Electoral Finance Act Repeal may be unanimous
The Herald reports that the repeal of the Electoral Finance Act may be unanimous. Only the Greens have to decide on whether they will support it.
It would be most appropriate for it to be repealed by 122 votes to zero. A symbolic burial.
Will the Police manage to make decisions on outstanding cases before the law is repealed?
The introduction of the repeal bill is set to be tomorrow. And it should be gone some stage during next week.
It has been suggested that there should be some drinks organised to celebrate the repeal. That is a fine idea, and we may try and organise something in Wellington and Auckland around the time of the third and final reading of the repeal bill.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: Electoral Finance Act
February 11th, 2009 at 6:47 am
Will Labour Staffers be bringing the wine then?
[DPF: lol]
February 11th, 2009 at 8:03 am
Helen Clark, Michael Cullen and Annette King will have their votes recorded in FAVOUR of repealing the EFA?
I don’t know what to say…..
February 11th, 2009 at 8:27 am
I suggest we meet in the gallery with tape over our mouths, and stand up and rip it off as the MPs vote.
Then we can go for drinks!
February 11th, 2009 at 8:35 am
Sushi Goblin
The cunning buggers will know that if the House unanimously supports a measure, the votes are not actually recorded!
The presiding officer will put the question “That the [name of the bill] be read a third time” and ask “all those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no”. They will then say “I think the ayes have it”. And this is the important bit: if no member says “The noes have it”, the question is agreed to without a party vote. Hansard and the Journals of the House will simply record “Bill read a third time.”
February 11th, 2009 at 8:50 am
You may need to book a larger venue than backbenchers
February 11th, 2009 at 8:58 am
Could someone please explain to this rather simple ex-soldier just how politicians who voted for the EFA less than 18 months ago could now vote for its repeal …. and still ‘lie’ straight in bed?
February 11th, 2009 at 8:59 am
Yeah, i was trying to think of a way to force a personal vote, so each MP had to vote for themselves.
Apparently it’s up to the speaker.
February 11th, 2009 at 9:10 am
The Bill as I understand it will leave EFA penalties in place for any prosecutions that may be in the pipeline. Normally, the penalty for criminal offending is the lesser of that at the time the crime was committed and that at the time of sentencing. If a particular offence is repealed it could be argued that the penalty reduces to zero, but does not mean that those previously sentenced wold be pardoned or have sentences reduced. However for administrative offences rather than ‘real’ crimes, such an approach would not make sense. EFA offences perhaps fall between the two and by leaving the penalties clauses in place, Parliament is sending a strong message that residual EFA offences are to be dealt with in the usual manner.
Possibly the Police Commissioner has the biggest headache because when setting policing priorities, he has (via his management team) to determine how much resource to apply to EFA investigations and prosecutions. Of course any grave EFA infringement that strikes at the root of democracy needs to be given similar priority as given to major crime. However for minor infringements, they will probably receive even less attention than the minimal attention they now get.
February 11th, 2009 at 9:19 am
I’m sure Helen Clark will stop by the drinks to join in the celebrations. After all the party would be practically held in her honour as chief architect of the EFA.
February 11th, 2009 at 9:21 am
Ross, there was an undersupply of ’straightness’ from the ranks of the previous lot.
February 11th, 2009 at 10:00 am
What a fucking waste of everybody’s time and money to have it enacted in the first place.
February 11th, 2009 at 10:01 am
They’re bent Ross.
Think Q staff but without the morals and friendly service.
February 11th, 2009 at 10:15 am
A personal vote would be virtually impossible to engineer on a matter that is subject to a party whip.
A party vote will require at least one party to (a) vote no on the voices and (b) to then call for a party vote.
The Speaker can then call a personal vote if a member requests one and the Speaker considers that the decision on the party vote is so close that a personal vote may make a material difference to the result (SO 140). But this is very rare.
February 11th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
george – so could Rodney/ACT vote ‘no’ simply to flush out into the open the personal votes of the original EFA[B] supporters?
February 11th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
They could note no to require a party vote, but as the Party vote would then be 117 to 5, a personal vote would not make a material difference.
So I think that we are stuck with no record of the individuals voting.