen from him.
Wonder how H1 would describe him today. “Hysterical”? “shrieking”? “sad and pathetic”? “bitter and twisted”?
Vote:December 23rd, 2007 at 10:02 am
I saw this and was blown away, with Trotter usually rabidly defending whatever the labour machinations throw up his cred imho is at a standard and constant low. Seems there may be some objectivity there after all.
What got me was this – “It’s the little things that get you. Those dismissive, off-hand, arrogant little gestures that suddenly throw the bigger picture into sharp focus.” I am thinking Cullen’s “rich prick” comment.
There are so many pieces of the labour govt jigsaw actually in place now that the piccie on the jigsaw is near complete.
Vote:December 23rd, 2007 at 10:03 am
and its an ugly jigsaw, far removed from the kiwi psyche.
Vote:December 23rd, 2007 at 10:14 am
“I am thinking Cullen’s “rich prick” comment.”
Don’t worry vto, as the caustic cretin that made this comment is only jealous because John Key has a prick .
Vote:December 23rd, 2007 at 10:18 am
Read it again, people: He is NOT descrying the bill; he is just saying that labour should have been there to defend it, because it is so important.
Vote:December 23rd, 2007 at 10:18 am
Well, not completely, anyway.
Vote:December 23rd, 2007 at 10:20 am
One has to wonder what message they were trying to send by staying away – or if it was just a tactical flank, left unguarded, in a fight that they have seen all along as one to be won on process rather than substance.
Vote:December 23rd, 2007 at 10:25 am
francis ,
I believe they all stayed away purposely to show us all how much they respect the human rights of the people of New Zealand . We pay them to sit in those seats – don’t we ? The Labour government have no regard whatsoever for decency and fairness, as Clark has created a regime .
Vote:December 23rd, 2007 at 10:30 am
BTW – Trotter’s comments that the Electoral Act is entrenched: Why does that not cover the other aspects?
Vote:December 23rd, 2007 at 10:47 am
Spam – cos the other aren’t quite as important.
Vote:December 23rd, 2007 at 11:46 am
Add that to Matt McCarten’s column in the Herald. When Labour’s staunchest allies desert them you know they have well and truly gone off the rails. It smacks of extreme arrogance to me. However as a National supporter I hope we get more of it next year. Labour appears to be a self cooking goose.
Vote:December 23rd, 2007 at 11:57 am
Don’t miss that Trotter seems to think the EFB is eminently defendable by the State.
His complaint seems to be it lacks champions.
Vote:December 23rd, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Has Chris Trotter caught the Dunne virus, or perhaps seen the “Writing on the Wall” (The Billboards) and is seeking to maintain some crediblility.
Another one seeking to shut the stable doors after the horses have bolted?
Vote:December 23rd, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Trotter has it exactly right, Labour should have been there, their absence simply reflects how they are turning their back on yet another important part of the democratic process; parliamentary debate.
As Tina points out, that was his only criticism.
Vote:December 23rd, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Oh guess what?
Now the left have thrown all their toys out of the pram and had a hissy fit, held their breaths ’till they went red, and finally got what they want.
Guess what?
Now they have secured their ‘level playing field’ of unlimited union parallel campaigning, continuous anaonymous donations, unlimited tax dollars to electioneer on, limited the ability of others to oppose government policy, and set up a ‘watchdog’ to scrutinise posssible ‘illegal’ electioneering, they’ll all come out and start to pretend they really didn’t want it in the first place.
Yes, it’s the little things that get to me as well.
Why were Labour mostly absent during the debate. Because they did not wish to be seen on national TV getting exposed. They also adopted a tactic of pretending’ the issue is not that important, so that it might show its opponents up to be radicals or nutters.
We have to acept that in their last major act of the year, they failed abysmally.
Vote:December 23rd, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Can anyone enlighten me on this:
Vote:“How well I recall my old political studies professor, Tony Wood, lecturing his New Zealand politics class on matters constitutional. No, he said, this country does not have a written constitution, but it has something which is almost as good the Electoral Act. The clauses of that act, he told us, were entrenched meaning that they could not be repealed or amended except by referendum, or by a majority comprising three-quarters of the House of Representatives.”
December 23rd, 2007 at 12:32 pm
According to the syllogistic logic of many of our troll, Chris Trotter is now a ‘National Party Propaganda Organ’ they applied it to the Herald; it goes like this:
The National Party oppose the EFA, because they want to rort elections.
Anyone who supports the opposition to the EFA is spouting National Party Propaganda;
Chris Trotter is a National Party Propaganda Organ.
This reductionist thinking is also why the Governent absent on the day, and why many of our trolls can’t seem to think outside of the square.
Vote:December 23rd, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Lets be clear. Trotter’s main gripe is that Labour wasn’t there to defend the Bill. He is saying they should have been there to counter John Keys lies, paid for by big business interests no doubt.
He still supports it; he still thinks that elections can (and will) be bought (by National only though, Labour could never do it, you cant buy an election with peoples own money can you?).
Vote:December 23rd, 2007 at 1:49 pm
He says “probably unworkable” and points out the importance of it in the absence of a constitution. Damning enough, but too late.
Vote:December 23rd, 2007 at 2:46 pm
First Hagar, now Trotter. Labour have truly fucked up with this EFB.
Vote:December 23rd, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Graham Edgeler…. I must admit I was under the impression that matters such as those covered by the EFA would be subject to ‘entrenchment’. Is it possible to advoid entrenchment provisions of the Electoral Act by simply bringing in a new Act instead of amending the master one.
Vote:December 23rd, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Very few of the provisions in the Electoral Act are entrenched.
The three year Parliamentary term (basically stopping someone getting elected and then extending their term to 10 years or more;
The method of voting (MMP);
The definition of electorates, and the 5% maximum variation is size;
The membership of the Representation Commission;
The voting age.
Vote:December 23rd, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Trotter is seeing the light. Throughout this year he has subtly criticised Liabour. His wit has covered the barbs. I am seeing more and more including some public servants I know becoming overtly political and opposing. I think a critical mass has turned. The poll charts are showing an enlarging gap and Liabour looks like it heading for 30%. if it accelerates, it may go below that. (One way of evaluating these charts is to put ruler over the tops and bottoms and see where they are going.)
Vote:December 23rd, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Thanks Graeme.
Vote:December 23rd, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Trotter isnt actually saying that the bill is bad – although it may seem so. Hes actualy saying that if labour really thought it was important they would have stacked the house with MP’s.
Not even the great defenders (like trotter thinks he is) can see the parrallel between this bill and early Socialst party actions in germany about 1933. The socialist party was the polite name for the National Socilaist German Workers party – more commonly recognised as the NAZI party.
Vote:All we need now is for the word ‘Worker’ to be included in the labour party name and then theyre almost there.
December 23rd, 2007 at 5:14 pm
30% Kev?
Nice thought, but not a chance.
If Hulun was one of the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse her party would still pull 90% of the mendicant vote and that’s probably an immoveable 25% of the electorate.
Then add any Green MPs and you see the task for Key.
His political values have to resonate with the middle/employed classes .
I’ve said before…in NZ there is no demographic equivalent of “Howard’s Battlers” or “Reagan Democrats” that I can see.
A blue collar bloc of conservative voters is out there, Key needs to find what makes that election winner tick.
No matter what the polls say now the Nats will fighting the next election”down to the wire”…. as they say in the US.
Vote:December 23rd, 2007 at 5:33 pm
It seems to me that Lee has the right of it. The bill has passed. Where were it’s left leaning critics before it passed? Standing in support of it. Turning on it and it’s implementation now is simply a political gambit to make themselves look concerned over the country as a whole when they’re not. Don’t fall for their lies.
Vote:December 23rd, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Fellow New Zealand citizens.
Helen Clark is addicted to power. Power is a drug stronger than crack cocaine. It is associated with megalomania (from the Greek word μεγαλομανία) and is a psychopathological condition. There is no medication available except for the electoral pill.
Helen will do ANYTHING short of murder to win the next election. Ditto Winstone Peters, Peter Dung [sic] and co.
At the last election Labour openly breached the law. It was an incredibly risky move as the law provided for prison sentences. They very nearly lost the election and were luckily able to retrospectively legitimize their criminal acts.
If the Labourites were prepared to go to jail in 2005, what else are they prepared to do to win in 2008? The answer fellow citizens of the once great New Zealand, is ANYTHING.
Here is a serious senario. The government led by KKKlarkkk change the law to extend the parliamentary term to 5 years. Next election 2010. ‘We won, you lost, eat that’ and ‘move on, there is nothing to see here’ and ‘it’s a beltway issue’.
You think the Governor General will save our sorry butts from whatever electoral hijacking Clark pulls?
Don’t kid yourselves. All he can do is resign. I have no doubt that Governor General Margaret Wilson will give the assent.
Forget the Queen. Enough said.
You think that Clark cares about her reputation and legacy and this will restrain her back to decency and lawful behavior? No more than a crack addict cares about tomorrow!!!
It is conceivable that good Kiwis are going to go to jail next year for breaching the Electoral Finance Act. Shadbolt will probably get his funding back. They can’t demonise him. John Broscowan on the other hand is either a fool or a very brave man and I suspect it is the latter. He has more balls than all the Labour trolls here. Couch revolutionaries!!!
Labour will pull a stunt. They will NOT lose the 2008 election and unless there is a dramatic turn around in the polls they will legislate it so somehow, anyhow.
I suggest that 2008 in NZ will be known as ‘The year of living dangerously”.
And is it possible that this could lead to a civil war. That’s happened lots and lots and lots of times before, but fortunately not in New Zealand. I think of my wife and son. I think also of my grandfather who during WWII decided the outside laundry was the best redoubt on his property and left a rifle and two bullets there. If his property was invaded by Japanese he was going to shoot his wife because he loved her and then shoot himself. During the 1930’s he was summoned to the local police station. The police had found a list of properties that were going to be burned by the communists. He had a wife, two sons and two daughters. I can only try to imagine how he must have felt. Democracy and freedom from war are so important.
I don’t need this.
Is Helen Clark a leader? The Allied commanding officer of the troops at the Bridge on the river Kwai, Colonel Philip Toosey, would daily complain to the Japanese command about the maltreatment of his troops. For this he was given a daily beating. What a leader!!! For how many years would Helen Clark the revolutionary be prepared to experience daily beatings, black eyes, broken teeth, smashed nose and broken toes? As a women may I suggest it would be even worse.
BTW I used to post as Swiftman the Infidel. Note to the couch trolls here: SWIFTY IS BACK!
God Defend New Zealand.
Try and have a merry xmas.
Vote:December 23rd, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Actually, I tend to agree with Trotter on this. The proponents of any legislation should generally be in the House for the final reading.
Vote:December 23rd, 2007 at 7:49 pm
KevEB
Vote:I think you have it on the button.
Golf today with a transport manager. All his decent drivers are on the Labour Party 39% envy tax rate and they are angry. truck drivers, that is.
An employer of ninety was also in the “four”. His employees are so angry with Mallard. Some of them have been sacked from previous jobs for smacking somebody who provoked them. They all know that to bash a colleague, no matter what provocation, is instant dismissal; and Mallard gets away with it.
I was surprised to read Trotter’s piece before golf today.
The worm has turned.
I want to bet that one of the reputable polls will have Labour at 29% or less before 30 June 2008. Even money; no more than $200. Any takers. My problem is that anybody who now supports Labour is the sort of person who would welch on his wagers.
December 23rd, 2007 at 8:37 pm
As others have said, Trotter still thinks the EFB is a good piece of legislatio to stop the “rich pricks” buying votes and elections. What he seems to blind to see, is that although he proudly parrots the talking points given to him by the labour spin machine, not even they believe it any more. If they did, surely they would be there to argue it. No, Trotter will one day recognise how he has been misled. Maybe he’ll even come round to seeing that only one party has in recent memory “bought an election”, and that was one he so famously defended, Labour, 2005.
I can’t say I hold much of an expectation that Trotter will finally let the scales fall from his eyes, he has so much invested in his current position, but indeed, the illusion must be getting harder to sustain.
Vote:December 23rd, 2007 at 9:30 pm
For Trotter it must be hard to make yourself believe that the world has turned against all that you hold as true and right. He may be like Dunny and simply be having a bob each way. But like poor old Dunny it will be way to little and way to late. As for his pitiful little party not defending the bill well you can’t defend the indefensible, it’s as simple as that.
Vote:December 24th, 2007 at 1:19 am
Many years ago, a group of financial advisors were visiting a famous NZ horsestud. One asked the Stud owner how he could justify the extremely high service fees he was charging for his stallions. He replied, “I don’t have to justify them, that is what people are prepared to pay”.
Vote:Labour did not have to be in the House.
They had the numbers.
The EFB was going to become law.
They no longer needed to justify it.
Next year, the EFA means they won’t have to compete for an audience.
They won’t have to justify what they are doing.
They will just do it.
And they will get the numbers.
The frothing will be on the right.
December 24th, 2007 at 6:53 am
In a way you’re right Gerry, similarly Hitler, or any other politician who subverts the democratic process to become a dictator, doesn’t have to justify their actions, figuratively and often literally speaking they can laugh all the way to the bank. But that doesn’t make their actions moral or even justifiable.
Not being held responsible does not mean that you are not responsible.
Vote:December 24th, 2007 at 7:10 am
I’d amend that Andrew to: “Not being seen to be held responsible doesnt mean yo are not responsible.”
This again is the modus operandi of Labour and its present lot of spineless spin-puppets. Like children they believe that if you say something enough times, it makes it so.
Spoiled brats and delusional children – about sums them up.
Vote:December 24th, 2007 at 9:41 am
Why did they stay away?
1. Sad attempt to draw as little attention to the EFA passing as possible
Vote:2. They are starting to feel a little dirty and ashamed by it. I suspect one or two govt MP’s felt the need for a shower afterwards.
December 24th, 2007 at 9:57 am
Trotter says the bill is unworkable – I suspect every peiece of advertising put out by anyone that is remotely political will be challenged through the courts.
Labour MPs didn’t defend the bill because they know this.
If I was a backbench Labour MP I would be pissed of with the party and tell Helen to stick it where the sun does not shine.
She has screwed over the Labour party really badly.
Vote:December 24th, 2007 at 10:01 am
“Trotter says the bill is unworkable”, ahh – no he didn’t
Vote:December 24th, 2007 at 10:40 am
Labour are scum: Welcome back buddy. Labour will win the next election by any means necessary…..and as much of our money as it takes.
The time for talk is over. We need to fight back.
Recall what they’ve done in this term, what will happen if they get another term? The end game will begin.
The long march through the institutions is almost complete, and once it’s done there’s no going back. It’s not hard to understand why we’re marching down the OECD with a government guilty of these outrageous acts:
Trashed: our right to freedom of speech 1 year in 3
Trashed: bipartisan support to pass fundamental constitutional legistlation.
Trashed: the office of the Auditor General
Trashed: the office of the Solicitor General
Trashed: the neutrality of the Public Service
Trashed: independence of the Police
Trashed: Health, by stacking boards full of useless cronies
Trashed: Bursary and School Certificate. Our children now require a British or French qualification to demonstrate a credible high school education and intellect.
Trashed: Tertiary qualifications. A ludicrous range of pointless open courses that wastes youths’ time and our money (where have all the unemployed gone?…on a tourism or multimedia course!)
Trashed: the Justice system – even our criminals know now that our system is a joke they can largely ignore
Trashed: electoral law…they just validate the crimes later
In absentia they trash our freedoms and rights.
Giving their proxy to Barnett they apply the gagging tape from one weeks time. They are comprehensively dismantling our society while we frogs sit in the pot and boil.
This serf is angry, and he’s grabbing his metaphorical pitch fork.
Vote:Viva la revolution!
December 24th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Mark: “If I was a backbench Labour MP I would be pissed of with the party and tell Helen to stick it where the sun does not shine.
She has screwed over the Labour party really badly.”
I agree. I would go even further and bet the house that in future anaysis, the split which has formed in the Labour Party will be traced back to the formulation of the EFA.
The reason we do not know of the split – is because we only ever get o talk to hard-line Hellenites here on Kiwi blog or the Standard. They rpresent the ‘old guard’, and as such are oblivious – they think they see a light at the end of the tunnel, when it is in fact, a train coming to run them down.
Vote:December 25th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Given some of the earlier comments about splits in the Labour Party over the EFA, I’d be interested in bloggers’ comments about who those who might actually oppose the Act, but were cowered into submission and supported it.
Vote:December 26th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Oh, I think this is more an exercise in Trotter attempting to regain a staw of credibility after his “justified corruption” remark. Maybe he smells some change in the air … much like the rest of us, albeit delayed, it takes time to get one’s offactory senses back after being up Labour’s arse for so long I suppose.
Anyhow, I have my anti-Labour/Greens/NZ First fliers ready to go on New Years’ Day. I haven’t registered, nor do I intend to and I’ve spent a fortune on them
Vote: