Anderton wants EFA changed
Having been referred to the Police for breaking the Electoral Finance Act, Jim Anderton now wants it changed.
Basically Jim thought the law would just apply to “bad people” and not himself. Here’s the real irony:
The decision means all four parties that supported the controversial electoral law changes last year have now fallen foul of the tight new rules on election advertising – mostly for not carrying authorising statements.
There was close to a dozen decisions released on Friday by the Electoral Commission. If I have time later today, I’ll take readers through them one by one. As usual I agree with most of them, but differ with a couple.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: Electoral Commission, Electoral Finance Act, Jim Anderton, Progressive
August 5th, 2008 at 8:30 am
Poor old Jimbo – one of the last to admit that the EFA he voted for and crowed about is a crock of shit, designed by desperate corrupt politicians to deny free speech to the citizens of New Zealand…but he’s got there finally.
August 5th, 2008 at 8:34 am
Ah the EFA… that pig with lipstick !
August 5th, 2008 at 8:34 am
So once again we are ready to see parliament tell us that the laws they passed are confusing and need to be changed because they way they want to operate with our money is illegal.
F##K these guys are muppets – has any corrupt self serving prick suggested that retrospective validation is the best option yet?
Sad sad sad, perhaps Jolly Jim could ban electoral funding laws so like the last 14 years there is NO ACCOUNTABILITY for how they spend our money.
edit: Oh no, not more columns from Trotsky about how it’s OK when the Labour-led govt get it wrong… yada yada corruption is OK if it’s my choice of party that do it.
August 5th, 2008 at 8:35 am
The decision that should really set tongues wagging is the one relating to the PPTA advertisement advocating smaller class sizes. As I understand it the Electoral Commission has deemed this to NOT YET be an electoral advertisement because no party has a stated policy on smaller class sizes.
However, if a party does establish a policy on smaller class sizes, then this may well be deemed to be an electoral advertisement, and the PPTA will be in breach of the EFA.
If this is not a prime example of this being bad law which is anti free speech then I don’t know what is.
August 5th, 2008 at 8:40 am
The EFA is proof positive of why this government and associated hangers on has to go.
If YOU can’t understand/obey the legislation YOU have created then how do you expect others to understand/obey it. When one law is seen as a joke by the public it is the start of a slippery slope that leads to us seeing all laws as a joke and not needed to be obeyed.
Nome, RRM, Philu just prove this when they shreek like demented fishwives on all their oppostions, supposed, mistakes but can forgive all theirs under the guise of ‘its ok for us as we are the good guys” sorry does not wash with this Kiwi.
August 5th, 2008 at 8:44 am
getstaffed- pigs are useful; what does Jim Anderton do?
August 5th, 2008 at 9:03 am
FOOLS!!! The law was obviously not meant to apply to HIM!
August 5th, 2008 at 9:06 am
And NO MP who voted in parliament, for this bill, had the nous to see the result, not for lack of warnings from people who did have the nous and the expertise?
What the…….? how has our “democracy” given us such a bunch of leaders that is so representative of the saying “it’s the scum that floats to the top”? What is wrong with the voters?
August 5th, 2008 at 9:11 am
When you cater just for the lowest common denominator thats what you GET.
August 5th, 2008 at 9:17 am
And here’s the delicious money quote from Anderton:
Well, Jim, it also seems “common sense” to me that if you don’t bother reading and comprehending the legislation you vote for — not exactly an unknown time – saving strategy among the legislating classes -, then you should hire people who do. It’s not as if the clauses regarding authorisation statements were written in invisible ink, and surely Anderton could have sought advice and/or chosen to err on the side of caution?
To add to something chfr wrote above, if the concept of ignorantia juris non excusat (ignorance of the law is no excuse) doesn’t apply to Ministers of the freaking Crown, who does it apply to? Or is this a case of implausible deniability — where another politician is quite careful not to ‘know’ what they don’t want to.
August 5th, 2008 at 9:23 am
Anderston appears to be senile and well past his use-by date. You have to wonder about the voters in Wigram who keep returning this dinosaur to Parliament.
August 5th, 2008 at 9:24 am
The unions complaining about the requirement to register and record was also a bit rich.
August 5th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Let (s)he who lives by the EFA die by the EFA
Let’s face it — they’re *ALL* dullards of the highest order.
The growing number of recorded “foot in mouth” interviews from the National Party conference is proof that it doesn’t matter which side of the spectrum our politicians sit, they’re all a bunch of suits whose IQ barely exceeds their shoe-size.
It would appear that anyone who aspires to political power ought to be immediately disqualified from holding it.
August 5th, 2008 at 9:58 am
It is a sad reflection on a country when it’s bloggers know more about the law than the people who wrote it and voted it in.
August 5th, 2008 at 10:11 am
“they’re all a bunch of suits whose IQ barely exceeds their shoe-size.”
Yeah, maybe a lot of them are, but I’d say a big part of the reason for this is the appalling political ignorance of the electorate- especially those who have buried their heads in the sand and refused to take any kind of ideological position. You get the government you deserve. Apathy and ignorance have brought NZ to this state of affairs. It is easy to point the finger at the politicians, but this is a democracy, and YOU elected them Bruce.
August 5th, 2008 at 10:19 am
“and YOU elected them Bruce”
Actually, I didn’t. The candidate I gave my electorate vote didn’t win, although I must admit that my party vote went to ACT but Rodney does seem to be the highest-performing MP at the moment. Dare I say “the brightest of the dim-bulbs”.
August 5th, 2008 at 10:19 am
To Mr Anderton’s comlaints i can only say “Didums”
August 5th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Part of Anderton’s arrogance and unfounded confidence about the EFA was due to the fact that his party was not pinged by the Auditor General in his report on the 2005 parliamentary spending. Anderton obviously started to believe in his own publicity that his was the only clean party not misusing parliamentary resources etc.
Of course Anderton is the King of Misusing Parliamentary Resources and it was only some sort of accident that meant his party didn’t happen to misuse the resources for the 3-month period that the Auditor General investigated (he had probably already spent his Parliamentary funds on electioneering prior to the three months, etc). This arrogance then affected his weak defence of the EFA etc. and he suddenly thought he could do no wrong in terms of political finance. There’s a lot of people around (especially from the old Alliance) that know better.
Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz
August 5th, 2008 at 10:50 am
It’s a strange coincidence that all of a sudden the losers who created this law want to change the law now that most of the term for which the law applied is now essentially up (given the election is likely to be announced some time very soon). So, now that the law has essentially stifled this year’s free comment, and confused everyone, and got in the way of everyone, and cost lots of money, they are happy to change it, because it can’t serve their purposes any more. The irony however, is that it has undoubtly turned out worse for the losers who created the law that those whose free comment was stifled.
Idiots!
August 5th, 2008 at 11:11 am
On the one hand he thinks its not an election advertisement and on the other he admitted to “putting my name all over” the advert. Now why would a politican put his name “all over” an advert? hmm maybe to get people to vote for him?
August 5th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Jim Anderton’s self-righteous speech in the Third Reading debate in December last year has come back to bite him on the bum – what a shame!
http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2008/08/anderton-and-efa.html
August 5th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Hmmm
So Jim wants “common sense” to be applied to the EFA? Well, he should stand in line like the rest of us, and wait for the next full moon before speaking to Annette King. Or just wait for the election – whichever comes first!
August 5th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
ton – yes the losers who created this law realise now that once they are voted out, the EFA will be working AGAINST THEM, just as they intended it to work against National this year!!
August 5th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Little Jim shall get his wish. After the 8 November 2008 the EFA law will be changed. It will be changed from a law that is currently on the statute books to one that is not.
Dreams come true time.
Time for a change.
August 6th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
I’m the one that made the PPTA complaint. I had a call from a reporter this morning, so I thought I better outline why I made the complaint on my blog.
I think slightlyright is on to it, I have exactly the same opinion. The Commission was correct to find that there is no issue currently, but they have been very careful in the phrasing of their determination using ‘presently’ three times in two paragraphs – implying that the release of an education policy that promotes smaller class sizes, or a change in teacher:student ratio could quickly change that.
I don’t have a problem with the PPTA or their issue as such, it is just the EFA.