National’s Electoral Law Policy
September 29th, 2008 at 6:46 am by David FarrarNational has released its electoral law policy, which includes of course repealing the EFA:
- Repeal the EFA immediately after the election
- Reinstate the Electoral Act, as it was before the EFA, but transfer into it the provisions in the EFA dealing with donations
- Reform electoral law through a process involving all parliamentary parties and the public
- Having a binding referendum on MMP by 2011
- Begin a constitutional process to abolish the Maori seats once all historic claims have been settled, which is anticipated to be 2014
It is good that National is retaining the donations provisions of the EFA, while repealing the rest of the Act. This exposes as a lie that National oppossed it because of the increased transparency around donations. In fact National agreed to this in principle way back in 2006. And it was Helen Clark who removed from the draft bill, any significant provisions around increased transparency of donations.
The donations provisions are not perfect, and I would hope they would be part of the overall review of electoral law post 2008. But until that review is done, it is best to keep the transparency obligations while removing all the parts relating to spending, third parties, definition of an advertisement etc.
It is worth remembering that if the Government is re-elected then the EFA will remain. Labour will just make it more onerous, if anything.
Related posts:
- Gibbs donates $100,000 to ACT
- The electoral finance reform the Government turned down
- Electoral Finance Act repeal
- Maori Seats policy not a bottom line for National
September 29th, 2008 at 6:51 am
A “binding” referendum on MMP. Brilliant. Worth at least a 5% bounce. Bye Bye MMP.
Vote:September 29th, 2008 at 7:12 am
Is labour going to release any policies?
Of their own I mean, not the ones Mallard finds out the back of Bellamy’s while hes dumpster diving for his lunch.
Vote:September 29th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Binding referendum?
Can we have a statement from John Key that ANY referendum from the people will be binding please? The S59 referendum is not binding, because the law “is working” apparently and won’t change till King John thinks it’s not. Yet we have to believe that an MMP referendum will be binding?
So is there a principle here? Are referendums democratic? Are they the true voice of the people? When are they? When the wishes of the people co-incide with the wishes of the politicians? With politicians having veto over democracy? Some democracy you’ve got there NZ – all smoke ‘n’ mirrors.
Stand up and draw a line Mr. Key. We’ve had chop n change and maybe might be weasel words and half truths for 9 years – and now you want to do the same? Be a man, be a leader and decide one way or the other. I don’t need a King John, just like I don’t need a Queen Helen.
Vote:September 29th, 2008 at 8:57 am
I think it’s especially significant that the MMP referendum will be binding. I can’t imagine Labour ever giving the electorate that amount of say!
Vote:September 29th, 2008 at 9:04 am
I like this policy to an extent. I’m not so sure about the donations provisions being retained, they could do with some work IMHO. Good on National for involving all parties in the electoral law process. It is ACT policy also to have a referendum on MMP *and* to repeal the s 59 amendment.
Vote:September 29th, 2008 at 10:16 am
Is that the first or second referendum?
Vote:ie what should go up against MMP or the referendum of it going up against MMP?
September 29th, 2008 at 10:25 am
I think all donations whether cash or kind from anywhere above $500 should be declared.
one rule for all, Unions, Business and Individuals.
As for binding referendums
Key is suggesting this one for MMP as it suits him and the Labour Party.
If the anti smacking one was binding it would show the hypocrisy of the National Party caucus voting completely out of step with the Kiwi heartland and supporting Bradford and Helengrad against ordinary Kiwi parents.
His oily cries for “evidence of criminality against Kiwi parents” is just him being disengenious.
The old world word for it is Bullshit.
The criminality is 112 MP’s knowingly voting to traumatise
Forget that at your peril.
Vote:September 29th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Kiwi Parents for a smack on the BUM!
Give your party Vote to ACT
the only Party to not vote against the anti smacking Bill on the principle of it.
Vote:September 29th, 2008 at 11:21 am
A “policy drought” from the Nats, eh, all you Standardistas? Nah, just enough difference on things like THIS that DO MATTER whether you like it or not……
Vote:September 29th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Turpin: Or The Family Party. Act and Family are the only two parties with any hope of gaining seats after the election that are promising to do this. The great thing about this is that you aren’t limited to Act if you want to change the smacking law but disagree with some of their other policies. You have two options, one of which is bound to be to your liking.
Vote:September 29th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
I don’t think a register of MP’s assets is necessary. It’s no-ones business and unless they also itemise the value of each asset and what is in the Family Trusts it doesn’t even indicate their wealth.
Vote:September 30th, 2008 at 2:33 am
National remains silent on the rort that is the Broadcasting Allocation. I suppose it doesn’t matter as MMP is soon to be dead. First Past the Post always made more sense.
Vote: