EFA about to be dust

February 17th, 2009 at 7:17 pm by David Farrar

Peter M has commented that it seems Parliament is going to conclude the third reading of the Electoral Finance Act Repeal tonight.

I will post an update once I hear it has been repealed.

Technically that won’t happen until the GG signs the law, but I’m happy to drive out to Vogel House tonight so there is no delay

UPDATE: And the NZ House of Representatives consigned this law to the dustbin of history at around 7.45 pm. The vote was 112-9 in favour.

Tags: Electoral Finance Act

This entry was posted on Tuesday, February 17th, 2009 at 7:17 pm and is filed under NZ Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

77 Responses to “EFA about to be dust”

Monty (867) Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
excellent – can you report on which Labour Ministers spoke – did any apologise to the National for their corruption of democracy?

Clark is a coward is she did not speak at all. (I guess she ran for the hills rather than speak to this)
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Simon (361) Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
It is a disgrace that Clark is now been supported by Key for a top UN post. The EFA should automatically disqualify Clark from support by National. Lesson for next liberal fascist who at a later time tries to dismantle democracy.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Inventory2 (8,799) Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
She is Monty – but as I have blogged over at Keeping Stock, the Greens called for a party vote on every vote at every stage, and at every vote there was a full ticket of Labour MP’s supporting the repeal. Yes – Helen Clark, Michael Cullen and Annette King will be forever recorded in Hansard as having voted to arsehole their “flagship” legislation.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Monty (867) Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
yay – it is gone

But the Maori Party only registered 4 votes – anone know why?

[DPF: Two of their MPs would have been outside the Parliamentary Precinct. You can only have up to 1/4 away without losing votes]
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
slightlyrighty (2,246) Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Gee Simon, I don’t know. If you could send your hitherto most effective rival to a far away country, would that be a bad thing?
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
dime (6,168) Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
NICE!!!!!

Wonder if in the future kids will learn about Labours assualt on democracy.. probably not? teachers in the future will probably be lefties too?
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Graeme Edgeler (2,904) Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Technically that won’t happen until the GG signs the law

Technically it won’t happen until March 1 – when the amendment act comes into effect.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Whaleoil (729) Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Its gone

The hated Electoral Finance Act has been repeal with only the Greens voting against. Nice to see them confirming their anti-democratic credentials.

This was one task to which I devoted a considerable amount of time, effort and money. Many thanks to David Farrar, John Boscawen, Bernard Darnton, David Hold at Barron’s (for the blogmobile), John Ansell and all the many supporters that enabled us to take the fight to the government over freedom of speech and to finally prevail today with the removal of this egregious law.

It was sickening to listen to the obsequious c**ts of Labour grovel and seek forgiveness for their blatant manipulation of the electoral system for their own political ends.

Once again thanks to all those who fought the fight. now onto #blackout to get rid of another anti-democratic piece of legislation foisted upon us by Labour and Judith Tizard.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
John Boscawen (140) Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Monty for the Maori Party ( and Act) to vote 5 votes they need to have at least 3 of their MPs in parliament’s precincts. When they vote 4, it means there are only 2 Maori MPs on the parliamentary precinct.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Mike Collins (170) Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Stand up and take a bow Mr Boscawen!
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Ross Miller (1,539) Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
Could someone please post the names of those MPs, still in Parliament, who voted for the EFA together with their vote re repeal.

Sez it all really.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
dad4justice (7,339) Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Splendid news gents. Good bust. Klark – Kullen – King are rust in a democracy. Dust them all.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Monty (867) Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Congratulations John – you deserve the thanks and appreciation of all NZers (even the left who were bullied by Clark into supporting that disgraceful peice of legislation)

Can you advise if Clark, Cullen and King spoke to the repeal of the EFA? I guess they didn’t which says a lot about them.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Patrick Starr (3,673) Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
“But the Maori Party only registered 4 votes – anone know why?”

Tuesday night is KFC 20 piece pack for $29
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Inventory2 (8,799) Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
2007: Ayes – Labour, NZ First, Greens, Jim the Progressive, Peter Dunne (until the 3rd reading)
Noes: National, Act, Maori Party

2009 repeal: Ayes: National, Labour, Act, Maori Party, Peter Dunne, Jim the Progressive
Noes: Greens
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
deanknight (262) Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
John Boscawen nearly exploded with joy when he cast ACT’s votes in favour of repeal.

However, not an entirely successful day for him, with the Court of Appeal ruling his claim that the former AG failed in his Bill of Rights reporting duties in relation to the original Bill was correctly dismissed.
http://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases/boscawen-and-ors-v-attorney-general-of-new-zealand/at_download/fileDecision
(As an aside, I think they were right to dispose of the claim in relation to the section 7 reporting role, but too readily disposed of the claim in relation to the request for a declaration of inconsistency…).

Most importantly, the Court said the following about the AG’s reporting role:

[12] As the Attorney-General did not bring to the attention of the House of Representatives any provisions in the Electoral Finance Bill, it can be assumed that he considered that none of the provisions appeared to be inconsistent with any of the rights and freedoms contained in the NZBORA. The appellants say the Attorney-General was wrong in law to hold that view. They did not suggest any wilful refusal to comply with s 7 or any want of good faith on the part of the Attorney-General.
[13] The obligation under s 7 is not a general reporting obligation; it arises only when the Attorney-General considers there is something to report. However, it is a matter of public record that the Attorney-General took advice from officials in the present case. The Crown counsel who gave the advice concluded that the provisions of the Electoral Finance Bill were not inconsistent with the NZBORA, either because they did not interfere with the rights, or if they did place limitations on the rights, then such limitations were justifiable under s 5. However, the advice did include a comment that the s 14 issues were finely balanced, particularly those relating to the regulated period referred to at [9](d) above, and an observation that “the regulation of the electoral system ultimately depends upon political judgments and is an area in which a wide margin of appreciation is afforded to Parliament”.
[14] There is a well established practice that officials of the Ministry of Justice (or of Crown Law in relation to Bills promoted by the Ministry of Justice) advise the Attorney-General in relation to his or her s 7 obligation for every Bill introduced to the House: Cabinet Office Cabinet Manual 2008 (Wellington, 2008) at [7.62].
[15] Since 1 January 2003 the advice provided to the Attorney-General has then been posted on a government website: http://www.justice.govt.nz/bill-of-rights. Although the Attorney-General can theoretically claim legal professional privilege and thus decide not to publish the advice, privilege has been claimed, as far as we are aware,
only on one occasion. In that instance the Attorney-General’s reasons for concluding there was no apparent inconsistency with the NZBORA were published instead. That means that, even where the Attorney-General makes no report under s 7, the advice of officials, or in rare cases the reasons of Attorney-General, as to whether any provision in a Bill appears to be inconsistent with the rights and freedoms contained in the NZBORA are available both publicly and, of course, to Members of Parliament. The practice that the Attorney-General takes advice on s 7 matters and that that advice is published on the internet supplements s 7 itself.
[16] Additionally, the public availability of the advice given to the Attorney-General means that both members of the public and Members of Parliament are able to challenge or support that advice in submissions made to the select committee considering the relevant Bill. This allows further contribution to and participation in the NZBORA debate during the legislative process. Where there are differing views on possible inconsistency with NZBORA rights and as to whether any limitations on any NZBORA right is justified in a free and democratic society, it is appropriate that those issues should be debated in Parliament.
[17] There are a number of other requirements relating to proposed Bills that supplement s 7. Among other things, the Cabinet Office Manual requires Ministers to confirm that a proposed Bill is consistent with the NZBORA when seeking a place for it in the Government’s legislative programme and prior to receiving approval for introduction of the Bill: Cabinet Manual 2008 at [7.60] — [7.61]. Chapter 4 of the Legislation Advisory Committee Guidelines (2001) also sets out guidelines for Ministries to ensure Bills are compliant with the NZBORA.
[18] As noted earlier, the essence of the appellants’ case is that the Attorney¬General’s view that the Electoral Finance Bill was not inconsistent with the rights and freedoms in the NZBORA was wrong. The underlying assumption was that, if the Court reviewed that assessment, it would come to a different and, inferentially, better view. That approach fails to acknowledge that opinions can legitimately vary on human rights issues, particularly on the issue of whether any limitations on rights are justified in a free and democratic society and on assessing the appropriate
balance between rights and between rights and other values (such as privacy) where these may be apparently in conflict.
[19] We refer to one well known case, discussed in Rishworth and others The New Zealand Bill of Rights (2003) at 200 – 201, where Parliament effectively rejected the Attorney-General’s view. The Attorney-General reported to the House that a Bill providing for random breath-testing of motorists conflicted with the NZBORA. However Parliament took a different view, based on independent legal advice the select committee received from the President of the Legislation Advisory Committee, and passed the Bill on the basis that Attorney-General’s view was incorrect.
[20] In an environment where there is room for genuine differences of view, we remind ourselves that Parliament entrusted the s 7 judgment and reporting obligation to the Attorney-General, not to the Courts. The objective of s 7 is to ensure that Parliament has the benefit of the Attorney-General’s assessment. There may be room for different views, but the view which Parliament is to be provided with under s 7 is the genuinely held view of the Attorney-General, whether others consider that view to be right or wrong.
…
[40] We were asked to consider the hypothetical possibility of an Attorney-General who steadfastly refused to make a report to Parliament in the face of legislation clearly interfering with rights contained in the NZBORA despite advice to the contrary and in plain dereliction of duty. We did not find that hypothetical helpful to the analysis of the present situation, where the Attorney-General has formed a legal view consistent with expert advice provided to him by officials and made the assessment which Parliament entrusted to him. The hypothetical example raises issues of process, but the present case raises only a difference of view about the legal assessment made by the Attorney-General.

Interesting, huh?!
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Razork (374) Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Patrick – KFC
Shit that is bad and funny!!!!
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Ratbiter (1,265) Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Who were the 9 opposed? These anti-democracy chavez-style scum should be charged with treason, then taken outside and shot like the socialist apologists they are.

…oops, I must have been channeling ‘Baiter for a second there!

[DPF: Had me fooled ]
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Inventory2 (8,799) Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Monty – in the bits of the debate I saw (pre-dinner), Clark, Cullen and King weren’t even in the House, let alone seeking calls. Labour’s “sackcloth and ashes” routine centred around Parker, Chauvel and Hodgson. Peter Dunne spoke in the First Reading debate, and repented for having supported the EFB’s progress as far as he did.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Whaleoil (729) Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
I listened to Hodgson’s speech, never have I heard such sanctimonious claptrap.

This man virtually frothed and spat when speaking on passing this law and he sent most of his speech saying he wasn’t going to get angry but just had to note blah blah blah……

Nothing but a sanctimonious c**t.

Same for Peter Dunne. Charles Chauvel is just a mincing excuse for humanity…I wince when he speaks.

Now that it is over I find the anger is still there.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Gavin Knight (81) Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
gone! gone! gone!

yes! yes! yes!
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
big bruv (11,198) Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Spot on Whale, I listened to Dunne this afternoon and I fucking near screamed, the man is a complete and utter vagina.

I am in Wellington next month and I have a bloody good mind to make an appointment to see Dunne in his electoral office, there will only be one question…”where is the money you stole from me Mr Dunne?”

Then I will visit all the people I know in Karori (and there are plenty of them) and berate any of them who voted for the wanker.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Ratbiter (1,265) Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
bruv – let us know how you get on with that.

I’ve always found that people tend to have very little time for you, if you scream overwrought emotional abuse them!
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Paul Marsden (801) Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
The more I think about it, the more I think Clark, Cullen et al should all face the firing squad for being communist dictators who attempted to subvert democracy in New Zealand. Not only that, how much did these commies fleece from me and you (ie. the taxpayer), in their perverted pursuit of power?? Their folly must have cost us $millions.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Rex Widerstrom (4,965) Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
We should celebrate somehow. Perhaps a bonfire. Now, which of the control freaks who passed this law look the most flammable?

Simon:

Lesson for next liberal fascist

Is this today’s Kiwiblog “spot the oxymoron” prize?
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Inventory2 (8,799) Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Dunne tried to rewrite history this afternoon. He had the deciding vote in the Select Committee, and could have stopped the Bill being reported back. He didn’t. That he changed his mind at the Third Reading when his paltry two votes didn’t matter a jot was not only an exercise in political grandstanding; it was an arse-covering exercise as well. Peter Dunne – political prostitute par excellence!
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
big bruv (11,198) Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Rat

I am never one to scream outright abuse at people face to face, it is a very cold, calculating and direct approach that I take, no emotion and no histrionics usually sees a satisfactory outcome.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
mickysavage (785) Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
I am sorry but Labour copped out.

The EFA was designed to stop really wealthy people from deciding most if not all future elections by spending large amounts of money. We have reached the stage where there are caps on party spending on campaigns, 2005 caused problems, The EB spent more than most parties and tried to hide their spend. Regulation was appropriate. Otherwise we may as well surrender our democratic system to the wealthy.

Some will agree with this. I could not imagine anything worse.

So there was a really, really big beatup about how the Act infringed on the right to freedom of speech. It did not. If you spent less than $12,000 on advertising you did not have to do a thing. If you spent between $12,000 and $120,000 you had to fill in a form and file it and put your name and address on the advertisement. If you wanted to spend more than $120,000, well who cares? You ought to justify this.

Free speech was fine. Really expensive speech was regulated and really really expensive speech was prohibited.

The parties have done a deal. Labour has pleaded mea culpa, National is being magnanamous and only the Greens are raising concerns.

A joint party process is proposed and this is good. It did not work last time because Labour wanted to regulate the third party spend and National wanted no regulation whatsoever.

The debate would be assisted by the parties debating three basic principles:

1. Should there be a limitation on the spend by political parties,
2. If so should there be regulation of the spend by third parties,
3. What about state funding? At least it would stop the parties from seeking funding from the wealthy …

[DPF: So many factual errors. Where to start. Take one - the claim National wanted no regulation. False, false, false. As early as 2006, National said it would support some reasonable rules around third party campaigns. Labour refused to ever meet with National on the issue.]
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
big bruv (11,198) Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
1. Should there be a limitation on the spend by political parties…NO
2. If so should there be regulation of the spend by third parties….NO
3. What about state funding? At least it would stop the parties from seeking funding from the wealthy …FUCKING NOOOOOOOO
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
mickysavage (785) Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
Well BB

1. There has been a limitation on the spend since 1957. Perhaps you could confirm that if you oppose this then in your view the wealthy ought to have an advantage.
2. If you say no to 1 then there is no need for a limitation on the third party spend. BTW the US has fairly sophisticated rules regulating the spend by candidates and by third parties. Apparently it has something to do with the desire to stop the big corporates taking over.
3. Oh well. The parties will need to continue to rely on the likes of Owen Glenn. I am sorry but if the involvement of people like him is bad then we need to provide state funding. To help the debate perhaps the National Party could provide the names of its Owen Glenns and the amount they donated. To start things off I thought they could complete the following:

Lord Ashcroft $#,###,###

Please confirm the value of each of the #s

[DPF: And again you are full of shit. Don;t you know to do research or do you just make it up? The US has no limits regulating the spend by third parties. And Lord Ashcroft is unable under both the law just repealed and the replacement law to donate more than $1,000 so again you make it up]
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
getstaffed (9,188) Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
Did someone say Chateau Lafite-Rothschild? Where? When?
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
getstaffed (9,188) Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
mickeysavage, You just don’t get it do you?!? Your attempted perversion of the democratic process was cut short by suspicious voters, and it’s now been completely reversed by a government with more integrity and more spine (along with the [unneeded] help of those pathetic labour lap dogs)

So, in summary… please take your whimpering socialist snivel elsewhere.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
The Silent Majority (79) Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
This is a great day for democracy. I have tried to drum into my children the significance of this and what we have been “saved” from. Democracy worked…just…and those who opposed the Act were able to be in Parliament to vote for it’s repeal.

If it wasn’t for dedicated, passionate people like John Boscawen and everyone else who fought publicly against this law and brought it to the attention of New Zealanders, New Zealand would be heading towards a very scary place.

I hope we never forget what Labour did and I hope we stay vigilant for all attacks against our precious freedoms.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Inventory2 (8,799) Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
mickysavage – to paraphrase Mickey Cullen’s words:

We won; you lost; now piss off into the night and let us celebrate!!
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
mickysavage (785) Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
getstaffed

Please answer the questions. If the right wing think there should be no rules they should say so. If they think the EB’s example is appropriate then they should confirm.

This is a frustrating debate. The right wing have never got past stage one of the debate. I have this feeling of deja vu ..
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
mickysavage (785) Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
inventory2

So the right wing are now changing the electoral rules to favour its re-election?

[DPF: Far from it. The EFA greatly favoured the incumbent Governnment.]
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Lee C (4,499) Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
mickey – so you admit that was what Labour were up to all along? Is it now safe to do so?

Anyway here’s my take on it:

http://monkeyswithtypewriter.blogspot.com/2009/02/efa-rip.html
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Whaleoil (729) Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
So mickey how is your Trademe account now?
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
getstaffed (9,188) Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
This is a frustrating debate

No, it was a frustrating debate… when your corrupt buddies pushed this mess on us, and I joined 1000’s of ordinary Kiwis in a concerted effort to thwart the plans of a few powerful and power-hungry socialists.

In summary, no – I won’t answer your questions because (a) the debate is over, (b) your questions stem from vacuous strawman arguments and (c) I’m too busy celebrating having our democracy restored.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
mickysavage (785) Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
Whaleoil

I regret but I do not understand your question. If you are referring to JK’s plaster then I did not place a bet. Fred Hollows was a great guy and I would happily donate money to him but not in a way that would endorse Key’s political beliefs.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
John Ansell (857) Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
John Boscawen is a true Kiwi patriot and should feel very proud of himself tonight.

John’s not one of the mega-rich, yet spent a proportionately vast amount of his own money standing up for the rights of us all.

Helping him with his ads, I observed his absolute integrity and a level of determination I have never witnessed before.

Against my advice, he bent over backwards to keep his message apolitical, in the hope that he could retain the ability to convince Helen Clark of the error of her ways. His sole concern was the preservation of our democracy, rather than political point scoring.

In the end, John’s decision and right to spend his own money was crucial to the eventual eradication of this noxious law.

How ironic, then, that the political party he now represents in Parliament has long been denied the same right – indeed the cosy deal done by Labour and National to limit campaign spending was designed to lock parties like ACT out of our democracy.

John is evidence that it didn’t work. He’s going to be a great MP.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
NX (595) Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Couple of comments:

1. It’s amazing that the MP for Mt Albert is personally voting to repel a law that her government spent months arguing for! Yeah, I know it’s not a conscious vote – but technically an MP’s vote is their own (someone can correct me on that). So the same applies for the MP for Rongotai (Annette King).
Incredible really – King defended the EFA in parliament for months & now she’s voting to get rid of it. How does that work? Did someone flick a switch – at what point did it become wrong?

2. Consider this – Labour in opposition would be seriously hampered if the EFA stayed in law.

…. I just think it’s unfortunate that it’s only political junkies like us that are aware of how very wrong and hypercritical Labour are on this issue.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
mickysavage (785) Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
John Ansell

So a really rich person ought to have even more democratic power than an ordinary person. If he can spend his own money then the problem is that many decent ordinary kiwis’ voices will be ignored because they do not have the same amount of financial resources as John. So the size of the wallet is a consideration?

Act has spent huge amounts of money but has failed to get any sort of popular support.

Are you suggesting they should spend even more money in the hope that they will get greater support?

PS John Boscawen needs professional help. A great MP is someone who becomes part of their community.

[DPF: 20 demerits for the comments on Boscawen. And you undermine your own case of equating money with democratic power by noting ACT has had lots of money but few votes. I've published research showing the correlation between spend and votes is very low]
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
dad4justice (7,339) Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
“John Boscawen needs professional help.”

You need a lobotomy you deranged creep. John B is a good bloke.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
The Silent Majority (79) Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Micky Savage
“So the size of the wallet is a consideration?”

No, the size of the passion is the main consideration. people with passion can achieve anything, if John had been a pauper I guarantee you he still would have run an effective campaign against the EFA. He would have found a way.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
NX (595) Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
Micky wrote:

So a really rich person ought to have even more democratic power than an ordinary person.

Everyone’s vote counts the same bud. I reckon people have the ability to ignore what they don’t like. For example I get bombarded with Pack’n Save adds all the time, doesn’t mean I shop there.

Oh look… you’ve counted your own argument:

Act have spent huge amounts of money but have failed to get any sort of popular support.

However I do support spending caps. Otherwise elections just end up wasting heaps of cash i.e. Hillary vs. Obama.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
getstaffed (9,188) Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
Act has spent huge amounts of money but has failed to get any sort of popular support

So you’re saying that money didn’t actually translate into votes. But then you claim that others (EBs) might have gained influence by spending their own money, but that it’s OK for the government to spend my money (state funding) campaigning about how worthy they are of my vote?!?

A little honesty here huh? You feel anything that helps get your socialist idols elected is good, pure and honest, while anything that lessens that prospect is evil, dishonest and should be legislated against. Venezuela is ripe for your type of thinking. Off you go..!
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,672) Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
Good job.

The EFA was an embarrassment to New Zealand. New Zealand can only benefit from its demise.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
bobux (349) Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
Hats off to DPF and John Boscowan, who turned this from a ‘beltway issue’ into a national debate.

Mickey – care to produce some evidence for your 9.52pm claim that National wanted no regulation whatsoever. That simply isn’t true, and saying it shows that you are either dishonest or woefully ill-informed.

Or both.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Hagues (711) Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
NX “King defended the EFA in parliament for months & now she’s voting to get rid of it. How does that work? Did someone flick a switch – at what point did it become wrong?
2. Consider this – Labour in opposition would be seriously hampered if the EFA stayed in law.”

Point 2 answers point 1, the flick of the switch was the election.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
adc (519) Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
hey mickeysavage

I have a problem with your original first statement The EFA was designed to…

That’s rubbish. It was designed to provide the incumbents with increased power in an election, to remain incumbent. You just spouted the line of BS they tried to sell it to us as, but that’s not what it actually was. It was an affront to democracy.

Whether or not there should be limits on spending etc etc is an independent issue. This act (thankfully now repealed) didn’t address those issues, and had so many holes in it (still allowed Owen Glenn to donate to Labour), as well as so horribly skewing political campaigning in an election year (incumbent ministers could use ministerial budgets to “remind” us of all the good they were doing, whilst a candidate was capped at 20k) that even the average voter out there could catch the stench and guess what they did about it…
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
adc (519) Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 11:43 pm
Hagues…

what does Annette King care anyway, when she retires to the south of France with her swiss numbered account courtesy of Chiron corp from her days as swindling minister of health she’ll forget all about it.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
calendar girl (888) Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 11:55 pm
Apart from gratitude for huge contributions to the cause made by Boscawen, Farrar, Whale and others, my thoughts tonight are about two issues:

1. I never want to see again in this country such an orchestrated campaign by any government to denigrate and demonise a perfectly legitimate and respectable religious group – the Exclusive Brethren. Helen Clark and her allies portrayed the EB as a “cult” and insinuated almost treasonous conduct on their part. When we allow a minority religious group to be openly disparaged in this way, by our own government no less, we start down the slippery slope that has produced historical atrocities such as the holocaust and examples of religious intolerance such as those portrayed in Northern Ireland and certain Islamic states. The Labour Government and its allies chose to deliberately smear a small religious group of New Zealand citizens for their own political ends. That was another disgraceful element of their attempts to distort the political balance and rights of our democracy.

2. There remains a nagging suggestion that I can’t dismiss from my mind that the entire EFA exercise was designed to achieve, ultimately, full funding of “qualifying” political parties by taxpayers. A suggestion that this was Labour’s strategy to achieve permanent parity of funding with the National Party. It is repugnant, of course, that individual taxpayers (other that trade union members, curiously) should be required forcibly to fund political parties and philosophies with which they disagree vehemently. But it’s worse than that – if the parties of the left can achieve collective parity of funding without party effort and without policies that have the power to attract donations, then in the run-up to an election their leadership elite become even less accountable to their wider party membership and to the public in general.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
NX (595) Says:
February 18th, 2009 at 12:23 am
Hagues wrote:

Point 2 answers point 1, the flick of the switch was the election.

Can Labour really be that repugnant?

If so our democracy is not healthy. Labour’s defeat should’ve been an order of magnitude bigger for a proper reset.

Though some commentators have argued that the true scale of Labour’s defeat is masked by MMP. On an electorate basis the Labour clowns were soundly defeated.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
paradigm (507) Says:
February 18th, 2009 at 12:34 am
I think my thoughts on Helen et al are best illustrated by quoting Peter Jackson’s masterpiece:

“Well, this has buggered your plans for conquering the universe”
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
peteremcc (326) Says:
February 18th, 2009 at 12:45 am
I went down to watch the repeal in the house. Call me a geek but I felt it was one of those ‘I was there’ moments. Unfortunately given the very short notice that the repeal was happening then, there were only two other people in the gallery with me, and I didn’t recognise either.

National MPs and John Boscawen gave great speeches.

The content of their speeches made the Labour MPs sounded like they were voting against the repeal.
Highlights included Mark Burton calling for state funding of political parties and Lynne Pillay (i think) attacking the young National MPs who spoke for fillibustering.

Russell Norman sounded like he was speaking about the EFA two years ago – “We have to stop people like the Exclusive Brethren and the Business Roundtable from buying the election”.

In summary, the left seem to misunderstand the meaning of free in ‘Free Speech’.

When the Bill of Rights, the UN Declaration on Human Rights, the NZ Human Rights Commission and all sorts of other organisations and people talk about ‘Free Speech’, the don’t mean free as in beer, they mean free as in freedom.

Thank you to National and ACT for understanding the difference.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
peteremcc (326) Says:
February 18th, 2009 at 1:18 am
“The content of their speeches”

the content of the Labour MP’s speeches I mean.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
clintheine (1,534) Says:
February 18th, 2009 at 2:45 am
I agree with Calander Girl. NZ was a nasty place 3 or so years ago when Helen and her party decided to attack a religious group in NZ. She has now put words into peoples brains about the Bretherens that will linger for a generation, simply because she was not happy about who they supported.

The hate speech and following legislation were 2 low points in NZ’s political history. Helen doesn’t care, mickysavage doesn’t care either. I am glad we have politicans and supporters out there who also made a stand against this behaviour, which was designed to shut down debate against Labour.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Pascal (2,015) Says:
February 18th, 2009 at 7:19 am
MickeySavage:

The EFA was designed to stop really wealthy people from deciding most if not all future elections by spending large amounts of money.

You forgot the second bit. It goes as follows:

“Whilst allowing the Labour Party and the Green Party to spend government funding on their election campaigns without repercussions.”

You also forgot the third bit. It goes as follows:

“I acknowledge the really wealthy were the political parties that stole money from the tax payer to pay for their election campaigns, after having been advised by the electoral comission that it was going to put them over the limit.”

I’m not even going to touch the beat up organised by the Greens and their associate, the Labour Party, on the Exclusive Brethren. That was an assault on a group that had every right to voice their political opinion and speak out against what they perceived to be the wrongs in our society. And yet, the Labour Party and the Green Party could not bear the disagreement so they attacked them, used the media to demonise them and in doing so set the tone for what would be their eventual downfall.

Get the message. Most New Zealanders do not like dishonest, corrupt and vindictive people. I realize you do, you support them after all, but most of us don’t. The last election should show you that.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Pascal (2,015) Says:
February 18th, 2009 at 7:24 am
And this tells a rather interesting story.

http://www.elections.org.nz/record/donations/party-donation-returns-2007.html
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
the deity formerly known as nigel6888 (830) Says:
February 18th, 2009 at 7:44 am
interesting to see that only the greens and our favourite lefty “mickysavage” support the EFA. Must be pretty hard being relentlessly on the side of totalitarianism mustn’t it.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Murray (8,832) Says:
February 18th, 2009 at 8:14 am
Well this explains why I was woken up by singing and dancing munchkins this morning.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
MT_Tinman (2,222) Says:
February 18th, 2009 at 10:01 am
I take this opportunity to add my thanks to those who did so much to ensure the repeal of this disgusting piece of legislation and like many would like to see, as the logical next step, the trial and incarceration of those instrumental in it’s promotion and adoption on charges of corruption and treason.

Calendar Girl raises a good point in her post, that of union funding of the Labour Party.

I’m not (completely) opposed to unions, they provide checks and balances, when doing the things they are designed to do, that are often needed but the theft of members money to support one (very flawed) political ideology seems to me very wrong.

I suggest this practice needs to be outlawed and unions told that any political funding by their members must be done on an individual basis.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Brian Smaller (3,835) Says:
February 18th, 2009 at 10:11 am
Please answer the questions. If the right wing think there should be no rules they should say so. If they think the EB’s example is appropriate then they should confirm.

I saw their pamphlet on the Greens. It did not seem to tell any lies, so no, I have no problems with them spending their money.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
georgebolwing (404) Says:
February 18th, 2009 at 10:22 am
I agree that yesterday was a good day for democracy in New Zealand.

It will be a great day when the Bill of Rights actually does what it should, and stop Parliament from taking away ANYONE’S rights to participate HOW THEY PLEASE in an election campaign.

The only regulation of election activities that I can see being justified in a free and democratic society is a strict requirement for transparency, in the form of a requirement for people who wish to speak in an election to correctly identify themselves and those who wish to finance other speakers should also be required to declare their activities.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
getstaffed (9,188) Says:
February 18th, 2009 at 10:36 am
Brian Smaller – Any truth that exposes their lies is a lie. Any lie that hides the truth is the truth. So operates the warped socialist mind.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
CraigM (676) Says:
February 18th, 2009 at 11:57 am
Nothing much to add but I do want to say thank you to all of those on Kiwiblog who wrote hundreds of posts, hundreds of submissions and raised the noise level regarding this atrocious piece of legislation.

And of course my thanks to those who “drove” the fight, all of whom have been mentioned in posts above.

What a wonderful day and a wonderful end to one of the saddest political events in our short history.

God I love this country.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
kiwi in america (1,895) Says:
February 18th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
I love mickeysavage’s blind alliegance to his political masters. Many on here have rebutted him. There is one vital component to the whole EFA debacle and to me the most egregious – the fact that Labour/Greens/Winston 1st sought to overturn the long standing convention that any major amendments to the Electoral Act (the closest thing NZ has to a Constitution) are always done in a bi-partisan way with the widest possible consultation. Witness the change from FPP to MMP. Regardless of individuals views on the wisdom or otherwise of this change, it was preceded by a lengthy Royal Commission and TWO referenda so there was no surprise when it became law.

The supporters of the EFA adopted the classic realpolitik of the left – any means justifies the ends.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
MikeMan (171) Says:
February 18th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Pascal (1773) Vote: 1 0 Says:

February 18th, 2009 at 7:24 am
And this tells a rather interesting story.

http://www.elections.org.nz/record/donations/party-donation-returns-2007.html

Is anyone else concerned that Toll Consolidated gave $25K to both Labour and National? That surely moves it from support of a party to attemping to buy a political party?
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
bwakile (757) Says:
February 18th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
KIA
Don’t forget to add peter Dunne to the list of shame
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
John Ansell (857) Says:
February 18th, 2009 at 11:40 pm
mickysavage: The odium being heaped upon you is richly deserved. Yes, Boscawen should be allowed to lay down his own money to save the rest of us from tyranny.

You forget – or don’t want to know – that if he has a lot more money than you, he also pays a lot more tax than you.

He works harder than you, earns more than you, and pays more tax than you. Why then should he not be able to spend more money than you on whichever cause takes his fancy?

It’s called fairness.

I mean it’s not as though his efforts corrupted democracy. They saved it.

And on that subject, I’ve just realised that our host Mr Farrar is not getting his fair share of credit for the demise of the EFA.

Though John B was a huge driving force in the later part of the campaign, it was David’s meticulous cataloguing of the very complex clauses (together with Labour’s sorry record of abuses) that put it on the public and media agenda early on.

Both deserve a medal for services to democracy.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Peebs.Net (2) Says:
February 19th, 2009 at 1:49 am
We represent hundreds of ex-EB and although we agree the EFA was poor legislation and deserved repeal, we feel it is important to note that many believe the Exclusive Brethren are accurately defined as a cult. Is is not the fact that they participated in the 2005 elections that should draw criticism, but the way in which they did so. It was typical Exclusive Brethren ‘flying under the radar’.

It is not ‘demonising’ to call a spade a spade if criticism is based on truth. Helen may have used the event for attempted political gain, but her instincts in this matter were correct. The EB were a dangerous group prior to the 2005 elections and remain dangerous today. They break up families and remain unutterably heartless in their restriction of basic human interaction between members and ex-members.

Please do not whitewash a cult in an over-enthusiastic response to the removal of an unpopular and needlessly restrictive law. Helen may have gone, but the Exclusive Brethren remain.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Redbaiter (13,197) Says:
February 19th, 2009 at 2:15 am
“The EB were a dangerous group prior to the 2005 elections and remain dangerous today.”

A Stalinist lie. The EB attempted to bring a series of important political points to the attention of the voters after the mainstream media, totally in the tank for Labour and determined to discredit Don Brash, had failed miserably to report objectively and inform the public. ..and their overseas colleagues did the same during the last US elections with their disgusting betrayal of their duty to provide information objectively and their dangerous and anti-democratic fawning over the thug Obama. The same kind of fawning that gave rise to Adolf Hitler.

The EB are not breaking any laws. They are entitled to a political viewpoint and to express that viewpoint. Especially when the mainstream media are so derelict in their duty. Take your slanderous and baseless allegations elsewhere.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
clintheine (1,534) Says:
February 19th, 2009 at 2:58 am
Labour is more dangerous than the EB. The EB keep out of our lives while Labour can’t help themselves and want to control how we spend, bring up our children, tax rates……
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Leonidas (919) Says:
February 19th, 2009 at 9:09 am
I’d like to say thanks John, David and Cameron amongst others for all their efforts in this cause.

And a great big FUCK YOU to Lairbour, the Watermelons and BaublesFirst.

Lairbour look pathetic for their flip flop,
Watermelons look equally pathetic in their ignorance of reality.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
georgebolwing (404) Says:
February 19th, 2009 at 9:21 am
Redbaiter

While I agree that democracy and liberty are enhanced when more people participate in the electoral and political processes, especially when that results in a robust testing of ideas. So the EB’s participation was positive.

But I am still troubled by the way they did what they did. In particular, I am concerned that they are guilty of “noble cause corruption”, thinking that the end justifies the means.

I think that the right to speak in political forums comes with a responsibility to do so transparently, allowing everyone to judge not just your words, but also your motives and likely prejudices. Thus, I am happy for the EMPU to run adds that say “The EMPU thinks that National’s policies are bad for workers”. But I would be unhappy for the EMPU to produce flyers that say “National’s policies are bad for workers” and not put their name to them.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Redbaiter (13,197) Says:
February 19th, 2009 at 10:41 am
“But I would be unhappy for the EMPU to produce flyers that say “National’s policies are bad for workers” and not put their name to them.”

Whatver you may be “unhappy” about and whatever mincing complaints you may have about how information is presented, there is never any good reason for you or your buddies to introduce legislation restricting freedom of political expression. Full of misinformation from lying political activists/ the mainstream media, you probably don’t even truly know “the way they did what they did”.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Kiwiblog

EFA about to be dust

Share this:

Related posts:

77 Responses to “EFA about to be dust”

Leave a Reply