Greens to oppose EFA Repeal
February 12th, 2009 at 11:37 am by David FarrarThe Greens cement their position as extremists, by announcing they are going to vote against the repeal of the Electoral Finance Act.
Russel Norman say:
The Electoral Finance Act can be better but even now it does a lot more good than bad.
More good than bad. I wish I could live in that universe.
This just shows what antipathy they have for people spending their own money on having a voice, rather than looting the taxpayer for funding.
Related posts:
- Hypocrisy from the Greens
- Greens trying to buy a referendum
- Herald on Greens taxpayer funded petition
- PSA supports EFA repeal
February 12th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Killjoys.
Vote:February 12th, 2009 at 11:50 am
Good for them – no snivelling toadyism from the Greens (sorry Toad!). I think they are using Peter Dunne as a measure – whatever he does, they reject. Very wise. Your comment, DPF, “I wish I could live in that universe” reveals your deep desire to be green and I wish you luck. If I can be of service to you in your quest to better yourself, just ask
[DPF: Heh]
Vote:February 12th, 2009 at 11:57 am
As I told the SC this is a matter that like the pollies salaries they should not be deciding FFS its all about conflict of interest.
When is the penny gonna drop Sure the pollies can put their two pence in but it must be the citizens who have the final say on how they are funded and what they can and cannot do in the period leading up to an election.
Otherwise good govenrance principles go out the window and we just run the white flag up the pole.
I repeat a Commission make up of 3 retired High Court Judges to hear submissions and come up with no more then 3 models for the citizens to chose from.
Its called democracy a quaint old fashioned idea that is largely ignored
Vote:February 12th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Funny how it reads if you replace the words “Exclusive Brethren” with “Jews”
“The Electoral Finance Act (EFA) helps keep big money out of politics and the National-led Government should retain more than just its rules on donation disclosures, the Green Party said today.
Vote:In a repeal of the EFA to be read in Parliament on Thursday, the Government plans to eliminate provisions aimed at undue political influence by groups such as the Jews.
“We fought for disclosure provisions in the Electoral Finance Act because they are crucial to an honest democracy and we welcome the Government’s decision to retain rules that make political donations more transparent,” said Green Party Co-Leader Dr Russel Norman.
“But why go backwards when we need to go forward? We should keep the current Act until a better piece of legislation is ready. The EFA is a big improvement on what we had before, when the major parties were able to use secret trusts and big anonymous donations. Loopholes also allowed the National Party and the Jews to thwart campaign spending caps.
“The Electoral Finance Act can be better but even now it does a lot more good than bad. We should keep it until revised legislation is ready – legislation that promotes more honest, accountable and transparent government. In the absence of new legislation a return to the 1993 Electoral Act is a backwards step. We do welcome the Government’s commitment to work with all parties on a replacement and look forward to engaging constructively in that process.”
Dr Norman also said the Labour’s Party expected support of the repeal showed a lack of fortitude. “It’s cowardly for Labour to abandon the EFA before there’s a better alternative ready to go.”
The Green Party Co-Leader noted that there was no pressing need for change. “There is no major election scheduled. The repeal under urgency is just political grand-standing. The Government could also reinstate the Citizens Jury to provide unbiased advice on campaign funding and electoral finance reform.”
The Citizens Jury, which the Government scrapped, was to comprise laypersons who would review electoral finance reform issues. Due to begin this year, the independent jury would have taken the debate away from the political parties.”
February 12th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Yet another nail in the coffin of the Greens.
Vote:4% in 2011.
February 12th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Norma? is that the aussie ginga?
Vote:February 12th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
norman even heh ginga with a lisp
Vote:February 12th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
I have a question for the “Green Party” and Greenfly exactly what part of the environment does the EFA protect? Love to know.
Or does it just upset the red part of the greens? Unless a satisfactory response is forthcoming, the “Greens” will never be able to obeject to the label ‘watermelon” again. In fact I think they should be upfront and promote their party as the Red/Green Party!
Vote:February 12th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
…More good than bad. I wish I could live in that universe…
But you do, its called the national Party
Vote:February 12th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Hartog, you are simply a compulsive Neersayer.
Boring.
Vote:February 12th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Lucy, I queried Mr Norman on a couple of “green” issues during our recent conversation and was told he was of the Green Party and had no interest or knowledge of these “green” issues.
Not even Green on the outside.
He had, of course at the time, been in ChCh for a celebration with some genuine “greenie” type people at (whoops, I almost said “our”) taxpayers’ expense.
Dime, certainly the ginga part is correct.
In all though I think, based on what I read here yesterday, that this time the Green Party will be doing NZ a favour in allowing the placing on record just who votes for the repeal motion.
Vote:February 12th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
One more things the greens against, well add it to the list and here’s a big so bloody what.
Its not like they count for anything.
Vote:February 12th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
hey jacob – are you going to watch Parliament later this afternoon? You know, watch Annette King suck in her cheeks, take a deep breath, and vote for the repeal of the law she said was the only thing that would save us from the twin evils of the National Party and the Exclusive Brethren. Heck, it’s three months since Labour got the archer, and the sky hasn’t fallen yet.
Vote:February 12th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
It’s a real shame the Greens have been captured by the Maoists. I don’t mind Keith Locke at all, and think it was outrageous that he has been spied on by the SIS, but Sue Bradford is still obviously a pretty far left radical, and Norman probably is too. If they stood for freedom of speech instead of opposing it, and returned to their environmentalist roots, they could be a political power, but while they oppose freedom of speech by supporting the EFA, they will only undermine themselves.
Vote:February 12th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Lucy asks: ” exactly what part of the environment does the EFA protect?”
Vote:The Greens should abstain from voting on everything except environmental issues, Lucy?
Wouldn’t that make them a ‘single issue’ party? Wouldn’t that bring cries of derision from you?
Have a wee think love.
February 12th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
No Murray, the Greens are for retaining the legislation. It’s the other parties (National, Act etc) who want to ban this. Kinda makes you look at things in a new way, doesn’t it (thinks …No, Murray won’t be looking at this in a different way – sigh!)
Vote:February 12th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
I am beginning to really like norman – if he continues in this vein the greens will be able to count their votes at the next election on their digits!
Vote:February 12th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Good on the Melons, evil to the bitter end. These clowns are just way to proud to admit they seriously fucked up by backing this piece of partisan crap. Democracy, freedom of speech and the Melon party simply do not compute, at least we know where they stand.
Vote:February 12th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Really I think the Greens should change their name. It’s misleading and I’d bet half the votes they get are from simpletons who think a vote for greens is a way of doing something for the environment. Perhaps the anti-semite misandrists communist party would be more appropriate.
Vote:February 12th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Damnit greenfly, I was about to launch a tirade against the Greens till you postulated that they might base their policy on one simple rule: Do the opposite of what Peter Dunne does.
Seems eminently sensible in that light
At least the Greens have rendered themselves irrelevant and with this kind of anti-democratic nonsense will remain so. The Pompadoured Pretender, on the other hand, keeps getting into a position where he can actually exercise some influence.
But really, isn’t it uncomfortable for John Key, always having to sit on Dunne’s head?
Vote:February 12th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
They are AGAINST repealing bad legislation. The word ban was yours not mine.
I reserve the right to speak for myself and not have some left wing prick put words in my mouth thank you. If you choose to missrepresent people because you have an agenda then you’ll soon enough find yourself on the unpleasent end of someones complete and undivided attention. Your dishonesty is noted.
If I get my brain removed you can try it then, not before greenfly.
Vote:February 12th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Lucy asked: …what part of the environment does the EFA protect?
All of it, actually. It protects it from wealthy development interests who may want to buy themselves a Government that reduces environmental standards and controls for their corporate benefit.
The Greens are not saying all is good about the EFA. They agree there should be changes, but want this done in a considered manner – not legislation rushed through under urgency with no Select Committee hearings and no guarantee that anything better will be in place by the time of the next election.
There is no urgent need to repeal it (and carry bits of it over into the Electoral Act 1993, which is what is proposed) without having anything to replace it – the bits relating to election advertising are not due to come into force again until 1 January 2011 in any case.
Vote:February 12th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
The greens are once more talking shit and lying while you’re at it toad.
In case you missed the election we’re not buying yourbullshit this week. Go back to the shallow end of the gene pool.
Vote:February 12th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
One last go at being relevant eh Greens
sorry you made yourself insignificant when you tied yourself to the red sinking ship
Vote:February 12th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Well this is the party of nutters like Sue Bradford, Keith Locke and now Catherine Delahunty so no surprises there.
Vote:February 12th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Yet another reason that despite being a lentil-munching, cycling conservationist, the Greens remain electorally repellent.
Vote:February 12th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Looking to the broader picture, it’s just Farrar’s ongoing Bash-the-Greens programme. Toad’s is the voice of reason but his croaking here just echoes around and around, bouncing off the impenetrable carapaces of the trilobites that inhabit these ill-lit depths
Vote:February 12th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Toad can justify her speach all he likes.. FACT remains.. shes an extremist and a weirdo.
Vote:February 12th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
That’s not helping me Greenfly.
The problem with the Greens and Labour, is that most of them don’t really give a shit about the environment, so long as the posturing gets them to the levers of power. It’s more about making you lot feel superior and tell the lese enlightened mortals how to live.
Case in point, what have you done about Wetapunga.
In 1998 we agreed to do captive breeding of our largest- and perhaps most critically endangered wetas. Now, this isn’t actually hard. Insects are pretty easy to breed.
In 2009 we are getting around to it.
For over a decade, we just let this species teeter on the brink of extinction, rather than toss a few dollars towards a a captive breeding programme.
Why? Because the shits we had in power and the bastards like you who kept them there love power and the warm glow that comes from it, rather than getting off your arses and fixing the problem.
10+ years, I could weep. You’re not environmentalists. You watched Helen cut DoC’s budget, watched scientists being sacked from DoC, seen species continue their declines, and in the end, you said you were haoppy with that. Killing wildlife is good, if it’s done by socialists to cement their power in Govt.
Vote:February 12th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
“Why? Because the shits we had in power and the bastards like you who kept them there love power and the warm glow that comes from it, rather than getting off your arses and fixing the problem.”
and in one succinct sentence Chthoniid nails it. Thank you.
Vote:February 12th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
So the Greens are closet communists,… well whats new, we’ve known that for years.
The truly revealing fact we glean from Russell Normans Statement is they have ..wait for it…far right wing tendencies.
As MikeE (at 12.17PM) demonstrates we have in the NZ Greens a party that is prepared to attempt to deny the most basic democratic rights to an unpopular minority in order to curry favour with its constituency.
Vote:This is fascist Politics 101.
It’s merely legimate revolutionary zeal for the jihadists of Gaza to fire rockets at Jewish school children, but the Exclusive Brethrens must be stopped from publicly expressing an opinion.
Then again there wasn’t a huge difference between Stalin and Hitler.
The far left and the far right seem to join hands at their respective ends of the political spectrum.
February 12th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
The best part is right at the end – which is not in the written script. Go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxu5xWqaaMI at about 13minutes and watch as she breaks into song.
[DPF: Oh my God]
Vote:February 12th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Chthoniid – John Key will save your weta!
Vote:I’d be delighted to tell you, away from this turgid venue, how much ‘getting off my arse and fixing (environmental) problems I’ve done, but the rain of abuse from all and sundry would be tiresome.(good luck with the weta btw. I heard and saw some amazing weta phenomenon on the semi-sub antarctic islands. Maybe sometime… I’ve a vested and abiding interest in hoverflies as well
February 12th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
The repeal debate is underway, under urgency – David Parker is conceding defeat, but still trying to defend the indefensible. But there’s no sign of Annette King in the House!
http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2009/02/urgency-accorded.html
Vote:February 12th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Greenfly (& others)
You might appreciate some of my recent photos on native flies, wetas and assorted creepy-crawlies. I managed to find a Sphaerotheriidan earlier this month- http://chthoniid.zenfolio.com/f898336243
I suspect that Groser may be more susceptible to reason than Lee or Carter ever were.
Vote:February 12th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Chthoniid – thanks alot. I’ve visited your site before and find your photos to be of excellent quality. Do you reckon a lot of other Kiwiblog commenters have done the same?
Vote:February 12th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
greenfly (310) Vote: 1 4 Says:
February 12th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
“Lucy asks: ” exactly what part of the environment does the EFA protect?”
The Greens should abstain from voting on everything except environmental issues, Lucy?
Wouldn’t that make them a ’single issue’ party? Wouldn’t that bring cries of derision from you?
Have a wee think love.”
Um I thought that ‘green enviromental issues covered a wide gambit of things Greenfly, for example the Infrastructure, Energy, sustainability in consumerism, resources etc. I never thought that being Green made you a ‘single issue party’
Vote:but I guess you do. I just wanted to know what part of the EFA was ‘green’
February 12th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
My photo (zenfolio) site doesn’t get a lot of visitors, but there are sometimes ‘waves’ of kiwiblog visitors to my (opera) blog. My blog has had 57,000 hits to date.
Latest additions to the photos includes a cicada in mid final-moult.
Vote:A lot of zoologists do get quite passionate about wildlife photography.
February 12th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Toad. Bull shit. The only people that have been brought recently are the people who created this act. For example Dinners in chinese restuarants where donations are put into a ‘pot’ so know one knows how much each person donated.
Vote:I have tried to be reasonable but you people are so full of shit that I cant anymore.
February 12th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Russel Norman just spoke in the repeal debate – basically, he admitted that the EFA had flaws, but said that wasn’t a reason to repeal it. Oh yes, guess which religious group was the only one mentioned by any speaker – yep, Red Russel had to put the boot in to the EB’s again, while quoting Nicky Hager as some kind of divine authority!
Vote:February 12th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Lucy! Your language! You can trust the Toad. His explanation was reasonable and correct. You’ve missed it entirely, with your intolerant one-eyed-ness.
Vote:February 12th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
Folks … at least the Greens had the balls to stand firm on their beliefs (as wacky as they are).
Labour???????????????????????????????????
Wankers one and all. No courage, no convictions, no shame and no future.
Vote:February 12th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
fundude2007
Vote:In future when you link a video clip it would be nice to put a general warning on the content. You really should have advised that at the end of the video Sue Bradford, whilst wearing a low neckline leans toward the camera. I nearly lost my dinner together with a nice bottle of marlborough pinot over the keyboard.
That wasn’t funny at all – quite revolting in fact. I believe I may now be scarred
February 12th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
“Thieves respect property. They merely wish the property to become their property that they may more perfectly respect it.”
Vote:G. K. Chesterton
February 12th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
This comment is not original. It has been written and said many times before. But it is so important that it deserves repeating.
Vote:“How can the Greens say that they are concerned with the planet when they spend so little time on it?”
February 12th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
Inventory2 said: Russel had to put the boot in to the EB’s again…
And why not?
They EBs are wacko religious extremists who abhor democratic rights, treat their women like shit, have a seriously dangerous alcohol culture among their men, believe in the “Rapture” that will see them resurrected and everyone else condemned to Hell and, in the instance Russel referred to, tried to buy an election (despite their supposed non-participation in politics).
As far I am concerned, they deserve every bit of political shit that can be thrown at them (short of being designated terrorists and persecuted as such). Do some of you guys support religious nutjobs like the late Jim Jones and Osama bin Laden as well? The EB are in the same league of weirdo fundy extremists and are very dangerous to democracy.
Vote:February 12th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
dime said: FACT remains.. shes an extremist and a weirdo
That is not a FACT dime. It is an OPINION – and one with which I disagree.
Vote:February 12th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
Patrick Scarred – ogling women online while drinking … the depths to which you have sunk…
Vote:February 12th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Every time Norman and Goff open their gobs, they make complete cunts of themselves. May it continue. Annette’s turn next, wait and see, it’s inevitable.
Vote:February 12th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
Did I touch a raw nerve toad? Methinks you guys get far too worried about the EB’s. It’s not healthy!
Vote:February 12th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
go and have a bath in some 245T, greenfly.
Vote:February 12th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
So toad everything you say is FACT while everything others say is OPINION? Funny how we all take that view.
So here’s a FACT of my own: The Greens are far, far more dangerous to NZ right now the EB’s will ever be. The Greens are an idological soup created to exploit MMP, using the Trogan horse of environmental religon to foist neo-communist doctrine and far-left socialist agendae on unsuspecting Kiwis. That’s a FACT.
Vote:February 12th, 2009 at 11:44 pm
greenfly – yeah right – I think it would even have pushed the boundaries of Shallow Hal
Vote: