Electoral Finance Act Repeal First Reading
February 13th, 2009 at 6:38 am by David FarrarSomewhat annoyingly, the EFA Repeal Bill is not yet online. But Parliament started the first reading debate on it yesterday, and the Herald reports that it was encouraging:
When Labour’s electoral spokesman David Parker stood to speak in last night’s first reading of the bill to repeal the EFA, he was quick to follow his leader Phil Goff and get Labour’s backdown on record.
“So we do concede that there are imperfections with the existing law, that it did produce an overly complicated regime, that it can be improved.”
It prompted MP Jonathan Coleman to yell “so you’re admitting you got it wrong” . Mr Parker – to his credit – refused to rise to the bait and just agreed, in triplicate.
“I have already admitted that. I’m happy to do mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa again. There were imperfections.”
I thought Parker handled himself well, and with dignity.
Yesterday, Labour and Progressives leader Jim Anderton said they would support its repeal after getting assurances National was genuine about working with them on a more enduring replacement.
Only the Green Party is refusing to support the repeal, saying while it was flawed it remained better than the previous law.
And this tells us more about the Green Party, than anything else.
Mr Anderton put in a plea for National not to take vengeance, saying he accepted it was “aggrieved” by what had happened and believed the EFA needed to be replaced.
“Just as we on this side of the House have come to this view, I ask those on that side to be constructive.”
And sadly Jim Anderton is right. I know there are times when I want “utu”, but at the end of the day the Electoral Act is too important to become a plaything for the Government of the Day.
Mr Parker, Mr Anderton and Greens co-leader Russel Norman all stressed that they stuck by the principles of the EFA – and any replacement had to address the transparency of funding of political parties, as well as limits on how far other people and groups could go in campaigning for a party in an election campaign.
I don’t think there is any serious opposition to transparency around party funding.
The issue of restrictions on third parties is more divisive. Ironically the way it is worded about “limits on how far other people and groups could go in campaigning for a party in an election campaign.”, well the limit is $0. It is illegal under both the old and the new law to publish any advertisement campaigning for a party, without the party’s permission – and the cost comes out of the party’s limit.
What Parker and Anderton really mean is they want limits on how much third parties can spend attacking political parties.
I think the bigger issue is around transparency of third party advertising, rather than limiting it. I also think one needs to look at carrots, not just sticks, when it comes to third party activities. I’ll blog in ore detail some ideas at some stage.
Related posts:
- Electoral Finance Act Repeal may be unanimous
- Electoral Finance Act repeal
- Repeal the Electoral Finance Act
- The electoral finance reform the Government turned down
February 13th, 2009 at 7:28 am
I’m sorry, but when are the greens going to learn to STFU. The are against the EFA repeal because it was better than the law it replaced. The EFA was universally denounced, so the government is trying to include all the political spectra in developing its replacement through the kind of consultative process, that had Labour followed would have seen the EFA die before it started. So are they saying they against progressive reform, via multilateral consultation. Are they saying they are against the principles upon which our democratic system is built
What a bunch of dickheads.
Vote:February 13th, 2009 at 7:37 am
Think the Act should be repealed in Toto, excepting the Green Party of Course!!
Vote:February 13th, 2009 at 7:58 am
I think Billy Bunter needs to learn how to do his job a bit better.
Vote:February 13th, 2009 at 8:01 am
It’s quite clear to me that 3rd parties should be able to support and campaign for a party of their choice. It’s a Democracy, innut?
JC
Vote:February 13th, 2009 at 8:06 am
I think Clark needs to get up in Parliament and admit she was wrong. The vengeful witch needs to eat humble pie before we can seriously consider Labour are truely regretful that they tried to corrupt democracy.
Vote:February 13th, 2009 at 8:13 am
of course they are, they’re the communist party of NZ, who’d expect anything less?
Even if National change this law, Labour will change it back at the soonest convenience. The convention has been broken, it cannot be rejoined. They’ve proven they want to go to an authoritarian state. In the interests of democracy, don’t vote for them again, ever, until anyone connected with the current bunch, or anyone who shares the same tendency, has been replaced.
A vote for Labour or the Greens is a vote for a drift towards communism. That’s the reality, don’t kid yourself anymore.
Vote:February 13th, 2009 at 8:24 am
Parker may have been repentant (no sign of Annette King in the house – wonder why?), but Christopher Finlayson was the star performer, correcting Parker’s Latin
http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2009/02/nostra-maxima-culpa.html
Vote:February 13th, 2009 at 8:34 am
Here’s why the Greens oppose the repeal.
Their very existence and their only hope of somehow getting their sweaty little hands on the levers of power centre on the need to protect their thin, cracking veneer of environmentalism. And protect it they must because beneath it lurks a dangerous bunch of communists, uber-control freaks, druggies and other fringe weidos who would pollute NZ with a filthy river of social engineering and left wing extremism. MMP allows these people to gain access to our lives by stealth, by preying on the genuine, if ill considered, concern for the environment of many NZers.
The EB’s are simply a vehicle for them to divert attention from their game plan – which is to keep their environmental veneer enact at all costs. The Green’s self- righteous outrage at the odd religious beliefs and the downright weird customs of the EB’s is just clanging noise, because if the Country Womans Institute or the NZ Lawn Bowls Assn had mounted a ‘truth about the Greens’ leaflet campaign like the EB’s did then they would have been the subjected to similar Greens wrath.
So anything that allows concerned NZers to unmask the Greens’ true ambitions in their desire to grab the reigns of power is something that must be stopped at all costs. The cost of your democratic rights and mine is a price they’re prepared to pay.
Vote:February 13th, 2009 at 8:36 am
So Labour and the Progressives are sorry. So I guess are rapists the moment before sentencing.
Labour and the Progressives were jointly happy to rape the democratic process.
Some might say their sentence was delivered on election day. A more balanced assessment might be that they should never be entrusted with the reigns of power least they abuse it again.
p.s. If Winston First were still in Parliament would they have voted for repeal? …. don’t think so.
Vote:February 13th, 2009 at 8:46 am
Well said Ross – the “sorry” analogy is a good one – all they are sorry for is being caught out.
Vote:February 13th, 2009 at 8:58 am
It needs a Royal Commission of Inquiry to expose the corrupt election processes indulged in last election by all the parties and those connected to the Electoral Office. Key exposes himself as a weakling in not tackling this issue and giving us a truly corruptin free, democratic election process
Vote:February 13th, 2009 at 10:34 am
The Bill can be found on the NZ Legislation site:
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2009/0015-1/latest/versions.aspx
Clause 15 is the nice one:
Repeal of Electoral Finance Act 2007
15. The Electoral Finance Act 2007 (2007 No 111) is repealed.
I do hope that this sorry saga will increase pressure for a true, enforceable, Bill of Rights.
Vote:February 13th, 2009 at 10:43 am
george – a question following on from one a couple of days ago… about getting the repeal votes of former-EFA supporters visible. I think a great many NZers would like to see supporter’s hypocrisy exposed but this is difficult when they hide behind a party vote or whatever. Are there any options? e.g. could the repeal be introduced as a private members bill – if that would make any difference?
Vote:February 13th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Given Labour’s apparent remorse at making such a terrible mistake (yeah right), the Nats have a fantastic opportunity to put in place constitutional parameters that make it impossible for anyone to try rorting the election process ever again. What Labour did was the height of cynicism and it was unforgivable. Ideally they should be made to choke on the humble pie and I hope the Nats are just saving the ammo for a rainy day – it all seems a bit too polite at the moment.
Vote:February 13th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
The issue is not the status of the Bill, but whether it is to be subject to a party whip or a conscience vote. Members’ Bill are often subject to a party vote, while some government bills (those dealing with “moral” issues) are made conscience issues.
The PM could release his caucus from the whip and say that for them it is a conscious issue (knowing that they will all vote for repeal anyway), and challenge the other leaders to do the same. But it would then still be up to the Speaker to allow a personal vote to be held instead of a party vote.
I think the only thing that can happen is for the Government to bring moral force on Helen Clark and Annette King and others to avail themselves of Standing Order 139 (d) which allows any member to vote contrary to his or her party’s vote.
Vote:February 13th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
It seems to me that any reform should prohibit Unions from making donations, although they should be at liberty to encourage their members to make individual donations direct to the party of their choice. Union fees could be reduced to allow for the individuals excercise of their discretion.
Vote:February 13th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Would it be a good idea to entrench the new law so that never again can Labour corrupt our democracy to their own ends as they did with the EFA. Will Clark have the courage to speack to this Bill as it progresses through parliament – or will she show her true colours and like a coward refuse to front?
I back the latter.
I certainly agree with Baxter that the rights of unions should be limited.
Vote:February 13th, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Labour is terrified of being on the receiving end of the EFA. Of course they want to repeal it. Three months ago they were dying in a ditch defending it. Shows what craven arseholes they are.
Vote:February 13th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
Good point, Brian Smaller. That should be hammered by the Nats.
Vote: