United Future gets it wrong – again
December 11th, 2007 at 9:55 am by David FarrarThis is getting irresponsible. United Future has once again put out a publication that is inaccurate regarding the Electoral Finance Bill. They have just done an e-mail to supporters (thanks to those who passed it on) and in it Peter Dunne says:
In essence, what it says is that where a lobby group is explicitly promoting a particular party, there is a limitation on how much that group can spend in support of that party.
This is 100% wrong. Under both the current law and the Electoral Finance Bill a lobby group can’t spend a single dollar explicitly promoting a party, without it counting as part of a party’s limit (which needs their consent).
The Electoral Finance Bill covers campaigns such as the motor vehicle industry campaign against “Labour’s crazy car policy”. That is not an explicit campaign in support of a party. It is a genuine campaign against a policy which they see as harming their industry. And because they mention the name of the party in Government, it is now going to be seen as an election advertisement – even for ads in January.
The real irony of the United Future newsletter is this statement:
At the outset, I have to say that there have been a number of inaccurate and extreme comments about this bill and its implications that should be debunked.
Indeed, and those inaccuracies have been from United Future, Labour, Progressive and Greens who time and time again have either not understood their own legislation or are deliberately misrepresenting it. For witness the next sentence:
For example, it does not restrict any citizen’s freedom of speech, nor does it limit the ability of lobby groups to participate in the election process.
Both statements are quite wrong of course. An individual advocating for or against a party next year will be deemed to be running an election advertisement and need their name and address on it for stuff such as protest march placards or posts into Usenet.
And the statement about lobby groups is clearly wrong – the motor vehicle dealers being just one example.
And Peter Dunne doesn’t mention why he voted for a third party spending limit which is less than half that recommended by the neutral Electoral Commission.
Related posts:
- Anderton and Dunne get it wrong on Electoral Finance Bill
- A United Future?
- Peter Dunne does not know what he is voting for
- Dom Post on United Future
December 11th, 2007 at 10:05 am
A Royal Commission into Electoral Reform needs to be set up to:
i) investigate the motivations/rationales of the parties who have proposed and opposed the EFB
ii) to investigate every aspect of political influence during elections including:
‘Big Business’
‘Unions’
‘Media’
iii) to consult with the Electoral Commission on the best way forward
iV) propose best ways to implement these proposals after proper public and cross-party consultation, Green White papers, Select committee and finallly a vote in Parliament subject to suggested amendments.
The suggested time scale for all this: two years.
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 10:08 am
If Peter Dunne wants a subsidy to write and publish fiction, why doesn’t he apply to Creative NZ like everyone else?
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 10:17 am
Lee C’s suggestion of a Royal Commission is a good one. It would mean that Helen Clark would need to be called as a witness, and Burton, and Hodgson, and Cullen, and Dunne, and Peters, and Fitzsimons … and all those who developed this Bill in secret. They would look as elegant as Mallard did in the dock when they appeared before the commission.
[DPF: I think a Royal Commission of Inqiry into the Electoral Finance Bill would be an excellent thing. I'd be 100% prepared to testify under oath as to every meeting and conversation I've had as an opponent - absolutely nothing to hide. But oh I would love to have Mark Burton have to testify as to who actually wrote the bill, who got to see early copies, who helped rewrite it, why the anon donations section was deleted etc]
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 10:18 am
I had an email conversation with Peter (my local MP) last week asking him to withdraw his support for the bill. His response to me was similar platitudinous inaccurate garbage. I have blogged about it.
I concluded the email conversation by noting that Peter is abusing his privileged position as an MP to vote for a law which will change the constitution of our country to favour incumbent MPs (including himself), incumbent political parties (including his) and incumbent Ministers (including himself) without appropriate or substantive prior public engagement.
http://www.gavinknight.com/2007/12/dont-vote-for-peter-dunne-or-united.html
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 10:26 am
Dunne is a liar. He KNOWS that what he is saying here is untrue. If it were true that “what it says is that where a lobby group is explicitly promoting a particular party, there is a limitation on how much that group can spend in support of that party” then there would be no ned for the Bill because that is the law now.
HOW CAN HE BE ALLOWED TO GET AWAY WITH SAYING THIS !!! ???
HE KNOWS HE IS LYING.
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 10:28 am
Good idea LeeC but not a snowballs chance in Hell of getting the current administration to proceed down this path.
Vote:The best bet would be to try and get the Nats to make it one of their policies.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:30 am
The only thing surprising about this is that he’s got any supporters left to email to.
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 10:31 am
And he hasn’t paid his nicked money back either….along with the other state funded thieves in NZ First.
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 10:33 am
Seriously Dunne isn’t going to vote against a bill that gives incumbent MP’s a distinct advantage. It will be 3 more years of claptrap from this selfserving gentleman.
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 10:38 am
He is an idiot. Despite sitting on the select committee and having plenty of chances to get his facts right, he persists in using outdated talking points from the 9th floor.
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 10:39 am
Go to his blog post where he gets upset because I said he was a sock puppet for the ninth floor and give him a little feedback.
Vote:http://www.unitedfuture.org.nz/forum/topic,55.sm?p=259#post259
December 11th, 2007 at 10:44 am
Best of luck to Mr Dunne next year when it is brought to the attention of the generally bright citizens of Ohariu that their MP supports human rights for Burmese and Taiwanese but not Kiwis.
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 10:58 am
“Best of luck to Mr Dunne next year when it is brought to the attention of the generally bright citizens of Ohariu”
If they were that bright, they would have seen through this two faced charlatan years ago. The problem lies with the lack of an articulate and goal focused opposition.
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 11:01 am
That’s right RB
Vote:National should give Dunny a “shit, I’m on a train to Siberia” moment.
December 11th, 2007 at 11:31 am
Ohariu-Belmont could fall to National with a concerted campaign by a strong contender that could expose Dunne’s duplicity.
Vote:Chris Finlayson would be great!
Don’t forget the majority of the Party vote in O-B went to National in 2005 and boundary changes (Belmont is to be dropped from the name) would also work in the Nats favour!
December 11th, 2007 at 11:33 am
Why doesn’t the MSM blow the lid of Dunnes blatantly false email properly.
Duncan Garner where are you ???
United Future is propping up a clear constitutional change in our democratic society and Peter Dunne is doing the complete opposite of what he faithfully promised to his voters what he wouldn’t do!!
He needs to be called to account for his misleading the public.!!
Either A: he still does not understand what he is doing!!
Or B: He is misleading the public deliberately !
I strongly suspect it is the latter as his actions in this bill all the way through have been quite surprising for some one who I use to view as being one of the few principled politicians we still have.
His actions show clearly that principles such as freedom of expression and freedom of speech are in his book worth nothing when political expediency is more important.
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 11:38 am
I think it’s widely understood or believed that PD keeps getting re-elected for Ohariu-Belmont because he is active locally. I’m an O-B voter mysefl and I sincerely hope he is out next time, or at least has his majority significantly reduced, he might then start to believe that we really do think he has got a lot of things wrong this term.
But we’re at cross-purposes on the EFB. DPF said
[Peter said] For example, it does not restrict any citizen’s freedom of speech, nor does it limit the ability of lobby groups to participate in the election process.
[DPF responded with] Both statements are quite wrong of course. An individual advocating for or against a party next year will be deemed to be running an election advertisement and need their name and address on it for stuff such as protest march placards or posts into Usenet.
The fundamental problem is that Peter does not see that having to have your name and address on stuff such as Usenet posts is a change to our electoral rights. This is the same attitude as, for example, “there’s nothing wrong with everyone having to carry an identity card” or “there’s no reason why governments shouldn’t share citizens’ personal data”
He doesn’t think it is a change. He’s not lying about it, he’s of the view that if you’re honest, you’ll give your name, and if you object to this, you must be subversive or criminal. From his point of view, you can still participate, you can still say what you think, you just have to give your name.
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 11:55 am
I don’t think he’s a liar. No, not Peter Dunne. He’s just not very smart.
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 11:58 am
I proposed a Commission in my submission to the SC on the grounds that Parliament was conflicted in deciding this matter The SC thought I was joking such is the complete arrogance and contempt that they hold we citizens.
The impression I got was that peasants like us have no place deciding such matters and that they are the only beings capable of making such decisions
Apart from Fran OS and the Herald forget the MSM Most of these knuckle heads cant understand the concepts behind the EFB let alone the Bill itself.
Light weights all of them
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Well I’ll be, RB beat me to this point.
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Good call Calculus,
Get the media onto it.
If he is misleading the public he must be misleading the house.
How about getting Sue Wood back to roast him alive on Close Up or John Campbell to put him on hot bricks.
The bloke is a fraudster and a crook if he is going to both support this bill and decieve the public on the pretence that its OK when his reasoning is false.
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Peter Dunne appears a very pompous, self important individual with a sincerely patronizing manner.
I have a very strong desire to see him turfed from Parliament along with his useless, handwringing nitwit of an associate Judy Turner
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
cathi, given the vindictive nature of our present political masters why would anyone wish to put their name to any protest against government policy. Dunce uses the old ID argument that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. What total and utter bullshit, just ask some civil servants left in the sun to be picked on by the vultures on the Liarbore benchs.
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
I finally found out why the good burghers of Ohariu-Belmont keep voting for this guy who has spent so long fence sitting he has emasculated himself. You drive into the place and there are so many bloody small streets that you get lost and stuck there forever.
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Redbaiter says:
Having stood (briefly) against Dunne in 1996 I can attest that RB has it exactly right. I (mis)used the Parliamentary Library to get clippings of Dunne’s statements on selected issues. Stupidity and venality were evident everywhere. I then used the copier to enlarge a few. My favourite was one where he said something to the effect that Bolger was an ignorant country hick unfit to govern, coupled with one of a beaming Dunny at his first Bolger-led Cabinet meeting.
My opening line at joint candidate meetings was always “I agree completely with Mr Dunne when he says…” and I’d then read out one or another of his more ignorant or self-serving statements.
There was hardly a dry seat in the house, as they say. Even the UF people couldn’t entirely stifle the odd laugh.
Similarly my pamphlets just juxtaposed statements made by Dunne one day which were reversed 180 degrees when it suited his desire to suck up to someone and gain some personal advantage.
Someone simply needs to shame this man out of Ohariu-Belmont. Do a bit of research, follow him everywhere with it.
Either as a candidate or as a “vote for anyone but Dunne” ‘third party’. It’s certainly a campaign to which I’d be inclined to contribute.
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
ssb – my point exacty. I should have added at the end of my post
“And that’s the problem”
Vote: