John Key supports restrictions on ‘third party’ spending
One of the often overlooked aspects of the debate about the Electoral Finance Bill is that John Key supports caps on spending for third parties, just as Labour, NZ First, United Future and the Greens do. This is what he said to the Press Club:
Our view is that changes to the rules around electoral financing can be accommodated within the framework of the existing law. For example, we would support a limit on third-party spending in an election period. Political parties and candidates are capped in their spending so it makes sense that third parties are as well. Organisations should not be allowed to spend unlimited sums of money trying to influence an election.
Of course Key is saying that the changes should be made to existing legislation rather than new law, which is fine but a minor point. The important thing is that once you say you want to put a cap on spending by non-political party actors in the election campaign then you are in the same boat as the rest of us trying to find the right balance between restrictions on freedom of speech for those with a lot of money versus fair election campaigns.
The kinds of questions that need to be answered are: What should be the size of the cap? What is the length of the regulated period? How do you enforce the cap, with a register? If you have a register, is there a minimum below which you don’t have to register? What is the defnition of an election advert for a third party organisation? etc etc
These are all the questions that those of us who are trying to fix the EFB are trying to grapple with. And now that the Nats have admitted that they too support a cap on third party election spending, it would help if they joined us in trying to find a system that was as simple as possible while still being effective, so that, as Key says “Organisations should not be allowed to spend unlimited sums of money trying to influence an election.”
September 25th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Yeah, agreed. As soon as you admit that there are problems with the status quo re non-political parties, you really ought to engage in developing the solution. The Nats are trying to have their cake and eat it too - bashing the bill while still claiming to agree that restrictions are a good idea. I wish we had a journalist prepared to call their bluff on it.
Molly
September 25th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
There are other questions too, Russel, such as:
*Is this something that can be properly sorted out in the next six weeks?
*Is setting these rules in a Supplementary Order Paper on which no public input is made, during Committee of the Whole in the second-to-last-week of the Parliamentary year, under urgency, good for democracy
*If the Greens are really interested in fixing the EFB, why did no-one from the Greens (not even a sub) bother to hear my oral submission
etc.
September 25th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Perhaps you should have asked them to start with instead of steadfastly and deliberately ignoring them. Re-writing history with this spin does even less credit for what has been unbeleivable support for one of the most anti-democratic bills this nation has ever seen.
September 25th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Edge, sorry if we had no-one there, we have tried to cover the committee but for for personal reasons we have struggled a bit over the last couple of weeks. I have been reading as many of the submissions as i can.
I think it can be sorted out in select cttee over the next month or two. Many submitters have made good substantial suggestions for changes. It wouldn’t be an SOP, it would form the report back from select committee and hence would form the basis of the bill as reported back. This is normal.
Roman, that’s just rhetoric. John Key supports the intent of the bill, to cap election spending by non-party actors, even if he disagrees with the way it’s done. It is normal for people of common purpose to disagree about means, that’s why they should join the rest of us in trying to get agreement about how to fix it. But I do agree with you that a much more open and inclusive process from the beginning, say an independent inquiry with commissioners agreed by all parties, would’ve been better. But believe or not, with six MPs and not part of govt, we have limited influence and power.
September 25th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
He also said
“First, there should be a genuine multi-party approach to reviewing the rules around electoral financing.
“Any change to the laws governing elections requires widespread support from across the political spectrum. New Zealanders will not have confidence in an electoral bill rammed through by a slender majority without public support and with the backing of only the bare minimum of parties necessary to get it through Parliament.”
I think you should concentrate more on that part of the speech.
September 25th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
“with six MPs and not part of govt, we have limited influence and power”
You have the power to say you will not support this in the house and will vote against it, you do not support the process being followed and you will actively work to repeal any law that follows so that a proper process can be followed.
September 25th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
The problem I have with this is that I don’t support any politician tinkering with the electoral process in this way. John Key coming out in support is no big deal. This needs to go out to the people for discussion before politicians decide what is best for us.
Which has been sadly lacking with the Electoral Finance Bill.
September 25th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
I think that ‘insider’ is probably correct. If the Greens think that the process for formulating such a controversial and unpopular bill has been very badly done, then the party should definitely not support the legislation going further. It should be an issue of principle for the Greens.
Having said that, however, the Greens have been pretty complicit in the secretive and closed way the bill has been developed. In developing Labour’s secret policy, the Greens have been involved in the backroom talks with the Government, and Green leaders even had meetings with Ministry of Justice officials to help pull the EFB together!
To show that it had any principles in terms of this bill, the Greens should have condemned this process instead of actively been involved in it all.
Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz
September 25th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
still spinning/selective quoting…eh russel..?
(do you wring your hands as you say those words..?..)
and still indicted by your actions..
can you confirm or not bryces contention of your degree of involvement in this bill..?
that’s particularly interesting..seeing as toad has been abusing me..cos’ i dared say you had been involved..
so who is lying..?
toad or bryce..?
and for you to now try and claim sort of ‘high ground’/our hands are tied’/what can we do..?..stance/pretence..
streches disengenuous to new lengths..eh..?
you are up to your knecks in this sorry/sad saga..
and pretending otherwise dosen’t work..
we can smell it/you from here..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 25th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
I agree that the process was poor and shouldn’t have been left to MPs, acting alone. I think the idea of a citizens’ assembly as advocated by Russel in the past is a good one and I’d be interested to hear where that’s got to. However, I also want to acknowledge that MPs are the elected representatives of the people of NZ and surely they should be responsible for making laws, including those governing how we have elections. What is the other option - getting those who have no mandate and are not accountable to the public to do it - say, academics or lawyers? I don’t think that would be very popular either. So, while I think the process has left a lot to be desired and there were better options, it’s not like the alternatives are terribly obvious. A citizens assembly would be a great, given that any recommendations coming out of it, while presumably having little legal authority would have a lot of moral authority over MPs, but this would take a long time and I think we do need to have something in place for next year’s election. Having said that, if the current EFB is just a stop gap measure till a proper process is completed then no one’s coming out and saying as much – perhaps the greens should be demanding this as a condition of support?
Molly
September 25th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Was that confirmation you the Greens won’t be supporting anything other than a very minor Government SOP in Committee of the Whole, Russel?
September 26th, 2007 at 12:59 am
Here’s a novel concept Russel. Why not actually consult the public on the issue? You know the very ones that the MPs are trying to place limits on. Don’t you think they have a valid right to have substantive input into any such policy and law?
Once upon a time the Greens stood for actually consulting the public. No longer it seems.
September 26th, 2007 at 1:29 am
Am I going to have to hire a lawyer and accountant to lodge a form about the cost of my ISP to post this message about this political issue?
I think it stinks, and while I don’t want to see us follow america with major cash paying for 3rd party adds (because the average person is easily persuaded) I do want to know what people think on the matter. I would not trust labour to create a bill on this matter tho, as the last one was stink…. Can not use footage from question time for satire. If you can’t laugh at that NZ first guy doing the finger or laugh and the speaker of the house going “settle! SETTLE children” well its not fair.
Perhaps like you say a independent panel (umbudsman) should decide on all MAJOR 3rd party spending. Anyway i don’t trust labor with this while they make so many adverts using the public service about their policies
September 26th, 2007 at 2:01 am
Edge asked - Is setting these rules in a Supplementary Order Paper on which no public input is made, during Committee of the Whole in the second-to-last-week of the Parliamentary year, under urgency, good for democracy
Maybe, maybe not, but don’t forget that this is precisely the strategy that was used to get the petrol tax introduced 80 years ago. Without that tax Northland’s major towns might still be seperated from each other and Auckland by roads classified as “impassible in wet weather.
Unfortunately the petrol tax wasn’t the result of backroom negotiations by politicians. It was proposed by the technocrats appointed to the Main Highways Board by the Governor General. It offered an effective solution to the intractible problem of how to turn colonial roads into roads fit for a modern nation without bankrupting land owners. As such, it provides one answer to Molly’s question - “What is the other option - getting those who have no mandate and are not accountable to the public to do it - say, academics or lawyers?”
September 26th, 2007 at 2:54 am
You’re expecting the National party to act in good faith, rather than representing the interests of its ultrarich, ultraconservative donors.
This is a mistake.
September 26th, 2007 at 6:25 am
There is only one right way to do this.
SIMPLE rules that cannot be misunderstood or easily rorted.
Once more… for a SHORT time before the election the cap for third parties is Zero. Nada. Zilch. Everyone shuts up except the parties in the election and that includes the government, thank you very much Ms Clark, and the public gets to hear…. uninterrupted and un-spun, the policies and positions of the parties to the election.
That makes accountants reports unnecessary and leaves democratic freedoms intact most of the time.
It is impossible to misunderstand.
It is easy to enforce.
It is cheap.
It is fair.
I am having to wonder what purpose there is in this continued hooraw about details in what is a nearly perfectly sh!tty piece of legislation. This bill can be fixed, well of course. If your eraser is big enough and your approach is bold enough you can re-write Lewis Carroll into the Gettysburg Address… but it is going to take one fncking big eraser.
respectfully
BJ
September 26th, 2007 at 8:41 am
bj said..
“..I am having to wonder what purpose there is in this continued hooraw about details in what is a nearly perfectly sh!tty piece of legislation..”
this is part of the ‘dissembling’ tactics being used by russel norman to confuse this debate..
(you will see this theme/thread if you follow his posts in this forum..)
basically you advocate something really really sh*tty..
then you pull back a bit..to just one and a half ’sh*ttys’..
and you then hail that as evidence of you doing your role..
in protecting ‘our’ interests..
such disengenuous fudging/confusing of the issue is deceitful in the extreme..
(and i sit gobsmacked..watching as the greens/norman ‘try it on’..)
and there is a definite pattern developing here..
we are seeing the same tactics being used for the ’selling’ of repressive-legislation..part two:..
..the idea/’new law’ to test/prosecute weed-smokers..
where metiria turei is trying to tell us/sell us how much worse this new law would be..if she/they were not there..’fighting the good fight’..
(that the green party is/has descended to this level of deceitful/repressive ‘politics’/tactics….
almost makes me physically gag..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 26th, 2007 at 9:52 am
Phil U said:
> so who is lying..? toad or bryce..?
——
I continue to stand by my statement - and I have complete faith in my sources about this. So perhaps Toad, Frog or whoever can confirm or deny that Green leaders had the meetings with Ministry of Justice officials in drawing up the EFB. But I think we already know that the Greens were fairly central to developing the EFB. And this partly explains why the Greens didn’t actually put a submission to the select committee on the bill. And it partly explains why the Greens have been in such a mess and confusion about their support or otherwise for the bill - because the Greens are actually part-authors of the bill!
Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz
September 26th, 2007 at 10:26 am
Why not call or OIA the MoJ Bryce? They have to give you an answer.
September 26th, 2007 at 10:32 am
Bryce, you don’t seem to know how MMP works, so here is a summary.
Before Labour introduces any bill into the house, it seeks the numbers to at least get it to select committee. There is constant talk between the parties in parliament about bills and who supports what bill and on what basis, as labour tries to get the numbers together. Negotiations occur around bills like this all the time. This is the nature of MMP.
Mostly Labour goes to NZF, UF and the Greens but also talks to Maori Party and Nats and Act. It depends on the bill which constellation of parties they get to support it. During the process it is standard to have ministry officials there at some point to provide information.
Labour talked to the Greens and other parties about the EFB and there was a complex negotiation. Ultimately we agreed to support it even though we were disappointed at the process and how limited the bill was (esp on anonymous donations and National’s secret trusts) but it made some progress on some issues and things are often improved in select committee anyway.
September 26th, 2007 at 10:38 am
dpf. A select committee process is a public consultation.
Here’s the question for you and the nats. If you say you support caps on third party electioneering, and we know that this bill is clearly fixable because I and others have clearly outlined how, why are you persisting with this ridiculous ‘rip it up’ line?
Is it:
a/ because it is convenient oppositional politics with good media; or
b/ because you really don’t want any caps on spending by third parties because you plan to run another dirty tricks campaign with the exclusive brethren (or other groups); or
c/ both.
September 26th, 2007 at 10:44 am
Phil U said: so who is lying..? toad or bryce..?
All I know is that the Greens were consulted, which is what I’ve said all along.
I wasn’t involved with the consultation so don’t know who was invovled, although I would expect that Ministry of Justice officials normally would be present as advisors for consultations on a Bill that deals with electoral issues. It is usual practice to have officials present at inter-party consultation on legislation.
Bryce said: And this partly explains why the Greens didn’t actually put a submission to the select committee on the bill.
It is very rare for the Green Party to make a submission on any Bill. That is because they can have an MP sitting on the Select Committee itself to argue for the Green position.
So let’s cut the conspiracy theories, and move on. If some of you had put as much energy into trying to change the Bill rather than attack the Greens, more progress might have been made already.
September 26th, 2007 at 10:45 am
Somehow I doubt Labour would invite the Greens to draft a Government Bill, and I also rather doubt that NZF and UF would be happy to sign up to a Bill written by the Greens. But I’m no expert and I’m open to hearing otherwise, if that’s the case. I also thought the Greens’ original positioning paper was pretty clear about what they wanted in terms of process and outcomes, and the EFB failed to deliver on some really significant counts.
I guess the question is, if this Bill is the only show in town and the Greens have the option of either engaging and trying to get some improvements to the status quo or opting out entirely leaving us with the same electoral finance problems we witnessed last time round, what is the responsible thing to do? As someone who voted Green I think I’d prefer my representatives to be engaging to the best of their ability and fighting for improvements - I think that’s their job even when it’s not hugely popular.
Molly
September 26th, 2007 at 10:54 am
bj. you’re suggesting that there be a short period where no ‘third party’ can publish ads. Well you’re right it is the simplest approach and relatively straight forward to enforce. but don’t you think it cuts down on freedom of speech too much? and what about the framing of the election campaign in the months beforehand? should there not be some kind of spending limits during the leadup?
September 26th, 2007 at 10:59 am
Russel - your unnecessary put down aside - I wasn’t suggesting that the Government doesn’t consult with other support parties in preparing legislation. Although I have to say that it’s a bit more irregular for the MoJ to deal with the Green Party extra-parliamentary organisation (ie Russel) as opposed to elected parliamentary Green MPs. But the point is about the Greens’ having had significant involvement with Ministry of Justice officials over the bill. Like I said - you had private meetings with such officials and you had input into the legislation. This is not a conspiracy theory at all - it’s just a fact (although I’m open to hearing the Greens deny it). And it’s at odds with the Greens’ recent spinning of things. The Greens have to take some ownership of the way that the party has been implicit in the anti-democratic process of the EFB.
Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz
September 26th, 2007 at 11:27 am
toad said..
“..I wasn’t involved with the consultation so don’t know who was invovled..”
so..given that statement from you..
..where did/do you get off abusing me/calling me a liar..?
when i first said what bryce has subsequently confirmed..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 26th, 2007 at 11:42 am
Phil, Bryce hasn’t “confirmed” anything that Russel had not agreed was the case right from the start.
I stand by my statement that your alleging the Greens have written or partly written the Bill or in some way “own” the Bill is misrepresenting what both Russel and I have said.
Bryce - it is not at all unusual in that officials consulted with Russel as extra-parliamentary Co-Leader, as opposd to Green MPs. Russel is the Greens spokeperson on electoral reform, despite not being an MP. The Greens are entitled to put up whoever they want to consult and negotiate on Bills - sometimes they just send staff rather than MPs - it all depends on the circumstances.
September 26th, 2007 at 11:53 am
In answer to Russel’s question it is probably a little of a) but mostly d)
d) This bill entrenches power with the ruling party. If, as polling suggests, the National Party wins the next election the EFB provisions can (with slight modification) prevent the operation of Greenpeace, the NDU or the organisation of anti-government protest in an election year. Without the right to organise mass movements the enviroment lobby and the unions are dead in water and unable to challenge the status quo.
You are gifting National a no lose position. Fold on the bill, they look like heroes. Pass the bill, you look like villains. Either way they gain popularity. But the crucial point is that if you pass this despicable bill and National do win they will use it against the enviromental and union movements with you only able to protest against your own law.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
unaha, you are simply wrong. have you read the bill? or just the spin? it will prevent no-one from operating nor stop an anti-govt protest. that is simply spin.
To the extent that there are probelms with the bill they are easily fixed. as I have blogged about before. getting rid of the need for stat declarations if you are spending under $5000 would fix a section of the bill that doesn’t work properly. This is what Assoc Prof Andrew Geddis suggested in his submission to select ctte and he’s right.
I must say I find this constant repititon of completely inaccurate information frustrating. How are we supposed to have a decent discussion if the opponents don’t bother to present even the basic information correctly.
September 26th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
russel said..
“..I must say I find this constant repititon of completely inaccurate information frustrating. How are we supposed to have a decent discussion if the opponents don’t bother to present even the basic information correctly..”
indeed russel..indeed..!
my thoughts exactly..!
really going for the ‘whopper’ there..aren’t you..?
and toad..
an especially ’struck’ ‘dancing -on-the-head-of-a-pin-award’ is heading your way..
and i repeat..
as i said what bryce said..
and you now confirm this is true..
this of course only puts more weight into my question of ..
‘why did you abuse me.?..in this forum..?
and accuse me of lying/making things up..?
when you knew full well..i was speaking the truth..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 26th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Phil, if you don’t yet understand the difference between being consulted on the Bill (whether there were MoJ officials present or not), and writing or partly writing it or in some other way “owning it”, I give up.
I’ve nothing more to add to this discussion, as I’ve stated all I know re the process several times already, so will just let the readers decide on the basis of the credibility of the postings where the misrepresentation is coming from on this one.
September 26th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Russel Says:
“I must say I find this constant repetiton of completely inaccurate information frustrating. How are we supposed to have a decent discussion if the opponents don’t bother to present even the basic information correctly.”
Well I have read the EFBill as tabled 27 June 2007. In fact I have reread it twice, quite a task.
Parts of it many times and I still have to go back to sections in amazement and disbelief.
I have also read the Crown Law Opinion. Ref: ATT395/15 dated 26 June 2007
This is the one that Helen Clark say shows no conflict with the NZ Bill of Rights 1990 ??
I also have a legal opinion that differs from the Helen Clark spin.
“David
I have read the Crown Law opinion. In my view it is contemptible - no attempt to look for evidence of the reality of the mischiefs alleged, no citation of McLachlan’s important dissent in the Canadian Supreme Court case relied upon. It is the sort of advocacy lawyering one does to establish a credible defence to a rort, where the client says “I know the risks of being wrong, and being found out, and I’ll take them, just give me something I can wave to deflect liability for bad faith�.
The problem with commentors not “………presenting even the basic information correctly”, is that there has been very little prior basic consultation, very little time for public submissions (yes I did both written and oral ), very little time for reflection during the Select Committee stage,
and VERY LITTLE time to ram this abortion through the House before Christmas.
All this because Helen has moved on from concerned to frantic to manic..
And you are complicit..
September 26th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Given the lack of time - isn’t it preferable to get something in place for the next election AND set up a fair and transparent review process involving the public (as originally suggested by the Greens) aimed at the following election? I don’t see the point in totally derailing a bill which has the potential to improve things in the short term, while I strongly support a proper review process taking place over the next few years.
September 26th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
yes toad..
that would be that bill he/norman had nothing to do with..
yet said bill uncannilty echoes russel normans’ (published in this forum) wish list for any such legislation..
wow.!..synergy/serendipity..?..
or what..?
yes..”..(we) will just let the readers decide on the basis of the credibility of the postings where the misrepresentation is coming from on this one..”
(that is a good idea toad..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 26th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Russel - I think bj might be suggesting dealing with the problem third parties pose by banning third party advertising in, say, the last 72 hours of the election period - which probably wouldn’t cut down on free speech too much. This has been something suggested by VUW law academic Dean Knight - it would give the media and parties affected enough time to investigate or respond to false allegations, while not otherwise limiting free speech.
Also, I don’t think unaha is “simply wrong”. Now I certainly hope that the EFB doesn’t come out of the Committee as it went it, but as it is currently written it could do almost exactly as unaha fears.
Just about everything, say, Amnesty or Greenpeace does publicly takes a position on a proposition associated with a party or candidate - they’ll be limited to $60,000. Things like the Sallies’ “we’re all in this together” campaign would be limited to $5000. This would stop them from operating.
Now obviously you don’t think it should, and don’t think it was intended, but very very little of the “spin” has been wrong.
An anti-government protest would require every placard to have an authorisation statement on it, and the person who made the placard will have needed to have sworn a statutory declaration. Now, you may argue that this won’t “stop” an anti-government protest, but such arguments are almost libertarian - we all have freedom of movement, unless we pay each time we travel on the now privately-owned roads; we all have freedom of speech, unless we don’t have access to lawyers.
I recognise that this is *not* what you want, but it is what you’ve so far got.
September 26th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Edge, Yes I agree there is an argument to have a tighter shorter period. But there is also a case for a looser longer period, as the Uk uses, because of the framing of the election that occurs over a longer time. The useful thing about the UK is that presumably there is case law that we could access, which would simplify enforcement.
And yes, there are problems with it as currently worded, but it wouldn’t mean that Greenpeace would be prevented from operating, as unaha suggested. And anyway, what does “unaha” mean? unaha?
David Biaget, Not sure that there is an argument in your post. you read it, its complicated. Yes, it would be better if it weren’t complicated but just because it’s complicated doesn’t mean its bad - tax law is complicated and i hate filling out tax forms but i love what tax delivers - free health and education (well kinda free). You have a quote that says Ministry of Justice did a bad job with their Bill of Rights vet. OK, they missed things no question. But they clearly laid out the trade off involved - restrictions on the rights of those with a fair whack of money to spend influencing the election versus fair elections for the rest of us. That is what we’re dealing with here. Even the nats agree that there should be restrictions.
September 26th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Russel - I realise you’re not really defending the bill in its present form, but I do not see how you can argue it wouldn’t stop Greenpeace from operating. Just about everything Greenpeace does will be election advertising - raising awareness on environmental issues is what they do.
Update the website to tell people not to eat hoki - allowed, but limited (with everything else) to $60,000. Write a press release objecting to Government inaction on snails - allowed, but limited to $60,000 (including the salary of the communications person whose job it is to write the press release).
They’ll spend $60,000 in a few months on qualifying expenditure, and then they won’t be able to speak at all. They won’t be able to raise public awareness on anything: no Greenpeace placards at protest marches, no public information from Greenpeace about the need to act on climate change.
How can you say that this does not render Greenpeace inoperable?
September 26th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
Russel
This thread is long and laden with a lot of not quite useful angst, so I hope I will be excused for repeating bits that I am responding to.
… but don’t you think it cuts down on freedom of speech too much? and what about the framing of the election campaign in the months beforehand? should there not be some kind of spending limits during the leadup?
My answers are no and no. I think that 60 days of silence except for the parties themselves is sufficient for everyone who cares to hear what the PARTY has to say, to get a chance to listen. The Parties get the last word, no matter what, which largely negates any “setup” advantage that the 3rd parties bring. I would even submit that after some few elections the advertising outside the period would be somewhat DIMINISHED as it will (and I am speculating here) be clearly less effective than the efforts the parties themselves make.
The parties can still have whatever spending caps at whatever length of time you care to have.
I stick to my answer.
respectfully
BJ
September 26th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
I am worried that however well intentioned this piece of legislation is, it will backfire horribly in the future.
Why shouldn’t big business be able to spend as much money as they want in an attempt to influence an election? Why shouldn’t the Exclusive Brethren be allowed to spend money to try and sway voters? It is not the government’s responsibility to muzzle these interest groups … it is the individual voters responsibility to think for themselves! If voters don’t care enough to question and think, then maybe they will get the government they deserve.
September 26th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
i’m with bj on this..
it makes sense..
silence except for the parties..
no building hysteria of background noise/chatter..
just the political messages/ideas..
to be evaluated/decided on..
and would be simple/cheap to operate..
and it’s fair..to all..
what’s not to like..?
and one thing is for sure..
it’s a much better idea than that other toxic stew..
but really bj..
all of our protestations/arguments/alternatives will amount to a hill of beans..eh..?
it is clear from russel normans’ continued unwavering..
that they will help labour to push this bill through..
under urgency..
before christmas..
and coming into force/shutting up everyone but the government of the day..
in jan..
for the rest of the year..
(i predict ,mass disobediance of this law..
and of course..we will see a huge amount of unauthorised billboards/political messages..
all you need is a stencil..and a spray can..eh..?)
what we are seeing is clarks’ desperate attempts to secure a fourth term..
she cares not a jot for the future implications..
of this repressive/draconian/anti-democratic law..
she’ll be gone..
and i am sure future historians/political scientists will debate/question how a party born from the protest movements..
and the values party..
had come to this..
passing laws muzzling free speech..(!)
and laws forcing protest groups to register with the government of the day..(!)
and forced to present audited accounts of their endeavours..(!)
for government inspection..(!)
un-bloody-believable..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 26th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
The length is negotiable but I think that less than a month will not be sufficient and more than 2 months will be excessive.
September 26th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Phil,
You’re right. Looks like I will have to stock up on spray paint before they ban the sale of that.
It will be a refreshing sight to see political graffiti instead of pointless tagging.
September 26th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
Phil
I have said all I CAN say that is apt to influence anyone. I have made my written submission to the committee. I have had my go at persuading Russell and I don’t perceive him as “not listening” to me. I don’t think he believes it can work, and possibly has doubts that it can gain acceptance, but he’s listening.
Personally I think that if the party came out and pushed it as a solution everyone else would line up to salute because it is so UN-like the answers that have been bandied about and we AREN’T officially part of government. The angst is real enough… ALL the parties involved are worried about this and you point out a very real danger in the trajectory it seems to be following.
The insistent need to “do something. anything” to fix a perceived problem is one of the principle causes of really poor law. Everyone sees the “really poor law” here but nobody yet has offered anything that is really much better.
At least, nobody I’ve heard lately. I don’t get to follow the committee… I am flat out doing my real job.
respectfully
BJ
September 26th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
Actually, since this is a public forum…. we’re going to feel really dumb after DPF nicks this idea and brings if out from the Nats side of the fence.
BJ
September 26th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
i agree samiuela..
a new outlet for individual creativity..eh..?
i pledge..on whoar..
to feature/repeat the best of them..
of course..humour will get bonus points/cred..
and funny thing is..
tho’ i have railed long and hard against this law..
i have long known i will be favored by this legislation..
cos’ they won’t be able to shut me up..
(for a variety of reasons..)
and so people will turn to the likes of me for political news/analysis/opinion..on the spin..
and..of course..other political blogs/online forums will flourish..
new political parties will flourish..
you only need 500 registered members..
(how does the ‘whoar political party’ sound..?
it has no leaders..
and a general policy of (seeking out and) saving the nation from the ravages of bullshit..?
wherever it may be found..?..)
and as i do news..
i will be able to report on what is being said..on those other blogs..
in those other forums..
messages/political dialogue will out..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 26th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
i agree samiuela..
a new outlet for individual creativity..eh..?
i pledge..on whoar..
to feature/repeat the best of them..
of course..humour will get bonus points/cred..
and funny thing is..
tho’ i have railed long and hard against this law..
i have long known i will be favored by this legislation..
cos’ they won’t be able to shut me up..
(for a variety of reasons..)
and so people will turn to the likes of me for political news/analysis/opinion..on the spin..
and..of course..other political blogs/online forums will flourish..
new political parties will flourish..
you only need 500 registered members..
(how does the ‘whoar political party’ sound..?
it has no leaders..
and a general policy of (seeking out and) saving the nation from the ravages of bullshit..?
wherever it may be found..?..
and of course..the repealing of this poxy legislation..)
and as i do news..
i will be able to report on what is being said..on those other blogs..
in those other forums..
messages/political dialogue will out..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 26th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
why ..oh why..?..has my comment gone to moderation..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 27th, 2007 at 6:20 am
BJ,
Still with you on your suggestion. If dpf does take it to his blog that is surely a good thing. It might persuade more people to accept the idea.
I note with interest the silence from the other Greens, Jeanatte and Nondor in particular, regrading support for this bill.
Are they wholeheartedly in favour?
And if so why are they not trumpetting this loudly from the ramparts?
Or are we seeing a split in the Greens. (Nandor more concerned about his computor crashes then this debate - I doubt that somehow).
So if this bill is rammed through lets look at some of the consequences.
1. Illegal electioneering advertising will run rampant and without extra Police and court resources, will go unpunished.
2. Some groups like Greenpeace will deliberately (on say the anti GE issue) break the electioneering limits just to get a prosecution before the courts.
3. Once before the courts all sections of the media will be able to report on the court case promoting the message even wider (free and unlimited promotion for the cause).
4. This will have a snowballing effect where other third parties will do likewise with dubious doubly meaning adverts (e.g. “Helengrad, the new but just like the old, Moscow”) - (those from the Muldoon era will remember the dancing cossacks adverts, subliminal advertising but is it electioneering?)
5. At an indivudual level expect to see much greater (as phil suggest) civil disobience. Again this will go unpunished as the resources wont be avialable (the Police cant track a tagger now - what makes you think they will be able to nab a political activist?).
One could go on with a load of examples of how easily the intent of this bill is surpasses. This bill will be ignored by the general populace, mainly because enforcement (except for a few probably intented cases) will be impossible.
No, BJ’s idea has it right and most importantly has a sense of fair play about it that most people can agree with. It makes just so much common sense.
Russel and toad still haven’t addressed the issue of what constitute government electioneering versus government advertising new policy innitiatives (WFF as an example at the last election).
How will that be regulated as a balance against political opposition party spending limits?
Those questions I posed to you earlier Russel and you did not address, have been answered by a right wing lawyer on another blog, cheers.
September 27th, 2007 at 6:47 am
frog..could you plse retrieve my comment that went to moderation..
thank you..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 27th, 2007 at 10:32 am
unaha, you are simply wrong. have you read the bill? or just the spin? it will prevent no-one from operating nor stop an anti-govt protest. that is simply spin.
To my understanding:
Subsection 100 - provides a wide definition of election advertising, incorporating any display of election related material. A mass political protest movement giving voice to a political opinion is unlikely to be sustained on less than $60,000 (103-1,b). Also no single protest could cost no more than $2000 as that is the maximum for any particular electorate (103 -1,a).
Participation of non-electors (minors or non-NZ citizens) or registered party members/candidates in etectoral advertising (eg. street protest) would render the third party organising the event illegitimate (14).
Question - What about property damage if occuring at a venue of a protest, if claims (over $2000) were upheld would these be evidence of illegitimate electoral practice?
September 27th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
samiuela Says:
Why shouldn’t big business be able to spend as much money as they want in an attempt to influence an election? Why shouldn’t the Exclusive Brethren be allowed to spend money to try and sway voters? It is not the government’s responsibility to muzzle these interest groups
Yeah i mean how the heck is my group the Clu Clux Clan and the marfia that we are affiliated with ever gonna have a chance to change things for how we want it to be .Without having the chance to run a totally ANONYMOUS campaign with plenty of money .Let us run our campaigns how we wish !! .
September 27th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
And if you dont ! i threaten to rejoin the National party , cover the country in graffiti .And generally make a nuisance of myself like i did last time .
Oh and when i get in i`ll pass a law that everyone has to become a Exclusive Brethren !! ….Beat that ! Helen Clarke …….
September 28th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
If you and the rest of the political elite want to limit our freedom of speech why not have the guts to come out and say it?
Why the coyness? Just tell us straight that you favour criminal laws to prevent us saying whatever we want to say.
Hell, why not abandon the pretence entirely and declare a state of emergency? Then you can suspend this irritating free speech stuff entirely. Just don’t patronise us by saying that these restrictions are for our own good, eh?
September 29th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Oh dear me holy heck dont get all mouldy on me , after all free speech and a free fall all world with no constraints whatsoever is what we both agree on right .Are you just having a bad hair day or is it that the total freedom of speech and totally free world we both fight for , just doesnt include certain things such as the coyness you suggest .
It sounds awfully like my freedom of speech is irritating you my friend,now come on lighten up you and i both know we dont need any boundarys in this world. Can i interest you in joining the Exclusive brethren , as they im told are very interested in freedom without restrictions . That is why they are so concerned about being restricted .