About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

August 3, 2007 11:50pm by David Farrar

Still here

Been over on Waiheke Island and there was no mobile Internet coverage. Blogging will resume tomorrow.

Share this:

Facebook
X
LinkedIn
Reddit
WhatsApp
More

Pinterest
Print
Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading…

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment12

Uncategorised
DPF

Related Stories

Power Cut
Blog Lite
Blog Free Weekend

Comments (12)

Login to comment or vote

Castifiore

DPF
Excellent thread on Chinese Government but how about asking the legal beagles what they think of Section 55 re intent to commit a crime – this is truly unbelievable
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 4, 2007 12:06am
Graeme Edgeler

Happy to help Castifiore (I saw the comment in the other thread, but wanted to confirm something before responding).

You’re talking about cl 121 (and by extension cl 157), I think – search warrants available in cases of suspected intent to commit an illegal practice?

Search warrants have, since at least 1957 (and I suspect long before, but I don’t have a copy of the now defunct Crimes Act 1908 on me) been available to search in cases of suspected intent to break the law.

This is not an great extension of the law in relation to Election offences. This is already the law in respect of most other intended offences; arising from, no doubt, the long-standing obligation on police to prevent crime.

The reason it is in the bill is that search warrants, whilst already available in exactly these circumstances in relation to “corrupt practices” under the Electoral Act, weren’t available in respect of “illegal practices” (you can generally only get search warrants in relation to offences that carry prison terms).
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 4, 2007 12:46am
Selma Bouvier

Good information graeme.
The realities of the proposed laws are that they are based on existing restrictions .
All the hysteria about freedom of speech , which isn’t affected,
but the right for other groups to campaign without the existing restrictions that apply to political parties has been proposed to change.

We already have many restrictions on commercial speech, such as advertising.
Political parties are partly covered by commercial speech restrictions ( when they advertise) and partly by restrictions on broadcasting- which national broke –

In the old “rogernomics” days this would be called a level playing field.

By the way DPF do you still watch Fox news avidley like the old days.
or does their Pravda on the Hudson approach to distortion begin to pale on you
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 4, 2007 8:22am
Graeme Edgeler

Selma – unfortunately, large parts of the new law are substantial extensions.

Where the old law regulated “advertising”, the proposed law regulates “any form of words or graphics”. This is a vast extension – the old law didn’t ban political parties from putting out press releases criticising government policy in election year – as written, this one does (political parties can only issue press releases that ask for votes, or ask people not to vote for someone else).

It will be illegal for candidates to hold up placards at protest marches, etc. This is a major inroad on candidates’ free speech.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 4, 2007 9:09am
dad4justice

Dear Selma ,
Does that mean we won’t be getting another Auntie Helen Club pledge card in the mailbox this election ?

It is impossible to have a level playing field dear selma, as labour keep shifting the elevation by changing rules to suit themselves !
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 4, 2007 9:17am
Porcupine

Graeme, very useful information.

“This is a major inroad on candidates’ free speech.”

So answer me this – is the word “candidates’ ” the key to all the righteous indignation. I personlly dont give much of a toss about “candidates'” free speech but his seems to be an afront to my free speech also.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 4, 2007 10:23am
David Farrar

What a surprise – Selma is wrong on the facts yet again. Hey I think she is heading for ten wrong in a row.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 4, 2007 10:30am
Anon

Graeme says: “It will be illegal for candidates to hold up placards at protest marches, etc. This is a major inroad on candidates’ free speech.”

I can’t believe that is true, even with Clark involved in drafting the law. Can you double check?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 4, 2007 10:47am
Ben Wilson

Which mobile connection were you using? I ask because whether it works on Waiheke will be a big factor in my choice.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 4, 2007 10:50am
David Farrar

Vodafone. I could get GPRS but not 3G at the hotel I was at. In the village one had 3G.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 4, 2007 11:00am
Graeme Edgeler

Anon – I have checked. I’ve thought about it a lot – I can only imagine that it is entirely unintended, but that’s what the bill, as drafted says.

Porcupine – no, the word “candidate” isn’t the key to all the righteous indignation. There are grave concerns with some of the third party rules too. I used the candidate restriction as an example because it involves an actual ban – not a ban over $5000 or $60,000 but a total ban. Selma suggested that this bill doesn’t affect free speech – I thought the candidate example was a good one to use to rebut that assertion because it actually makes illegal some forms of (monetarily) free speech.

Concerns around third party spending generally (i.e. for people other than candidates, and political parties) include the $5000 limit for many groups. $60,000 might be justifiable (Crown Law thinks so) but most churches, and other unincorporated bodies like “Vote for the Environment” or “Campaign for Civil Unions” won’t meet the criteria to list as third parties (with a $60,000 limit) and will instead have a $5000 limit. If the law stays as it stands, the Salvation Army’s “we’re all in this together” won’t be able to run next year, for example.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 4, 2007 11:54am
Ben Wilson

Yeah I thought 3G wouldn’t work. Already got GPRS for those days when I absolutely must have the net, no matter how much of a rip. It was useful abroad.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 4, 2007 1:41pm

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« Chinese Government Rules on Criticism

Alien attack »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 13K other subscribers

Highlights

Target achieved II
Good progress on attendance
Health Target 5 – elective treatments
Health Target 4 – Specialist appointments

Top Stories

General Debate 04 June 2026
Abolishing HR
Meet the Greens - ACC
Words that are now meaningless
Another British policing scandal
Democrat says lock up the Jews
General Debate 03 June 2026
A win for democracy
$600k on a website for a building!
Of course GP wait times will skyrocket under Labour

Recent Posts

Words that are now meaningless 4 June 2026
Abolishing HR 4 June 2026
General Debate 04 June 2026 4 June 2026
Meet the Greens – ACC 4 June 2026
Democrat says lock up the Jews 3 June 2026
Another British policing scandal 3 June 2026
General Debate 03 June 2026 3 June 2026
A win for democracy 3 June 2026
$600k on a website for a building! 2 June 2026
Set housing outcomes not outputs 2 June 2026
General Debate 02 June 2026 2 June 2026
Of course GP wait times will skyrocket under Labour 2 June 2026

Recent Comments

Another British policing scandal
Ghost
Another British policing scandal
Ghost
Another British policing scandal
Beach Haven expat
Another British policing scandal
Beach Haven expat
Abolishing HR
NZer In Exile
General Debate 04 June 2026
NZer In Exile
Words that are now meaningless
farbeyond
Words that are now meaningless
spanish_tudor
Democrat says lock up the Jews
NZer In Exile
Democrat says lock up the Jews
NZer In Exile
Words that are now meaningless
greenjacket
General Debate 04 June 2026
NZer In Exile
General Debate 04 June 2026
NZer In Exile
Words that are now meaningless
marcw
Words that are now meaningless
Ghost

Links

Parliament fails to defend transparency
No Right Turn
BOAC Flight 777
Utopia
"The principal view of human laws is, or ought always to be, to explain, protect, and enforce such rights as are absolute, which in themselves are few and simple."
Not PC
Let’s listen to Dame Lynda on the matter of Defence spending – Bob Jones (who contributed to NZ Ballet) was dismissive, too
Point of Order
To be fair – nothing manages to celebrate the sham 250 year democracy of a neofascist regime quite like Vanilla Ice
The Daily Blog
Daily review 04/06/2026
The Standard
Word of the day
Hompaddock
We Are a Country That Decided Housing Was The Economy
No Minister
Playing with numbers.
Kiwipolitico
Another non-tariff barrier
Offsetting Behaviour
Rugby Premiership Predictions for Round 18
Stats Chat
Budget 2026
NZCPR
UK Conversion Therapy Ban, Digital ID, Rallies, Elections
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
A central banker’s fiction
Croaking Cassandra
THE WORKING FROM HOME RACKET BY PUBLIC SERVANTS
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
Tory Whanau may have to sell Wellington mayoralty to make ends meet
The Civilian
The Accidental Engagement
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Get Vaccinated Tomorrow Or Shut Your Pie Hole
Cactus Kate
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker

[email protected]

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

© 2003-2026 David Farrar

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d

%d