Kiwiblog

John Boscawen has kindly sent me a copy of the judgement which is here as a pdf.

As I said earlier the protection o parliamentary privilege saw the challenge to the Electoral Finance Bill dismissed. The similiar case against the Electoral Finance Act also was dismissed on the grounds it was asking the Court for an abstract ruling (ie just asking whether the EFA breached the Bill of Rights Act).

John Boscawen made some comments in the earlier thread which are worth repeating here:

Firstly there can be no doubt that one of the government’s orginal intentions was that anyone who wanted to express an opinion on any political issue in election year would first be required to sign a statutory declartion before they spent a single dollar doing so. ( and Graeme Edgler and others can you quote many examples of not even having to spend a dollar before being caught) .

That is right, whether you agreed with a government policy or you had to first sign a statutory declaration.

The Crown Law office specifically considered this issue and concluded that it was reasonable and was not inconsistent with the provisions of the Bill of Rights. ( although we should be grateful that they did at least state this was at the outer limit of what would be acceptable). That opinion is dated 26 June 2007, one month before the bill had its first reading. Presumably the Attorney General acted on that advice when he did not notify parliament that the EFB was inconsistent with Bora.

To me it is incomprehensible that the Crown Law office could consisder that it would be acceptable to make all New Zealanders first sign a statutory declaration before they spent a sinle dollar expressing a political view in election year. I would think that most New Zealanders, whether they supportted the left or the right wing of politics would consider this unacceptable.

We took the action we did becausee in my view that approval could not go unchallenged. To allow it to go unchallenged will allow the Crown Law office to write similiar opinions in future. We were looking to the court to tell the Crown Law office and politicians of all persuassions that this was not acceptable.

That original Crown Law opinion was a shocker. The Law Society and Human Rights Commission made mincemeat of it. One does have to wonder how it came to be signed off.

Landed at Heathrow at 11 am local time Thursday. Got through customs in around 10 minutes – must be a record.

German Girl flew into Stansted airport so we waited around at the bar for her to bus over to Heathrow. We figured this was safer than trying to meet somewhere else. Then went out to Hertz to pick up the rental car.

The rental car was a Mercedes C 180 and my God it is a delight to drive. It just handles the higher speeds effortlessly and is so smooth you wouldn’t wake the passengers.

One thing really bugs me about driving in the UK though. No-one bloody indicates!! I mean no-one. And when the South of England is nothing but a series of round-abouts, that gets really frustrating.

Anyway we grabbed the car and headed to Hounslow to try and grab UK maps for the TomTom GPS. Turned out one could only buy them online so then tried to buy a cable to link the TomTom to the laptop. After around 90 minutes of walking from shop to shop we discovered one that had such a cable. It turned out to be identical to the cable my Blackberry uses so turned out we didn’t need one at all. German Girl and Ginga Ninja commented how much they enjoyed shopping for unnecessary cables!

We then headed onto the motorway and down to Hastings which is around a 90  minute drive to East Sussex.

As one can see it is right on the coastline to the English Channel. We stayed at the Hastings House B&B which was very friendly and accomodating. The only challenge was that our rooms were on the third floor and there was no lift. And you can imagine how heavy the suitcases are.

The first two flights of stairs were bad enough, but the final one was narrow, winding and steep. Almost killed us getting them up there.

This is the view from the top.

After checking in we grabbed dinner at a local restaurant and then went to a Russian bar to watch football on the big screen as Germany was playing Portugal in the EUFA Euro 2008 championship quarter-finals. Germany won 3-2.

A fascinating story by NZPA in the Herald:

Inland Revenue canned a KiwiSaver brochure because of fears it would be used for electioneering, despite at the time saying it was pulled for commercial reasons.

This came after Mike Williams endorsed the suggestion of a Labour NZ Council member to use IRD brochures to electioneer.

Mr English said the IRD should come clean and release the scrapped brochure.

Yes they should.

And also of note:

Solicitor-General David Collins, QC, told MPs that advice and legal action concerning the act had created a significant workload for the Crown Law Office.

This was due to departments taking a cautious approach and seeking advice on the law and whether they would be breaching it.

The office was also involved in two court cases, and another was to begin shortly. Dr Collins said he was also aware of a number of other upcoming legal actions.

But Mr Dr Collins, your Minister of Justice said the law of common sense would apply!

Justice Minister Annette King was also quizzed about why the Electoral Commission was taking so long to respond to a request for rulings on whether material breached the legislation.

Ms King said the commission was an independent body and questions should be put to it.

She said there had been a request for more funding but as far as she was aware the commission had adequate resources.

An IRD spokesman said that it was its job to keep people informed about their obligations and their entitlements.

This is crap. It is outraegous the Government has not given the Electoral Commission more funding. Even if it was a sensible law, the EFA gives considerable extra workload to the Electoral Commission (which was basically just a CEO, a Comms person and someone who answers the phone) which would necessitate extra resource for them. Add on the murkiness of the EFA (which the Commission CEO publicly warned about) and it is somewhat scandalous the Government has refused extra funding.

Back to the IRD:

“We had originally planned for a KiwiSaver information leaflet to go to all households but given the high uptake of KiwiSaver we decided earlier that it did not need to go so widely.”

Well yes as every worker is opted in when they change jobs, and as pretty much every employer gives employees info on KiwiSaver, there would be little need for a pamphlet to every household. I wonder who suggested there should be?

NZPA reports that the lawsuit seeking declaration that the Electoral Finance Bill breached the Bill of Rights, and that the Attorney-General erred in not informing Parliament it did has failed due to parliamentary privilege:

The applicants alleged the Electoral Finance Act did breach the Bill of Rights Act, and that Attorney-General Michael Cullen should have informed Parliament of this.

Justice Clifford said the Attorney-General had been performing a parliamentary function, and had not been acting as a member of the Government.

That meant the Attorney-General’s function was in the privileged category of internal parliamentary proceedings, and was non-justiciable.

This was not unexpected. A lawyer commented to me a while back that the chance of making it past parliamentary privilege was at best 3/10. They also said that if it did make it past the chance of sucess would then have been 9/10 as it was incomprehensible that anyone could find the original bill was not in conflict with the Bill of Rights.

It isn’t clear whether this decision affects only the lawsuit relating to whether the Electoral Finance Bill breached the Bill of Rights, or also affects the other lawsuit by John Boscawen and co seeking a declaration on whether the Electoral Finance Act is also in breach.

Fran describes the vision John Key and Bill English are spreading to business audiences:

Picture a New Zealand where profit is not a dirty word and where those who make it are not called “rich pricks”.

Picture a New Zealand deeply focused on international competitiveness, where risk-taking is again exciting, where young people are enticed to stay and with a greater discipline on government spending so the private sector can play a bigger role in the country’s fortunes.

Picture a New Zealand where rolling tax cuts, possibly even indexed to inflation, become the norm just like in Australia.

Sounds a good start!

English met visiting Australian Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner and Infrastructure Minister Anthony Albanese at last weekend’s Australia New Zealand Leadership Forum. He reckons the programme the new Australian Labor Government has up its sleeve would be regarded as extremist in New Zealand.

The fact that Australia’s Labor is pursuing big public/private sector partnerships and kept the increase in government spending to a mere 1 per cent in its debut Budget shows how out of step New Zealand’s Labour-led Government has become with international norms, leading New Zealand into a cul de sac, he says.

People have no idea how true this is. Not all left wing Governments are like this one.

Within Australian senior circles, the NZ Treasury is seen as something of a wallflower – a department that is publicly whipped into submission by Cullen whenever it has promoted obvious economic boosters like personal tax cuts.

Sadly a fair degree of truth in this.

Consider the Peters factor. English is crystal clear that the monetary policy targets agreement between the Government and the Reserve Bank should not be altered again if National wins the election (Peters wants changes). He’s also indicated National will not buy into Labour’s “what Winston wants Winston gets” approach.

Taking English’s messages at face value, it seems National retains considerable hostility to Peters.

Would Labour’s Helen Clark be prepared to concede the prime ministership to him?

This refers to Winston on Agenda giving the example of George Forbes in 1932 becoming PM even through his party was not the largest one making the Government. Winnie sure doesn’t lack ambition.

Today’s Fairfax poll is fascinating – now for the main result which is barely changed from May (27% gap closes to 24% gap), but the ethnic breakdown.

Now the number of Maori respondents will be very small (around 15% of 1,100 respondents would be around 165 Maori respondents only) but even with that it is unprecedented that Labour is almost in third place with Maori voters. They have National on 39%, Maori Party on 22% and Labour also on 22%. Labour ir normally way way ahead of National amongst Maori voters.

A sample of 165 has a margin of error of 7.8%. Large, but when the parties have a 17% gap, still arguably significant enough to say National leads amongst Maori voters.

I have just calculated the probablity that on those results National is in fact ahead of Labour amongst Maori voters, and it is 99.79%. So that certainly is significant.

It would be interesting to know how it differs between Maori on the general roll and on the Maori roll.

Thanks to No Right Turn, I note the Alliance are taking the Electoral Commission to court over their broadcasting allocation.

The Alliance say:

“The current allocation process is terminally stacked against non-parliamentary parties, in that they lack the ‘oxygen of publicity’ that Parliament provides. Election time is the only time the public have an opportunity to hear new ideas and fresh thinking from outside the status quo parties.”

And No Right Turn agrees them, even though he notes they have little chance of success:

… the basic thrust of the law is “larger parties get more money”. It’s unjust, its inequitable, it denies democratic choice, and it creates a self-fulfilling prophecy which preserves the status quo.

But how hard done by is the Alliance. Let’s look at dollars per vote. They were allocated $17,000 of taxpayer assistance for their broadcasting. In 2005 they received 1,641 votes (0.07%) so they get $10.36 per vote.

Labour got $1,000,000 for their 935,319 (41.10%) votes. That is $1.07 per vote.

I can’t see the Alliance winning somehow.

The broadcasting allocations have to give some credence to how much support a party has. It would be ridicolous to give the Animals First party the same funding as Labour. Everyone would set up a party if it meant they got an equal share of the $3.2 million.

And again I disagree with NRT that the major parties are advantaged. They get in fact less money proportionally than the smaller parliamentary parties. National and Labour between them get only 62% of the funding despite being over 85% of the vote. Sure you can argue Jim Anderton should get the same funding as National, but who would?

The real indignity is that parties can not top up their allocatins with their own money. That is what is abhorent. The Alliance is prevented from spending a single dollar on top of their allocation on broadcasting. Because of this restriction there is a greater argument that they should have a higher allocation as the allocation is also a limit. But if I was changing the law I don’t think it would serve NZers well to have the smallest fringe party get equal time to the major parties. I would just remove the inability to top up.

Read this about what Ministerial Services had to do, just to check if it could put a Minister’s press release up on the Beehive website:

Brendan Boyle, Secretary of Internal Affairs, revealed that his department had sought legal advice on how to handle press statements put out by ministers’ offices since the new law.

He said an in-house legal team had provided the advice, with involvement from Crown Law, the Parliamentary Service and the State Services Commission.

That good old law of common sense strikes again. I mean seriously lawyers from four agencies to set up guidelines on press releases going on a website!

The Bioethics Council has said parents should have the right to choose the sex of their unborn child.

I haven’t got a problem with this. Genetic knowledge and technology is increasing massively, and I do not think it is realistic to think one can hide it away.

Departing Wellington was rather hilarious as I was nicely settled into the Koru Club and suddenly realized I hadn’t sent my office the database for the poll that evening.

It was around 4.55 p.m. and the boarding call for the 5.30 p.m. light was at 5.10 p.m.

I booted up the laptop, connected via Vodafone Mobile, and downloaded the file I needed, made the necessary changes and just as they made the second boarding call hit the send button.

The problem is they are quite large files and on a mobile connection it takes a few minutes to upload. A few more minutes go by and it is still sending and they have done the final final boarding call.

I am reluctant to not have the file send as it means my staff will have no work to do, yet I will still be paying them. So I grab the laptop and walk down to the departure gate, holding it open as it still sends.

If you have ever wondered if a working transmitting laptop can go through the x-ray okay, the answer is yes. The wee thing kept on uploading and with six minutes to go before departure I check in but ask the gate attendant if I can just stand at the entrance way until everyone else has gone on board to give myself an extra few seconds.

Just as it is three minutes before departure, and I have to give up, the outbox wonderfully clears. Whew. I jump on board as they close the door.

In Auckland meet up with Coast to Coast Girl as in a moment of stupidity I had agreed to take a pram over to London with me, for her pregnant sister. I did remark several times that I was pretty sure they sold prams in London but my sarcasm was lost on her. I can say it is the first time I have ever travelled with a pram!

What is even funnier is the Ginga Ninja is travelling with me, so having two blokes check in a pram on a flight must be the ultimate in progressive politics. Should earn me a spot on the Labour list I reckon 

The flight to LA (where I am posting this from) was pretty good. They now allow you on Air NZ to start watching movies before and during take off and landing which is excellent. I used to hate having to wait half an hour from when you board. Watched Charlie Wilson’s war which was okay but not as good as I thought it would be. Also been reading the Bassett biography of Lange.

I’m on planes for most of the next 30 hours. Then after that will be driving from London to Windsor, Runnymeade and Hastings (the original not the Tukituki imitation )

So blogging will be light apart from the odd time delayed article.

Poneke laments how Waterfront Watch’s campaign against the Wellington Hilton, has meant no waterfront development is likely for a decade. Instead we are left with those awful tin sheds.

Bruce Simpson at Aardvark covers the efforts of Associated Press to claim that even using their headlines is a breach of the US DMCA. This may be very significant if bloggers are not able to significantly quote articles in order to critique them.

Whale Oil detects more links between The Standard and Labour or more specifically labour.co.nz. The Standard responds. A great thread for those who get hot with talk of DNS and MX records

The Economist looks at the school system in Finland and Sweden.

And since I’m coming this far north, I want to take in Sweden too. That social-democratic paradise has carried out school reforms that make free-market ideologues the world over weak at the knees. In the 1990s it opened its state-education system to private competition, allowing new schools to receive the same amount for each pupil as the state would have spent on that child.

The Dim-Post has some solutions for the South Auckland crime wave:

• Limit numbers on all polytechnic courses teaching home invasion and armed robbery techniques.
• Increase existing levels of sedatives and oral contraceptives in Manukau water supply.
• Create an economic disincentive to homicide by amending the Emissions Trading Scheme to double carbon fees on vehicles used during a murder
• Introduce cultural sensitivity training to South Aucklands migrant communities teaching them to be more open and tolerant towards the kiwi tradition of random assault and pointless execution style killings.
• Point to multiple Asian murders as irrefutable statistical evidence for sending ‘em all back.

Also, finally not a blog but of interest to EFA watchers is this note of a meeting between Federated Farmers and the Electoral Commission over the EFA.

Dr Cullen has told the Finance and Expenditure that he beleives the economy shrank in the first quarter of 2008. NZPA reports:

Dr Cullen told the finance select committee today that economic data since the May budget was far more gloomy than Treasury predicted.

“It is now quite clear that the quarterly GDP figure for the first quarter (of the 2008 year) almost seems inevitably to be negative,” Dr Cullen said.

A recession is negative growth over two quarters, so if this is true then the June 2008 GDP figures may put NZ into recession. The March 08 figures are out on 27 June so the June 08 figures should be out at the end of September – likely to be the beginning of the election campaign.

Spare Room has an amusing video of a learner driver filming himself being taught to drive while speaking on his mobile phone. One instructor physically takes over the wheel from him.

And Tony Milne provides the Boston Legal clip about Denny Crane being considered as the Republican nominee for President. It is a classic.

While there is no harm in a select committee inquiry into alcohol issues, the reality is that simply blaming South Auckland violence on the number of liquor outlets is, well, simplistic.

Whale Oil has done some research:

In Manurewa ward there are 33  off licence liquor outlets for a population of 80,000 or one booze outlet for 2400 citizens. H0wick has 22 off licence liquor outlets for a population of 40,000 or one booze outlet for 1800 citizens.Clevedon has 11 off licencecs for a population of 10,000 citizens or one for every 833 citizens.

Going by Clark’s ridiculous suggestion by rights there should be blood in the streets in Howick because of the higher booze outlets than Manurewa. Also going by Clark’s suggestion there should be three times as many bodies piling up in the streets of Clevedon than Manurewa.

Colin Espiner is also doubtful:

But I’m a little perplexed about Helen Clark’s decision to launch into the liquor industry. At her Monday post-Cabinet press conference Clark said she believed there were too many liquor outlets in Manurewa. That much most people seem to agree on. But she also said it was time to review the 1989 Sale of Liquor Act, which ushered New Zealand out of the dark ages of the bottle shop and into a more enlightened view of alcohol consumption, which was that supermarkets and dairies could sell wine and beer, but not hard liquor.

Since then the number of liquor outlets in New Zealand has almost doubled – hardly surprising, since every supermarket in the land now sells it. The Prime Minister says there is evidence of a causal link between density of liquor outlets and criminal activity. Therefore, she says, the density should be reduced.

What springs to mind when I hear this, however, is the old caution about not implying a causal relationship between two inter-related events. Is there more crime in suburbs with more liquor outlets because of the outlets? Or do the outlets naturally gravitate towards lower-socio economic areas where drinking is a way of life and there just happens to be more crime?

I’m not saying alcohol doesn’t cause huge harm in society – most people accept it does. But it is also something that is hugely enjoyed by a majority of the adult population. It is our social lubricant, whether we like it or not. Whether or not it should be is another question. Personally I would find life pretty wretched without a glass of wine at the end of the day, but I’m not into binge drinking.

But whether or not we as a society have a problem with alcohol – and if we do, how you solve it – isn’t something that can be tackled by some knee-jerk crackdown on liquor outlets.

Reduce the number of liquor outlets and you will make it harder for people to grab a bottle of wine or a six pack, but I suspect will make no difference at all to those with alcohol and violence issues.

If there is an inquiry I hope they will look at actual facts and figures such as how much alcohol is purchased at various off licenses. I suspect people will find the corner dairy doesn’t really sell a significant amount of alcohol compared to the dedicated bottle stores.

The Dom Post reports:

Cystic Fibrosis has returned a $10,000 donation made by NZ First, saying it is unclear if the party “has any right” to make a charitable donation on money wrongly spent at the last election.

The charity, one of nine understood to have received a share of the $158,000 owed by the Winston Peters-led party, announced its rejection of the money last night.

Now the Cystic Fibrosis Association is a small charity that does great work. Turning down $10,000 is a lot of money for them. They’re a charity I’ve supported in the past through sponsorship of a triathlete who competes to raise money for them.

So they are not punished for doing the right thing, I’d encourage people to donate to them. You can do an online pledge here, and of course it is also tax deductible.

I am glad I am not the only one annoyed by the media treatment of Vince Siemer, which has him and his wife trying to make themselves victims when in fact Seimer is running a campaign of harrasment and is the bully not the victim in my opinion. Not that I am a fan of his victim either – but that doesn’t mean Michael Stiassny doesn’t have rights.

Siemer is comparing himself to a Jew being persecuted by the Nazis:

Siemer, who is defending himself, said in his submissions that by denying him freedom of speech the courts were heading onto a slippery slope towards denial of other rights.

“Today it is freedom of speech, tomorrow it’s much worse,” Siemer said.

He said courts in Nazi Germany had denied Jews their legal rights under due process, and that no courts should use process to deny justice.

Now shouldn’t someone like me be supporting the rights of someone to say what they want on their website? Well no. Let us turn to Steven Price for some useful facts on the case:

I’m afraid I find it difficult to get too worked up about Vince’s plight. He’d like to pitch his troubles as a freedom of expression battle against a corrupt businessman (his nemesis, Michael Stiassny), and corrupt lawyers (including his own), and corrupt judges (pretty much anyone who’s ruled against him, in a couple of dozen court hearings). But what it’s really about is his ongoing and flagrant refusal to comply with court orders.

Just because you do not like a court order is not grounds to rfuse to obey them. You appeal if you do not like them – but he has lost pretty much every case in his two dozen hearings.

Steven notes:

Note that the injunction is an interim one. It’s in place pending the final determination of the defamation case. If Siemer can prove that his allegations are true, he will be able to reinstate the banned content. The courts generally do not grant this sort of injunction in defamation cases. They only did so here because two High Court judges were convinced that there was no basis for Siemer’s allegations:

Justice France: Having assessed the evidence, I conclude this is one of those exceptional cases where the Court can say that there is no reasonable possibility of a defence of truth succeeding in relation to any allegations of criminal or unethical conduct or as to improper personal enrichment.

Steven also usefully points out:

He objects that he was tried “in absentia” – he was overseas at the time of the second trial.  Which might be outrageous, except for the fact that he’d known about the hearing date, hadn’t filed any documents, hadn’t engaged legal counsel, and had simply emailed the court to say he wouldn’t be making it. They said he needed to formally apply for a different date. He didn’t.

I do wish the traditional media would provide context like this. Those who do not read blogs would have a very different impression.

The ODT reports on how the Government is banning incandescent light bulbs:

Once new standards were introduced, no new stocks of the incandescent bulbs could be imported for sale.

I can not see the rationale for a ban, just because they are energy inefficient. On that basis we should ban certain cars, fridges, TVs, computers and heaters. I should stop there before I give the Greens too many wet dreams ideas.

I only buy energy efficient light bulbs now. I do so because I have calculated that the higher purchase cost will save money in the long term as they last longer, and also use less energy. More and more people are doing so.

But if someone wants to use an incandescent bulb, why should it be illegal to do so?

Someone will claim we need to do so because of carbon emissions. But this is why I support a cap and trade ETS. Because by doing so the price of electricity will reflect those carbon emissions, and send a market signal out to buy more efficient light bulbs.

I see no reason for a ban. Only things which are clearly hazardous should  be banned. Why should the state decide on behalf of every household what type of light bulb they can buy?

Sure some will argue that people will make bad choices and ignore the savings from more efficient light bulbs. Well yes they will, but you know people make bad choices all the time.

Now they will claim the environmental impact of inefficient light bulbs costs everyone money, so we should be allowed to ban them. But again an ETS will cover those costs so that argument falls away.

If we allow the state to choose for us what sort of light bulb we can use, then where do we stop?

I am really pleased to see that the Government is not abandoning rationality and succumbing to polls showing people want them to reduce taxes on petrol. Of course people will say they want taxes reduced on almost any item they regularly purchase.

Let us deal with the call for getting rid of the so called tax on a tax or GST on petrol excise.

There may have been a case for this, when the petrol excise went into the consolidated fund but it now basically all goes into the land transport fund. It is a form of user pays. We don’t yet have the technology to charge people for their actual road usage, so the petrol tax is a substitute for it.

Now let us say we did have the technology to charge people directly for their road usage. Well when you get a monthly bill from Transit for your road use, that would of course have GST on it. So why should it be different when you pay for your road use via petrol tax?

Cullen is also right that higher petrol prices are now resulting in more GST revenue for the Government. The extra GST people pay on petrol will be matched by less GST collected in othe areas as people reduce spending to compensate.

Finally the effect of removing GST on the excise tax component of petrol would be a one off gain to consumer that could disappear without people noticing it. A 6c reduction means little when prices are $1 higher than what they used to be. It is tinkering at the margins.

The Herald has a number of articles on the Electoral Finance Act. First this useful summary of decisions made and pending this year.

Then we have a roundup of opinion on the Bill:

But Justice Minister Annette King defends the act, saying it has made all political parties “take stock of what they do, and I think that is not a bad thing.

“People have to be transparent about what money they are spending and where they get it from and how they are spending it, and that was the intention of the bill.”

Annette King would be lynched by her colleagues if they thought she meant what she said. They hate the bill now, as they are now all risking electoral petitions as no-one knows what they can spend.

And King also misleads by saying the intention of the bill is for transparency over where parties get money from. The EFB had no provisions on anonymous donations etc – they were added in by the Select Committee. So how can it have been the intention of the Bill, when they were not even in the Bill her Government introduced?

Bill English does a nice summary:

“Trying to restrict the political opinions of non-politicians is hazardous is bad in principle and has turned out to be very difficult to do in law.”

Annette King says:

She had heard National had a war chest of about $5 million – which would mean National could have spent more than the maximum, $2.6 million, outside the regulated period.

That would have made “absolute nonsense of democracy and freedom of speech.”

Don’t you love a Justice Minister who supports oppressive legislation on the basis of a rumour.  And we await Annette condemning Barack Obama’s victory over Hillary Clinton as making “absolute nonsense of democracy and freedom of speech” as he spent more money than her.

Then John Armstrong has his view:

If the law is sometimes an ass, then the Electoral Finance Act has proved to be a real donkey when it comes to stupidity, inflexibility and sheer unworkability. …

Things have reached truly Kafkaesque proportions when it is considered necessary to remove references to the “Labour-led Government” from Budget press statements for fear they will be deemed to be election advertisements and breach the act by not being properly authorised as such.

The measure is a textbook example of how not to write legislation. It sought to close every conceivable loophole through which someone or some organisation might climb in order to thwart long-established rules on party advertising during election campaigns. …

The act’s secondary purpose is to enable Labour to keep using taxpayer’s money for what is effectively electioneering through raiding its parliamentary budget – the case with its tax cuts brochure which hit the headlines last week for using a stock photo of an American family on its cover, rather than an actual New Zealand family.

Like a nagging toothache, the act is going to keep giving Labour bother. But it has probably already inflicted as much damage on the party as it is ever going to – another reason why Labour is unlikely to retreat from the act’s questionable provisions.

Yep they’ll keep defending it until after the election and then they’ll quietly amend it.

Finally we have the Herald editorial:

The nation is halfway through a legislated farce. The Electoral Finance Act passed six months ago today has imposed restrictions on political spending that will remain until election day but surely will be repealed before another election year arrives. A review seems likely even if Labour leads the Government that emerges from this year’s ballot. Labour’s vindictive legislation has given it more headaches than it ever imagined when it set out to curb campaigns such as that which seven Exclusive Brethren ran last time.

It was classic utu – designed to shut down opponents of the Government.

All parties are feeling their way in the dark, as is the poor Electoral Commission that has been charged with interpreting and enforcing a law that was conceived in spite, drafted in haste and passed in disgrace. It was blatantly partisan, which electoral arrangements should never be, enacted without reference to the Law Commission or any independent constitutional authority.

This remains the real damage done by the EFA – the process used to develop it in secret with no bipartisan consultation. There was no public policy process or consultation prior to writing the EFB.

Public service interests and labour unions will study the rules, business interests and ordinary citizens will not be bothered. The Labour Party might be prepared to submit every intended publication of an MP or candidate to a committee headed by the Prime Minister’s chief of staff no less, and its supporting unions might be prepared to run the gauntlet of legal action for the sake of promoting their political interests, but most people have better things to do.

Which is the intention – to scare the public off.

Political participation should never have been restricted in this way. After six ludicrous months it is possible to look forward in reasonable confidence, whoever forms the government, that this discredited act will not stain our liberties forever.

I would have little faith that if Labour are in Government, they will improve the Act. Sure they will change it to remove some of the uncertainty – to make it easier for them to spend taxpayer money and not have it count. But not easier for everyone else.

All murders are tragic, but the killing of Karl Kuchenbecker was so preventable, the timeline of how Mark Graeme Burton was allowed to kill him makes very sad reading:

2006 February 12
Prisoner found in “badly beaten state” in Unit 4 at Rimutaka Prison – would not say who had done it.

February 20
Another prisoner asked to be moved from Unit 4, saying he was sick of being assaulted by the same person, but would not say who.

March 4
Unit 4 prisoner receives broken arm and ribs, pleads to be moved to another unit, but will not say who assaulted him.

April
Intelligence gathered that in all three cases, the offender was convicted murderer Graeme Burton, 36. Further intelligence alleges Burton was soliciting other prisoners to do “hits” on two staff. Burton moved from low security Unit 4 into high medium Unit 3.

May
Burton reported to be using a mobile phone.

June
Inmate asked to be put into segregation, saying he feared for his safety after multiple assaults from Burton.

June 28
Parole Board hearing for Burton. Only indirect references to above information given to board.

July 10
Burton is released on parole having served 14 years of a life sentence for murder.

October
Burton begins breaching his parole conditions.

November
Through informants, police hear that Burton and an associate have committed a series of armed assaults on Wellington drug dealers.

November 27
Probation tells police they will take steps to have Burton recalled to prison at the first sign of any charges being laid.

November 28
Police launch a formal investigation into Burton’s activities.

November 30
Probation asks police if they will put the information they already have in an affidavit, to support an application to recall Burton to prison. Police refuse, because of a concern informants could be identified.

December 7
Police hear Burton is moving out of his specified Wellington flat – a clear breach of parole. Police do not step up their hunt despite being able to arrest offenders if they believe their parole has been breached.

December 12
Burton fails to show up to a parole meeting for the second time in a week. But his probation officer was away for a week, meaning no one was notified.

December 19
Probation notifies the courts and police of Burton’s parole breach.

December 22
The Wellington District Court issues an arrest warrant. A phone message from Probation to police notifying them of the warrant is missed. The warrant is not properly actioned until January 4.

December 29
Parole Board convener issues a second arrest warrant, faxed to Wellington central police station, but not actioned properly until January 1.

2007 January 1-6
Police carry out urgent manhunt for Burton.

January 6
Burton shoots Karl Kuchenbecker dead in the hills above Wainuiomata.

At least his death is leading to some changes in the parole system, but they do not go far enough.

The e-mail below from Lynton Crosby speaks for itself. The situation there is horrific and I am maing a donation to help:

Will you join me in Giving the People of Zimbabwe a Better Future?  We have let them down before so please help me to put this right!

There is a Presidential election run-off on June 27th and Robert Mugabe is fighting every inch of the way to stay in office. People are literally being murdered to stop them voting.  He cannot be allowed to get away with it again!

Normally I don’t personally ask people to support causes but on this occasion I am making an exception – I trust you don’t mind.

Would you be willing to promote the website www.friendsofzim.com to everyone on your email list and make a donation to help those fighting against the odds to ensure that the people Zimbabwe have the taste of democracy?  I have personally checked this organisation out and I can assure you that the money raised is being spent on practical support that will make a difference.

We all have an email list and if the recipients could donate, then really decent people who just want the chance for freedom and a change for the better will have some hope of a better life.

I reckon that many of the world’s media, the UN and so many others are ignoring much what is going on there.  There are 150 election observers currently in the country but there are 210 constituencies and thousands of polling places to monitor.  The situation deteriorates daily as opposition supporters are threatened and attacked.  Latest reports are that over 70 people are now dead, with hundreds missing, thousands injured and tens of thousands dispossessed.  Mugabe’s thugs must not be allowed to get away with this.

Inflation is 1,000,000%, unemployment is over 85% and food production in what was once the “bread basket of Africa” is almost non-existent.

Please donate if you can and pass on to anyone who you think might help. This could make a world of difference to people who have the courage to fight for a better life.  Please give them your support.

Regards

Lynton Crosby

PS have a look at www.mindofmugabe.com <http://www.mindofmugabe.com/>

Any donations go towards helping ensure as far an election as possible. They explain what they need the money for:

Zimbabwe voters are being intimidated, beaten and tortured in a terror campaign to suppress the vote. Your contribution will go directly to the people on the ground to ensure voters are able to get to the polls and that their vote is accurately counted. This is a massive task. There are over 7,000 polling stations which will need polling agents. Each of these polling agents will need to be provided transport, food, and security.

$150 rents a vehicle to transport polling agents and voters to the polls.

$120 buys a camera to videotape polling stations to ensure free and fair elections.

$50 buys enough air time to report results via satellite phones.

$40 buys a round-trip bus ticket for a Zimbabwe voter living in South Africa (there are at least 2 million Zimbabweans living in South Africa) to return home to vote.

$25 pays to train a polling agents

$6 buys 3 days of food for the polling agents.

The more observers there are, the harder it is for Mugabe to steal the election.

Phil U at Whoar links to a story in in the Guardian about how a record number of bloggers are being arrested.

“Egypt, Iran and China are the most dangerous places to blog about political life, accounting for more than half of all arrests since blogging became big,” said Phil Howard, an assistant professor of communication at the university.

He believes that the figure of 36 may be a dramatic underestimate, because many arrests are never made public.

The full report reveals the average jail term is 15 months for bloggers.

The same report also looks at online political content (87 GB of it) by ideology of the arrested bloggers. They find:

1. Socialist 21%
2. Conservative 16%
3. Liberal 15%
4. Communist 4%
5. Islamic Fundamentalist 3%
6. Islamic Secular 3%