ODT on EFA
February 21st, 2009 at 11:32 am by David FarrarThe ODT Editorial says:
The vote was 112-9 in favour of repeal, with only the Green Party arguing for retention.
A clearer admission by the Labour Party, which controversially and determinedly pushed the legislation through against vociferous opposition inside and outside Parliament, that it got wrong one of the most important pieces of law sponsored during its nine-year parliamentary tenure would be hard to come by.
Yep. I was not planning to get actively involved in politics or campaigning (beyond offering opinions on my blog) but the EFB/EFA motivated me to devote hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars on fighting this reprehensible law.
With justification, opponents complained that the EFA stymied political debate and freedom of expression. But equally, it was the Labour-led government’s determination to push ahead, with little consultation and without achieving a greater degree of cross-party consensus, that outraged many.
And to make it worse, the cross-party consensus was ready and waiting. National had agreed in principle to greater donation transparency and some restrictions on third party campaigns. The way Labour blew away any sort of moral high ground on these issues was a near unparalleled act of stupidity.
Related posts:
- Electoral Finance Act to be gone in a fortnight
- Closing Submission to Commerce Commission on UBS
- Return of the EFA
- Goff admits EFA flawed and wrong to ram it through
February 21st, 2009 at 11:43 am
You hard work on this piece of law probably greatly assisted its eventual demise The Greens batted for it to the end. I assume therefore they have nothing useful to contribute on the forthcoming changes having decided that the EFA represents good law. The Labour Party have used opposition to clear the decks. It seems that this is Helen Clark’s law though she too voted for its repeal.
Vote:February 21st, 2009 at 12:05 pm
The Greens let their anger at the Exclusive Brethren blind them to many ills of the EFA and their refusal to admit the Act was so flawed it has to go shows they’re still not seeing clearly.
Vote:February 21st, 2009 at 12:16 pm
DPF:
But this purported cross-party consensus? Is that really going to lead to all options being on the table? My fear is that it’s likely to lead to the lowest-common demoninator of fair election rules. Although legitimate cases can be made for some regulation of third party involvement and an extension of the present state funding of party election activities, the messages we appear to be getting from the right seem to suggest these are not ideologically acceptable.
I wonder, in 18 months time, we will be see the “consensus” having collapsed and we’re stuck with Electoral Act, as amended by last week’s EFA repeal Bill? That’s better than where we were 2 or 3 years ago (at least with a more robust donations regime). But can anyone tell me what incentive there is for the right to genuinely come to the table to grapple with the issue – now they have got what they can live with in terms of election rules?
d
Vote:February 21st, 2009 at 12:27 pm
“A clearer admission by the Labour Party………. that it got wrong one of the most important pieces of law sponsored during its nine-year parliamentary tenure would be hard to come by.”
Sorry, ODT, I don’t buy that. I have heard no admission of anything of the sort from the arch-architects of this pernicious piece of legislation – Helen Clar and Michael Cullen. Their votes in favour of repeal mean nothing to me either as Labour votes are controlled by the Party Whip unless relevant MPs make a conscious decision to cross the floor. And, to the best of my knowledge, Clark and Cullen have never been floor crossers (even during the era of the much-hated Roger Douglas policies of the Lange Government).
To me, Labour has shown about as much remorse for its actions as one might expect from Graeme Burton at a parole hearing. Enough to hoodwink the gullible, but not enough to represent a change of mind.
Vote:February 21st, 2009 at 12:30 pm
* The Peters v Clarkson re-interpretation of apportionment rules in the old act.
* General agreement that the spending limits (particularly for electorate contests) are too low at $20,000.
* Part 6 of the Broadcasting Act (and particularly ACT’s view of it).
Vote:February 21st, 2009 at 12:40 pm
And now Labour can take the next 9-12 years in opposition to reflect on why they have been so roundly defeated in the election and what sort of leadership skills National and John Key have to be leading in the polls 60% to 27%. Labour are likely to fall further away once Clark goes (but of course may enjoy a bounce (of the dead cat variety) when Cullen buggers off. (Are the rumours true that he is approaching National Party Ministers looking for a job?)
Vote:February 21st, 2009 at 12:42 pm
calendar girl
“Clark and Cullen have never been floor crossers (even during the era of the much-hated Roger Douglas policies of the Lange Government).”
Do not let the bastards con you into believing their version of history, Klark went on bended knees to Sir Roger in the early days of her leadership of the labour party and begged him to be her finance spokesperson.
Vote:February 21st, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Monty
It’s not only Kullen who is sniffing around for a job, it seems that Horomiha is also desperate to get out of the place.
Vote:February 21st, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Parakura Mamamia wants out too? – not surprising – that fat slug is too useless to be a body-double for jabba the hutt – ha ha .
The Labour MPs not having the stomach for three years in opposition before they can retire at the next election are going to find that their skill sets are useless in the real world. Unemployment is their best option (only option)
Vote:February 21st, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Maharey was the only one with enough brains to jump ship last year. Cullen and co will never find gainful employment in this country. Will Cullen’s cv have on its cover the ridiculous picture of him holding the model train after being stitched up by the aussies for $700m.
Vote:February 21st, 2009 at 3:52 pm
So what did this farce cost NZ in $$$?
Parliamentary time, salaries, lawyers etc. Liarbour and their toadies should be billed for this utter waste.
Then they should face the gallows for treason.
Vote:February 21st, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Well done David. A victory not for the right but a victory for what is RIGHT.
Vote:February 21st, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Even the dim-witted leadership of the Labour Party instructed its MPs to vote for the repeal of the EFA.
Only the lunatic Luddites (the socialist Green Party) decided to show its support this abhorrent piece of legislation. Shame on them and its naive (conned) followers.
Vote:February 21st, 2009 at 6:10 pm
What is this obsession with controlling 3rd party spending at election time?
If you do an analysis of $ spend over the last few elections we see that Labour spent more than any other party (lots of it ours and a decent amount illegally), ACT spent the most per seat (proving that you can’t just buy votes in my opinion) for instance.
The right wing christian chaps would probably have had a negative effect anyway – mainstream NZ is suitably wary of this type of approach. Everyone knows where the unions stand so let them spend away – might convince some people that their sub is being wasted.
However, all spend must be transparent – that’s it – if you want to financially support a party or do something on behalf of a party then come clean.
If you can’t find money to support your campaign then f**k off – don’t take my tax. No public funding.
Otherwise, what’s the problem?
Vote:February 21st, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Worm- the only thing that Mattered to Clark and Cullen was retaining power at all costs – even the cost of democracy. Of course the costs to the socialists was power – but i guess several millions of dollars would have been wasted by Cullen and Clark in their unholy quest.
And of course Cullen will not have the stomach for opposition and like the coward he is, all he wants to do is about turn and run. Of course he will only be able to run as far as the Flaxmere social welfare office to collect his dole cheque (more sucking on the public tit)
Vote:February 21st, 2009 at 8:27 pm
I dunno why people are surprised Labour voted to repeal the act.
The act makes it harder for other parties to challenge incumbents, so of course they don’t want that. It would make it harder for them next election.
If they win the next election they’ll bring it back in again.
Vote:February 21st, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Given that Labour have agreed to repeal the EFA it strikes me as odd that we have not see the likes of Ghost, Nome, and co rushing to denounce the Labour party for their “flip flop”.
Any post on this topic by DPF in the year before the election resulted in the Labour lackeys appearing out of the woodwork to defend the EFA and the Labour party.
Surely they cannot all have changed their minds at once???
Vote:February 22nd, 2009 at 9:28 am
Helen Clark lumbers the country with the EFA and gets rewarded with the full support of the current government for a swish UN job. What fun to live in a disconnected world where actions have no consequences.
Vote: