She considered it a ‘Beltway issue’ – which is political shorthand for: ‘The thickoes won’t understand it so we can go ahead and do it’.

They, under the incompetent Burton, did a cut and paste job of various other aspects of electoral legislation to cobble together an NZ version (including interestingly enough, refeence to the Canadian system, but completely ignoring the Canadian model when it discussed caps on union spending, BTW).Then they got legal poodle Val Sims to judge it did not contravene the BORA, with sweeping statements which, where sound argument could not apply, essentially said,’We usually let Parliament decide what is right when it somes to Human Rights and Electoral Law’.
At Select Committee, they loaded the deck with sympathetic advocates who disregarded objections, then brought in Nicky Hager, who At the committee came up with this classic:
“I don’t have concrete evidence as such, but I am pretty sure that National had a hand in writing the EB’s pamphlets.’
and who essentially used the committeee to plug the information he’d acquired illegally to make up his book the Hollow Men. It was essentially a state-sponsored book-plug to keep a fire lit under an extravagant conspiracy theory, which it was hoped could be applied to the new Leader of the Oppostition at some stage.

The Select Committee also made a great show of ignoring the concerns of the Law Society; ie Withdrawing the bill and starting again would enable a Regulatory Impact Statement and a list of those consulted to be added to the Explanatory Note. Both are notably absent from this bill.Accordingly the Society submits that the current Bill should be abandoned and a process embarked upon whereby:the principles to which New Zealand aspires in terrns of its democratic process are identified (clause 3(a) to (e) may indeed identify these);the areas where current law fails to embody and protect these principles are determined; andfair and practical solutions to these problems are formulated.”

The Committee also failed to address this from those other rabid right-wing extremists, the HRC:
“A human rights approach to democratic government requires genuine participation. Genuine participation, in turn, requires an informed electorate. By limiting freedom of expression and creating a complex regulatory framework in the way it does, the Electoral Finance Bill unduly limits the rights of all New Zealanders to participate in the electoral process. The Commission therefore considers that the Bill is inherently flawed and should be withdrawn.”

But, in the face of all of this documented information, it all boils down to a National-Party -ed conspiracy to suppress freedom of expression. A funny thing though, isn’t it some on the left are the first to denigrate the ‘freedom of expression’ when concerned citizens go on marches often on the basisi that the numbers are too small to qualify as real politics. That too, is in the spirit of the EFA, wherin a bunch of bullies thought that ‘might-equals-right’ and used their numbers to ram through an undemocratic law.
However, if you are into conspiracies, how about this one? So now to why this happened. IMO.The last election was narrowly ‘won’ by Labour courtesy of the National-EB conspiracy. What better way to win the 2008 election than by introducing a contentious piece of legislation which, if challenged by National would be trotted out to assert that Key is merely ‘Brash 2′ and in cahoots with shadowy right-wing power-brokers. Labour strategists clearly thought they could ram this through, and the opposition, keen to wash its hands of anything which might suggest they are in bed with the EB or other ‘right-wing extremists’ would fold. National and Labour’s enemies would be limited in their expression (no more nasty nasty bill-boards, remember) and Labour could double-dip into the tax-dollars to fund an expensive multi-media dog-whistler campaign to persuade voters that they have never had it so good, while nasty National would do everything to sell the family silver to the highest bidder.

But bless his socks, Key out-thought them. At the eleventh hour, just as Labour were gearing up to link National to the far-right Christian anti s.59 amenders, he came out with a comprimise! F**k! so that screwed the Key and religious-nutter link, thus taking the fuel out of future Key-EB link conspiracies. Suddenly, the EFA, rather than being a stick with which to beat Key with was turning on its very designers.
It all went so terribly wrong! The plan was to design a law to advantage Labour, and embarrass National. It was going to be the flag-ship on which Labour would cruise to victory, while the opposition, gagged and impotent could only watch from the side-lines! But it became the Trojan Horse in Labour’s camp, highlighting not only Hlene’s dictatorial nature for all to see, but also (and this is her real crime) exposing her lack of political judgement in starkest relief, at a most crucial time. Result? A major Unions’ freedom of expression suppressed, where before it was not. All courtesy of a Party which clearly thought it was above the Law.

This is why the EFA will be Helen’s epitaph.

So to your mind, the whole thing is a conspiracy cooked up by right-wing extremists.

My friend it is much simpler than that. Labour wrote a shit Law ‘…. to stop people like the Exclusive Brethren and John Key from rorting the election process.’ (Helen Clark Hansard, September 16th 2007)

She considered it a ‘Beltway issue’ – which is political shorthand for: ‘The thickoes won’t understand it so we can go ahead and do it’.

They did a cut and paste job of various other aspects of electoral legislation to cobble together an NZ version (including interestingly enough, refeence to the Canadian system, but completely ignoring the Canadian model when it discussed caps on union spending, BTW).
Then they got legal poodle Val Sims to judge it did not contravene the BORA, with sweeping statements which, where sound argument could not apply, essentially said,’We usually let Parliament decide what is right when it somes to Human Rights and Electoral Law’.

At Select Committee, they loaded the deck with sympathetic advocates who disregarded objections, then brought in Nicky Hager, who At teh committee came up with this classic: “I don’t have concrete evidence as such, but i am pretty sure that National had a hand in writing the EB’s pamphlets.’ and who essentially used teh committeee to plug the information he’s acquired illegally to make up his book the Hollow Men. It was essentially a state-sponsored book-plug to keep a fire lit under an extravagant conspiracy theory, which it was hoped could be applied to the new Leader of the Oppostition at some stage.
The Select Committee also made a great show of ignoring the concerns of the Law Society; ie:
“Withdrawing the bill and starting again would enable a Regulatory Impact Statement and a list of those consulted to be added to the Explanatory Note. Both are notably absent from this bill.
Accordingly the Society submits that the current Bill should be abandoned and a process embarked upon whereby:
the principles to which New Zealand aspires in terrns of its democratic process are identified (clause 3(a) to (e) may indeed identify these);
the areas where current law fails to embody and protect these principles are determined; and
fair and practical solutions to these problems are formulated.”
The Committee also failed to address this from those other rabid right-wing extremits, the HRC:
“A human rights approach to democratic government requires genuine participation. Genuine participation, in turn, requires an informed electorate. By limiting freedom of expression and creating a complex regulatory framework in the way it does, the Electoral Finance Bill unduly limits the rights of all New Zealanders to participate in the electoral process. The Commission therefore considers that the Bill is inherently flawed and should be withdrawn.”

you really need to get out more often, Paul

O but Tane, I do.

In fact I worked in retail back in the 1980’s when Graham Kelly was our union rep who made us all go on strike…the upshot was the entire company went under and 200 staff last their jobs.

Don’t ever tell me I don’t know how the union movement works.

Strikes (or “withdrawing labour” if you like) for better wages and conditions are one thing. Strikes at the behest of a bunch of idealogical thugs who are calling them for political objectives are quite another.

As for the right of workers to withdraw labour, this has never been unqualified; if it was, it would be enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

How about the freedom of being able to go to work during a strike without being called a scab and assaulted by the union members?

How about the freedom of being able to sensibly discuss whether the Govt departments are operating efficiently without the PSA using scaremongering to make the feeble public think they are going to die on waiting room tables?

If these thoughts aren’t extremist then please tell me what is.

The left is spewing because they tried to screw the country by blocking everyone but their own supporters and they got caught by the same net.

Labour reminds me of the bumbling crooks on Home Alone. Yes Labour is crooked and evil, but just not very good at it.

“Would you prefer in fact that citizens (including workers) did not have the right of redress to the courts as well” Well it was pretty clear under National. They took away the fundamental right of the worker to withdraw their labour. You don’t get any more repression of free speech than that – full stop. Lets see if National goes down that path again and see you lot defend this action.

To all of the extremists here

Like who?

which is the same as going on strike and something that is abhorrent to the right. A little of the tar brush to be applied to all arguments don’t you think?

To all of the extremists here who believe that free speech has been killed by this bill, it hasn’t. Is it not a fundamental right of the voter to know whom is putting money up for massive smear campaigns? You can not answer no to this.

If I want to spend more than 12K on election campaigning I must register, that is a good thing. I won’t be so I don’t have to, very bloody simple.

“well done in silencing the voice of the workers of NZ. With people like these the workers must be bloody worried what National will introduce to shaft them again”

This was a decision of the High Court, which heard arguments from the concerned parties. The High
Court made the decision, not the National Party, nor the readers of this blog. The decision was made on the basis of what the legislation says. The legislation was drafted for and passed by the Labour Government.

So if any person (in a legal sense) has “silenced the voice of the workers” it is the present administration. Or are you now suggesting the High Court is anything other than legally correct and politically neutral?

Would you prefer in fact that citizens (including workers) did not have the right of redress to the courts as well? Perhaps the Labour Party can repeal the Bill of Rights next – surely its only in need of a “technical adjustment”?

BTW, nome, congratulations for what is by my reckoning the lowest karma score ever.

“At least you’ve got the rail back” how come since the announcement there have been companies across the country excited about this prospect. How come for the first time since it was privatised the rail system is once again being talked about by private companies as a branch of infrastructure and tourism that can be exploited.

Your ideological opposition to govts owning stuff just doesn’t hold water here. Under Toll there was massive under investment in rolling stock, capital expenditure and the rail business. One week after the announcement there has been a frenzy of commercial interests all wanting a piece of this asset.

BTW big bollocks, there is nothing to stop strikes under private or public ownership, that is until National takes away one of the most fundamental rights any worker has. The right to withdraw one’s labour to fight perceived injustices is about as fundamental as you could get. To suggest otherwise is verging on totalitarianism, which seems to be the buzz of the right this evening. To ban strikes is to ban free speech, again something that the right seems keen on here.

Sorry sunshine, your comments just don’t hold true,.

at it’s core it is a very good idea

The road to hell is paved with good intentions too.

Hey how about getting all your mates in the EPMU like Little to hold a press conference tomorrow and say how good they think the EFA really is. And they could perhaps tell us all about this law that is so full of ‘commonsense’. Finally you should give some tuition to Annette King because by her own admission she doesn’t have a clue what the EFA is about.

Anytime, anyday, brother. If you feel the country is serviced by politically partisan Laws, drafted in secret in an exclusive political alliance, rammed through with urgency despite the admonitions of the Law Society and Human Rights Council, so shonkily drawn up that they fall at the first challenge in the High Court, thus exposing their inadequacies and lack of regard for our democratic traditions, yes, even to the extent that a right to engage in the democratic process taht existed three years ago, has now been proven to be no longer legal, then, again, Anytime, anyday.
Bring it on.
Or do you still subscribe to Helen Clark’s fairy-tale justification from last September that the purpose of the EFB was ‘To stop people like the Exclusive Brethren and John Key from rorting the election process.’ ?

I guess if Helen Clark could get up in Parliament and talked about the Three Little Piggies and the Big Bad Wolf, the next day, you and your ilk would be on kiwiblog supporting a Labour Bill to outlaw houses made of of sticks and straw.
Such is the infantile low-grade calibre of the lies you have been fed, and have swallowed hook, line and sinker.

Wake up! you have a duty as a citizen, and to your society to stand up and be counted when power is abused like this.

You blame DPF and ‘the far-right kiwiblog’ for spoiling your party? Like a spoilt brat who has had his puppy taken from him, when it was apparent that you were being cruel to it, and that it was for everyones’ good to do so.

Funny though, it was ‘the far-right kiwiblog’ that was loudest in its warnings that something like this might happen. But oh no! You knew better…. Now it has happened, guess what, somehow, it is DPF’s fault.
Not Clarks, peters, Fitzsimons, or Dunne, but DPF’s I mean, listen to yourselves!

Cue tantrums. Stomping around blaming everyone but themselves for the terrible ‘injustice’ they have experienced… Time to get real, and join the big boys, Paul (Remebers Cullen’s advice?) Otherwise, if that level of knee-jerk loyalty to flagrant abuse of power, simply because it suits your political agenda, is all you have, your Party is going to spend the next nine years in the political wilderness, until a new generation with some cahones replaces you and your sort.

So. are you with us or against us?

Can’t you quite get your head around the fact that its the quantum of their spending that is under threat.

Something that you personally seemed happy about up until it looks like it will apply to your side.