by Russel Norman
Coaltion for Open Government have put out an excellent submission guide for people wanting to make submissions to the Electoral Finance Bill.
COG’s position:
1. Get rid of anonymous donations and secret trusts funding the parties. I agree, excellent idea. It’s a disgrace that it was cut out of the bill, as I said at the time even though many in the media were confused by the govt’s spin and thought anon party donors were being cracked down on to some extent (I was actually misparaphrased in the NZ Herald story because they didn’t understand the bill, which to be fair was because it was a large bill dropped late in the day and not explained well at all by the minister who it seems didn’t want to admit that they were doing nothing about anonymous donations).
2. Get rid of overseas donations to parties. Absolutely. [I should add, in light of some of the comments below, that I don't believe that this should apply to NZers living overseas entitled to vote]
3. Stop donations from non-persons such as corporations. This isn’t Green policy but I am personally very sympathetic to this point of view.
4. Higher penalties for breaking the law. Yep.
5. Support for controls on Exclusive Brethren type campaigns - transparency on funding sources, caps on spending. All sensible stuff.
6. Support the extension of the period covered by the spending cap out to the beginning of the year.
It is number 5 which has been most controversial and in spite of what David Farrar might have implied, COG has not dropped it support for these provisions. Rather they say: “The Bill should strike a better balance between free speech and sensible controls”. A comment which I endorse. At select committee they need to look in detail at these provisions to get this balance right as it seems to have problems at the moment.
Published in Environment & Resource Management by Russel Norman on Fri, August 10th, 2007
Tags: environment
More posts by Russel Norman | more about Russel Norman
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
russel said..
“.Get rid of overseas donations to parties. Absolutely..”
um..why..?
registered/supervised/limits..of course..
and no..cia front companies can’t be used to finance nationals’/acts’ campaigns..
but why deprive concerned nz greens (or whoever) resident overseas the option of helping with the election campaign..?
dosen’t seem to make sense to me..
and just seems like an(other) ‘anti-furriner’ riff..
(which..ahem..!..coming from an aussie..does have more than a patina of irony..eh..?..)
russel said..
“..Support for controls on Exclusive Brethren type campaigns – transparency on funding sources, caps on spending. All sensible stuff..”
right..so you still support that load of onerous/anti-democratic restrictions on free speech…?
such draconian moves justified just by invoking/calling up the spectre of the (failed) campaign of the exclusive brethren..?
this is what you are saying..?
could you clarify that please..?
your comment above is somewhat opaque/unclear..
and no..!..it is five and six that are ‘most controversial’..
how could strangling political dialogue for a year before any election..
not be ‘controversial’..?
and a horror to many of us..”
and that as you/the greens(?) appear to be doing..supporting this toxic/anti-democratic/suppressing of free speech legislation..
that actually fills me with dismay..
eh..?
and just has me going “w.t.f. are you doing..?”
and by supporting/having drawn up(!) this legislation..
how much further away could you be from what i..and others..consider a foundation stone of democracy..?
free speech..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Phil : come on, even the USA has spending limits on “soft money”.
Just like “freedom of the press” only applies to people who own it, “free speech” is effectively limited when you’re being shouted down by the people with the big sound systems.
I guess you’d be against restrictions on junk mail too?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
alister..read the legislation..
then tell me you’d be happy with it..
are you just being a ‘good’ green person here..?
going along with the party line..?
or have you actually thought this through…?
your junk-mail comment only illustrates how fatuous your comment really is..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Phil, correct me if I’m mis-representing you, but you seem to be advocating no limits whatever on political propaganda spending by anyone other than political parties?
If that’s the case, then my comments are relevant. And I’d like to know : Is it the spending limits you are opposing, or the transparency? Or both?
If, on the contrary, you think that some restrictions are required, then let’s look at the details. I agree with Russel, the devil is in the details, a balance is required between free speech and functioning democracy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
On the fundamental issues of funding political activity, I’m for state funding based on electoral support. Not just because it would make life easier for the Greens, but because it’s the only way to keep the big parties honest (in that one small aspect at least!)
Cutting out anonymous donations/trusts etc is vital, BUT
Placing restrictions on the current mechanisms without bringing in public funding is a recipe for disaster. If you cut off the current legal cash flows to the big parties without replacing them, they will lie, cheat and steal to get around the restrictions, rather than go without the money (or run cake stalls). i.e. they will raise money from companies and rich people, illegally, thereby opening the door to corruption. Happens everywhere else in the world, there’s no reason a mature democracy like NZ should escape it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
john armstrong in todays herald has this to say about that (poxy) bill..
and the greens’ role/part they are playing..
“. (national) will be rubbing its hands at the prospect of Labour getting a pasting from its trade union affiliates and other Labour allies.
If those organisations remain silent, they will have only themselves to blame if the law is not amended substantially and National ultimately benefits.
Such a scenario has not been lost on grassroots Greens. A National-led Government, for example, might sanction widespread uptake of genetically engineered products.
Anti-GE groups would find election law circumscribing their ability to fight back…”
(did you get that bit russel..?..thought that might resonate with you..?
and..b.t.w…what do you think you would be saying if it was national that was presenting/proposing this legislation..?
inquiring minds would like to know..)
“..At senior levels, however, the Greens seem blinkered by the Exclusive Brethren’s covert attempt to nobble them at the last election through an anonymous advertising blitz…”
(and ain’t that the truth..?..eh russel…?..et. al..?..)
and armstrongs’ conclusion is..
“..Labour’s/(your) solution is worse than the problem it seeks to solve, however..”
your thoughts on all that please russel..?
you did post in the hope for feedback/dialogue/debate..?..
i assume..?
i can also recommend reading audrey young..also in todays’ herald..
she is singing from the same songbook as armstrong..
you’re almost on your own there russel..
you and labour..
(planning on going down with the (labour) ship..?..are you..?..
what else can we take from your spruiking of possibly the worst attack on our democratic rights/freedom of political speech/dialogue..ever..?)
virtually everyone else..who has realised/comprehended what is actually going on here..
is having to hold their (disbelieving) jaws up..
and this all just raises the question again..russel..
that is..when are you going to u-turn/mea culpa on this..?
if you don’t..it will haunt you ’till election day..and beyond..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I say let the Exclusive Brethren do what they want. There will always be more than enough willing journalists and other people who are prepared to expose their political agenda. People are not dumb, and can make informed choices, no matter how much money might be funneled from secret sources into advertising etc. (and if I am wrong on this point, maybe people deserve the government they get?)
With regards banning oversea donations to political parties … does this mean if you are overseas you can vote for a political party, but not support the party monetarily? This may actually backfire on parties like the Greens, who I imagine would get a fair amount of support from overseas voters.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Russel,
Have taken the liberty to repost an earlier comment I made regarding this bill. Still very interested in your comments as you seem to be cherry picking those issues which the bill “should” address without commenting on the more nebulous parts of the bill (which if enacted would kill free speech).
Russel,
“And Gerrit you don’t seem to know a lot about the GE Free movt”
It is not about the money, it is about the ability to get the message out there. If the incumbent government has a policy pro-GE, then the Greens ant-GE message will come under electioneering for the 11 months prior to the election, and will need to be costed into the election funding.
There goes your “free” speech.
While the government justifies using ministerial expenditure as promoting the governments position.
If you think that is good for New Zealand then make a public statement on it, dont hide behind the money issue.
“And I would just remind people that in spite of all the rhetoric, this bill does not stop anyone making their case in the media at any time and allows people to buy advertising to influence the election – they just have to say who they are and they can’t buy as much as they like.”
I fact anyone (including the Greens) can buy very little while the incumbent government can spend on promoting their policy till the tax payer wilts.
So are you in favour of the total bill?
If this bill was passed I would be looking forward electioneering taking on much more radical stance with unaccountable electioneering tactics (remember the huge MMP sign on Auckland’s Mt Victoria made from weed killing the grass slope?).
Tagging and stunts like the MMP sign would become wide spread. Is that what you want Russel. Out of control and unaccountable electioneering?
Currently we have “free” speech so dont need to revert to radical electioneering.
This bill will foreshadow unaccountable and radical electioneering.
Now where is that spray can of paint. Those trains look like pretty good mobile bill boards to me.
Better still start up a graffiti removal company.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Gerrit,
I fully agree with what you say. Furthermore, I don’t have major problems with the “radical” electioneering you refer to. Big business, Exclusive Brethren etc can afford TV, radio and newspaper ads, other people can’t. I would rather see political graffiti than pointless tagging, which seems to make up most of the graffiti now days.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“With regards banning oversea donations to political parties … does this mean if you are overseas you can vote for a political party, but not support the party monetarily?”
Our view (which may not necessarily coincide with the Greens’ on this issue) is that as a general rule only those who can vote can donate. So New Zealanders overseas who can vote can donate. Of course, we want the law worded slightly differently – we figure 17 year-olds should be able to donate if they want to too!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Gerritt, the bill does not outlaw free speech, that’s just National Party spin. It puts a cap on how much non-parties can spend on election activities from Jan 1 2008 and makes them identify themselves (and has rules around income disclosure). It places no limits on media work that groups do.
So you can argue about the size of the cap, or the period that gets covered, and I think they are fair enough arguments to have – that’s why it’s going to a select committee with all parties represented. But placing some kind of rules on them does not outlaw free speech, no more than placing rules on the political parties has outlawed free speech. In fact these rules have facilitated free speech by ensuring that smaller players are not drowned out by larger players.
The third area for tweaking is the definition of election activity – it has been drawn very broadly and can be narrowed.
I agree with you that we need to pay very close attention to what govt ads are allowed to run during the same period. They need to be vetted and have a spending cap also. Have you got a suggestion here?
The alternative is anything goes, which means free speech for the rich and very little speech for the rest of us. That isn’t democracy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Phil, with all due respect to John Armstrong, he doesn’t know much about grassroots campaigning. If we in the Keep GE in the Lab movement had an “onerous” $60k cap in place in 2002 we would not have struggled to stay under it. We were a people’s movement not a money movement so we had people as our number one resource not bank accounts. The pro-GE campaign would have struggled to stay under such a cap but not us.
Armstrong also seems to disagree with extending the period covered by the cap on party spending out to the start of the year. The reality is that the campaign starts earlier than three months before the election. The cap is there to stop the election becoming a massive contest of who has the most money to buy ads. Extending the cap extends that purpose.
Now, once again, I agree let’s discuss the level of the spending cap, the time period covered, and whether the definition of election activity has been drawn too tightly, and the checks on state advertising, but a free-for-all on spending will not suit anyone who cares for the environment and social justice.
Armstrong may well be right that that the far-right anti-greens may win the politics of it, and the Greens and COG get beaten in our attempts to make the bill better. The aim of the far-right anti-greens is a free-for-all with no rules or spending limits so they can mobilise their superior money resources in the election campaign. And maybe they will get their way.
But be careful joining in their campaign of hysterical abuse against the bill. By all means let’s make the bill better, but if you join in the campaign by the Nats et al you will be making it easier for the forces of darkness at the next election, and all the following ones.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Russel – if the Keep GE in the lab group is the one I’m thinking of (and there may well have been many) its limit won’t have been $60,000 but $5000 – it was ineligible to register as a third party under clause 14, and thus won’t be able to get the $60,000 limit.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Russ
“The alternative is anything goes, which means free speech for the rich and very little speech for the rest of us. That isn’t democracy”
I cannot believe that you have the hard neck to claim that the Nat’s are trying to spin this bill then make a statement such as this.
I have always worried that the Greens have a hidden agenda and comment like this from the co-leader only confirm this, your statements over the last few weeks have made two things abundantly clear.
1 In no way would you (the Greens) contemplate a coalition agreement with the Nat’s, as this seems to be your policy then at lest have the guts to state it.
2. You will do anything at all to keep the Nat’s from gaining the treasury benches , make no mistake Russ this bill is all about free speech and the govt’s ability to censor any criticism I find it astounding that you could even think about defending it.
One final point, your naked attack on those who you laughingly call rich shows a rather nasty and small minded side, are the Greens going to be a party to Labour’s personal attack campaign in the next few months or have you already been promised the “baubles” of office by Klarke should she win a fourth term?…either way it is not what I would expect from the Greens who until now have pretty much always played the ball and not the man.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You can’t censor criticism with a spending cap, Big Bro. You can only censor propaganda. In its most fundamental sense, free speech costs nothing. The point is that while a little bit of spending can really help the cause of free speech through advertising, a LOT of spending can hinder it through what’s essentially indoctrination. Maybe the large parties should learn to spend their campaign money effectively and ethically before they start grabbing for more and more of it?
As for Green coalition with National? I agree right now that it’s not going to happen, but that’s mainly because National seems commited to working against the Greens. Where is the bridge between the two parties that would allow a functional coalition agreement? National opposes most Green social justice initiatives, energy policy, and has an environmental policy even more paper-thin than labour’s.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
russel..
edge has already corrected/up-turned your ‘there..there..everything is ok!’ around the ge free example..
so i don’t need to do that..
(and that example still stands ‘un-riposted’ by you..)
any restriction period should only be for the 90 days before any election..
any longer is totally anti-democratic/anti-free speech..
and there is no justification/to close-down political dialogue/that freedom of speech..for 11 months(!) before any election..
and having to register your protests with the government of the day..(!)
for their ‘regulation/over-sight/supervision’..(!)
w.t.f. are you thinking..?
this is ’stalinist’/big-brother/anti-democratic in the extreme..
how can it not be..?
(and what is this (seemimg) deep fear you have about the paucity of your ideas..(?)
where you feel that ‘more money’ from opponents will bury/kill your ideas/policies..?
i mean..act spent squillions last election..
and (just!) got rodders..and the military-groupie..
dosen’t that still your (to me) irrational fears..?
of some omnicience of money..?..over good ideas/’good policies’..?
whatever happened to the power of (green) ideas..?
(and hey..!..just on that topic of selling the green ideas..
if i could digress for a mo’..
one thing every green election campaigns advertising etc has been notable for is its’ lameness/boringness/ineffectualiy..
(in hindsight..we can all agree on that..eh..?..)
and prior to the last three elections i have tried to get the greens to consider a ‘pitch’ from two of the smartest/most talented/most ‘awarded’ ad-people in this country..
i used to work with them at bfm..and when there..the local ad industry asked them to please not enter the monthly industry awards any more..it was too embarassing for all concerned..cos’ they always won..!
these two guys at student-radio..up against the ‘majors’..
every month..!
and they now work as a unit in one of those ‘majors’..
now..because this (eminintly worthwhile/sensible) suggestion/recommendation came from me..it was/has been resolutely ignored..
by you..and others..(remember..?..you were campaign-manager..?..
last time..?)
all i have asked each time..is for them to be given the opportunity to be considered/to be able to pitch their ideas/concepts..to you/the greens..
nothing more..nothing less..
(y’know..standing or falling on the strength of their ideas..?..
is there a theme developing here..?)
doyareckon they might (if still willing!) ‘get a bite’ next time..?
or will you go with another ‘walking on the beach with ominous voiceovers’ again..
and bore us all rigid..?.again..?.)
and i think we all know that at least some of the responsibilities for the greens’ less than marvellous/startling outcomes last election was down to the fact that you weren’t actually trying to sell any ideas/policies..
eh..?
all you did was point vigorously at labour..and with a (hopeful) smile on yer faces..say..”we’re with them..!”..
and then they just turned around and p*ssed on you..eh..?
now..do you think you have ‘got over/through’ that whore/pimp abusive relationship you have had with them..?
the evidence to hand says..’no!’..
eh..?
and (it would appear) you now seem to believe that they ‘really really love you.’.?
and that ‘they won’t hit you’.. again..?
(have they ‘promised’..?..)
(see you at casualty..!..eh..?
a pimp..is a pimp!..is a pimp..!..)
try not to forget that..eh..?
(haven’t you been in their thrall for long enough..?
aren’t the outside environmental imperatives emboldening you..?)
apart from anything else..independance/distance from labour might hold you in good stead/save you from further/ongoing beatings/bruises..
eh..?
i think it’s called ‘being in denial’..russel..)
now..i always thought the main major point of any election-financing reform..was to stop the rivers of anonymous monies that flow into and influence/corrupt(?) our main political parties..
and the minnows..(c.f…act)
but..you tell us that labour told you that wouldn’t be happening..
and so..you..instead of arguing publically .against that/for your desired/stated outcome..
you have gone with this attempt to deal with what can only be viewed..at most..as just ‘the trunk of the elephant in the room’ with this one..
eh..?
and could your (dictated-to-you-by-labour?) solution be more draconian..?
and i could take some personal offence that you resort to accusing me..on the strength of my concerns about this bill..
of aiding and abetting ‘the forces of darkness’..
but that is both (sorta) funny)..and deeply deeply ironic at the same time..
cos’..on this one..you/the greens are well and truely in the thrall of/working for ‘the forces of darkness’/repression..
(how feckin’ ‘ungreen’ is that..?..eh..?..)
but trying to denigrate/diminish the concerns/worries of myself..and most others who are aware of the longterm implications of what you propose/support/argue for..
as a ‘campaign of hysterical abuse against the bill’..
is something else..
that pisses me off..actually..
and shows you..russel..
in the worst possible light..
and i’m not kidding when i say you could kill the green party..
with your/the greens’ support (at the behest/direction of labour) of this legislation you are just manufacturing a great big stick..
with which you will be walloped..and walloped..
(which brings us back to the histories of your abusive/whore-pimp relationship with labour..to date..
eh..?..)
in summary:..nothing you have said has allayed any of the fears i..and many many others..have around this deeply-flawed legislation..
and your continued support/defences of it..
..just ‘dismays’..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ari
By “social justice” I assume you mean taxing (stealing) more from those of us who work so you give away more money to those who do not?
Lets be honest, the Greens are more interested in social and Maori issues than they are the environment and that makes them the natural coalition partner of Labour and all the other bludgers from the left, all I want is for he leadership to come out and say it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Russel,
Thank you for your reply,
What you are advocating is no more free speech, full stop.
If you think that having to get a state servants approval prior for spending money to making a speech (or distributing electionering material or running a blog like this one) is the epitamy of “free” speech, then you and I occupy different spaces on this planet.
That is not “free” speech, that is controlling the masses (rich or poor it is still state control of what is allowed to be said). That is not democracy either.
The cost of running this blog for example will come liable against The Greens electioneering spending, no use saying that it is done by volunteers for nothing, you will still be up for the calculated expense as all electioneering activity can not be costed at “mates rates”.
That is freedom of speech?
I also think you grossly underestimate the power that will be in the underground electioneering that will take place, not just tagging or the unathorised slapping up of electioneering posters but much more use of web sites and blogs on overseas servers.
The only way to stop that electioneering is to have a Chinese style ban on where we go and what we see on the internet.
To control underground electioneering you will need to employ even more state servants to police and prosecute those who electioneer outside the spending caps. (Always remembering that for every state servants employed in unproductive work, requires at least three productive workers).
No, I prefer freedom of speech the way it is now, not how you see it.
It is not perfect but it is better then your unworkable and uncontrolable alternative.
But then again underground electioneering will be much more fun.
Not often the Blue Greens get to man the barricades!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Gerrit et al,
There seems to be an unwritten assumption that those who would like to restrict free speech tend to fall on the left of the political spectrum, or alternatively that the liberal right are the bastions of free speech. I would just like to point out that this is not a correct assumption. People who wish to restrict free speech come from all sides of the political spectrum (look at some of the “anti-terror” laws implemented by the Australian Liberal government for an example).
Personally, I favour a free for all, no holds barred approach to speaking about political issues. I definitely do not support arbitrary bans on groups such as the Exclusive Brethren, much as I dislike what they stand for. I have voted for a number of political parties, including a communist party, and tend to think there is no current political party in New Zealand which is left wing enough for my taste. Instead, I opt for voting for the Greens because at least they are trying to address the important environmental problems which face us, and threaten our future generations.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Edge, what I assume you are referring to is the provision that says unincorporated societies can’t register as third parties in the election if they have members who are not registered voters. Is that right? I think we need to change that part of the bill so that groups can register as third parties and have NZ citizens and residents as members regardless of their age or whether they are registered voters. I reckon most parties in select committee would support such a change. And once it is changed then what I wrote will hold true.
Gerritt, you are being intellectually dishonest when you say things like:
“If you think that having to get a state servants approval prior for spending money to making a speech (or distributing electionering material or running a blog like this one) is the epitamy of “free? speech”.
Statements like this are part of the campaign of hysterical lies being run against the bill. Parties currently operate within caps and that doesn’t mean civil servants have to approve what parties do – parties simply have to monitor their spending. The same will apply to the big lobby groups that plan to spend tens of thousands of dollars on the campaign – they will have to monitor their spending.
Phil – reading your screeds of chook scratchings really isn’t at the top of my agenda right now.
Big bro – caring for people is not antithetical to caring for the planet. The Greens have never pretended that they don’t fall on the left on most social policy becasue we care about people but we fall on the sustainable end of politics too. It is too simplistic to say that there is only left-right. I believe that there is more than one dimension to politics and left-right and sustainable-unsustainable are two of them. The Greens tend to fall on the left end of left-right and are defined by being on the sustainable end of sustainable-unsustainable. I do accept that there are people who believe that it is possible to be on the right end of left-right and the sustainable end of sustainable-unsustainable. I think that is not a particularly viable position but I know reasonable people honestly hold that opinion.
Samiuela – No-one is suggesting that the EBs be banned, just that there be limits on how much they can spend, and that they have to be honest about who they are.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Russel,
Intellectually you are right it is not the contents of the “free” speech that the civil servant will keep a track on but the amount spent. Yep you are correct there.
What the civil servants will have to check on is that the contents of the “free” speech is covered by the electral act. (an anti GE speech for example)
If the government has a policy on the matter then the speech becomes electioneering and is covered by the act.
What the incumber government can do (and it could be an ultra left or right wing one at that) is make everything government policy and it will stifle all speech except up to the expenditure cap for 11 months.
Now that is not a lie. Absolutely not. If you think it is then I suggest you read the proposed Act more carefully.
Hysterical Lies even??, No Russel not hysterical at all, just pointing out how badly the Greens will fare if the electoral act was passed and you found yourself in opposition to a utra right wing / corporate funded government.
While my position is to the right of centre, a ultra-right/corporate/christian fundamentalist government is not someting I would wish for the New Zealand electorate. Especially if the electoral reform act was cast in stone.
While totally free speech is not perfect (favouring those with the means – including governments with tax payers funds) but stifled free speech controlled (through the means of expenditure caps and by the State controlling the definition of what is electioneering) is 100 times worse.
This is seriously what the Green party wants?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Gerrit, yep I agree with you that, as it’s currently defined the kinds of non-party advertising coming under a spending cap would include most political issues. And that’s what we need to look at in select committee.
My question to you is do you want to remove the caps on what the parties can spend? So it becomes a war of money like US and Oz?
Cause if you don’t want to remove the caps on parties then you have to address the question of caps for non-party actors otherwise all the money that can’t be spent by parties ends up being channelled to the non-parties to effectively run party campaigns in drag. This is basically what happened last time with National and the Exclusive Brethren.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
russel said,,”..
“..Phil – reading your screeds of chook scratchings really isn’t at the top of my agenda right now…”
(um..ok..i’ll refrain from playing the ad hominem game..russel..
despite having an overflowing ammunition-box of ad hominems i could direct at you..eh..?
over your past and present/current performances..
but they can keep for another day..and if i could at all be bothered..
it’d be like shooting turkeys in a pen..
and um..!..do you really think that response to the questions/issues/concerns raised..not only by by li’l ol’ chook-scratcher me..shows you in a good light..?
russel..?
(‘party-leader’ sorta behaviour..eh..?..)
sheesh..!..go figure..!..)
anyway..back to the business at hand..
i notice russel..that once again you dance around the issues..
and have not even attempted to defend/explain/reply to the concerns about closing down political dialogue for 11 months before any election..
and just to confirm how piss-weak your chook-scrathings-insult/riposte is..
laila harre and matthew hooten were just on national radio..
both were in (rare) agreement..
that this is a dogs’ breakfast of a bill..
and that everyone needs to go back to the drawing board..
and to start by some ‘in good faith’ cross-party dialogue..
do you plan on doing a don quioxte on this one russel..?
you..and soon to fired minister burton..as your pancho villa..eh..?
yours in reasoned/ad hominen-free dialogue..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Am in agreement with samiuela, open slather is the only answer and yes it is a money game.
Even with spending limits you are not going to be able to control third party spending.
For example the EB’s could easily split in EB1, EB2, EB3, etc. groups, each with a $60,000 expenditure limit.
Are you going to have a state servant decide if this is legal? No that will be done in the courts.
What constitutes a group anyway? Are the various trade unions lumped together as a group? No, therefore the various EB groups can not be lumped under one overarching group.
So third party electioneering will still be as open as before.
Another casue for concern is the decision of what constitutes an advertisement and what is electioneering. Some clever marketing people (such as those who colour all government promotion literure in red with a labour party logo) will have a field day writing copy which is totaly contestable in court.
So we will have even more court cases.
Then you need to address the issues of penalties if the court rules against a political party. Unless the elector commision (or whomever overseas elction results plus the Governor General?) has the ability to overturn an election because of electioneering irregularies than the proposed act is a waste of time. ALL political parties will break the rules.
And no doubt those issue will need to be addressed in court as well.
One can envisage an election in October not being declared until all court cses have been declared and all appeals heard. Something which could take months if not years.
All the while an unelected government holds the treasury benches.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
(ah..!..what the hell..!..eh..?..)
as i predicted would happen..if you were elected co-leader..russel..
(behind the scenes)..you are ideologically working at ghettoising the political wing of the green movement as an acolyte/appendage of labour..
labour..a party that has overseen/encouraged the wholesale deterioration of our environments..
in their many years in power..
(and you support/have supported/succoured them in this/their environmental destruction..eh..?
that’s an irrefutable fact russel..
a fact supported by more stats/deteriorating environments than you can poke a stick at..
and this latest sorry/sad outing couldn’t be stronger confirmation of this blind/ideology-driven subservience to labour..you seem to desire to continue..
and which will..if you are not stopped/replaced/redirected..reduce the green party to an irrelevancy/snippet of history…
(the penny hasn’t dropped for you yet..?..has it..?
russel..?
you don’t yet realise any green party that wishes to have any lasting influence/life..
must straddle the ideological ‘centre’..
‘working’ both the main parties..
(but i think that concept sticks in your ideological-craw..eh..?..)
and..in another thread..hasn’t your record to date with labour yet proven to you the errors of your ways..?
obviously not..
cos’..in this case..your intransigence in the face of reasoned/reasonable opposition from almost everyone..
only confirming your adherence to this (fatally-flawed) path..
(and ..um..!..are not your lamentable 4-5% poll ratings also not shouting at you the errors of your ways..?
and your failures to date at getting out that green message..?
how long have you been leader now russel..?
could we have a list of your achievments to date..?
(would you like to borrow my ‘postie-pad’..?)
did you/do you think labour will/would rule forever..?
russel..?
and what..?..in your grand plan..then..?
russel..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes Gerrit…. the problems in administering a cap (other than a cap of zero) are simply too much. The problem of putting in such a cap for more than the 90 days before the election is simply a bit too much for me as well, but the answer is NOT “open slather” because it then isn’t about “free speech” but about bought out advertising space, and the smaller parties will not be represented in that open slather to the same extent as the monied interests.
Which will say what they damn well please and get away with it as they always have.
Ninety days before the election and everyone who isn’t speaking for an ACTUAL political party has to stay out of the TV advertisements, billboards, broadsides, radio and newspapers.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BJ,
“Ninety days before the election and everyone who isn’t speaking for an ACTUAL political party has to stay out of the TV advertisements, billboards, broadsides, radio and newspapers.’
I could run with that but think the three month is a bit too long. Maybe a month would be more practical.
Also only positive party promotional electioneering be permissable.
ie – Labour promotion of say pro GE and the benefits that New Zealand would gain from having cell stem research, etc.
Greens promoting say anti GE with the benefits that New Zealand would gain from banning GE modified corn seeds whose crops cannot be harvested and used as seed for next years crop.
That way we only have positive benefits from the political parties policies.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
With everyone including the Greens backpedalling on this bill because of the suddenly (to them) apparent flaws you have to question:
a) what motivated them to allow this bill to progress in the first place?
b) how well equipped are they to deal with govt if this is an example of their ability to manage the regulatory process on which there was cross party support?
The oddest thing is everyone in favour of the bill says it is to stop evil big money and evil misleading contributions distorting the electoral process, yet there is a singular lack of evidence they actually did. Yet some seem willing to chuck out rules refined over years.
There’s no evidence the EB campaign hurt the Greens, there’s reasonable evidence it hurt National; any evidence money equals votes is similarly weakened by a review of the $ spent per vote gained.
peanut meet hammer….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Gerrit
Call it a month and a half?
I’d allow as the parties can say “bad stuff” about other parties if they wish, but that it has to come out of their budgets (at the expense of their positive messages). Not removing party related caps. Negative messages and absence of positive messages would speak for themselves about the quality of ideas of a particular party.
I have to hope that Kiwis in general are perceptive enough to listen to that.
However, if it came to it I would be able to live with your version.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Insider. Actually there’s lots of anecdotal evidence that the EBs hurt us – I had many people repeat the EB lie on captial gains tax… but it certainly has to be balanced against the publicity it gave us at the end i give you that.
The bill is flawed like lots of bills – it needs tweaking at select cttee. pretty normal really.
BJ and Gerrit, i think there is a lot of merit in what you say but given the wall of fire the current proposals have run into don’t you think your proposal would get even worse PR – given that it really is shutting down all advertising by non-parties for the last month or three?
Phil, my criticism of your postings is not ad hominem but ad escritem (if that’s a word!). They look like chook scratchings and I find them difficult to read and generally don’t. But having read that one, I find it amusing that you and big bro say I’m too left wing while Bryce and others that i’m too right wing. I guess the thing in politics is just do what you think is right (as in correct!) within the framework of party policy and philosophy. And so I shall.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BJ,
Yep that would do it.
With HC and Labour furiously back pedalling on this bill now that the MSM have it in their sights I’m suprised the Greens keep plugging away with it.
Sometime you have to wonder if the Green party strategists ever applied the DIMS (Does It Make Sense) test to this bill.
Or what the potential consequences would be if enacted.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Russel,
There is no doubt some form of electoral reform is required but the anwer to what this will constitute must have cross party support. Having the government (without cross party support) drop the bill onto the table late in the piece was just such a bad and patronising piece of political incompetance.
Having a bill so flawed placed before the public was stupid, meaning that any future elctoral reform will be even more difficult.
Electoral reform in my opinion has been put back at least ten years
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Russell
All I can suggest is that we try it out on them all and see. Gerrit and I come from VASTLY different camps and the logic here is quite compelling to have us agree on something this fundamental.
The reduction of the time period and the simplicity of the rules and enforcement regime could get their attention. The fact that this isn’t “government funding” of the campaign would likely help.
It could reduce the expense of the campaigns as well. As the competition for advertising space would be reduced in that final period.
All parties benefit from having their messages being THEIR messages.
Besides, we have to be true to our colours and be certain to start any possible political firestorm at every possible opportunity
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
russel said..
“..I find it amusing that you and big bro say I’m too left wing while Bryce and others that i’m too right wing..”
glad this all amuses you..russell
and interesting/revealing what amuses you..eh..?
are you also cracking up over the much-touted/trumpeted ‘green’ solar water scheme having not even one (!) uptake.?
in six months..(!)
chalk that up as a resounding whatever..eh..?
got any more ideas/policies where that one came from..?
that concession you ‘wrung’ out of labour..?
the ‘price’ for your support of labour..eh..?
in their ongoing degradation of our environment..?
(that’s a real side-splitter..eh..?..)
tho’ some of us would cry..if we didn’t join in your laughter..
then there are those ongoing 4-5% poll ratings..
they’re a hoot for many of us..do you chuckle at that ‘result’ also..?
(smile self-contentedly into the mirror..?..)
your sinking into media/public invisibility since your election..
that’s another (predicted) barrel of laughs..eh..?
and hey russell..repression from the left is little different from repression from the right..
both are repression..
and isn’t that just a touch fey/transparent of you to try to dismiss our concerns on that diversion..?
russel said..”..I guess the thing in politics is just do what you think is right..”
(cue dramatic pause)..”and so i shall”
um..!..that’s called hubris russel..
and..aren’t you jumping the gun a bit there..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Russel
That is an understatement to say this bill is flawed. It is deeply flawed, and that is even more concerning when a number of parties have been consulted on its content and couldn’t see the train about to hit them. Seems like there might have been a bunch of ideological blinkers on.
Appreciate you taking the time and interest to comment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Russel said “Actually there’s lots of anecdotal evidence that the EBs hurt us”.
But would anybody have bothered reading any of their pamphlets or any other part of their $500,000 campaign if the news media hadn’t made people sit up and take notice. In marketing the only bad publicity is no publicity. And that’s all the EB had before the news media gave their pamphlets an exposure that $500,000 could never hope to buy.
A quick check of the news reports from that time that are still on the net reveals that none of reports questioned any of the claims in the pamphlets. They simply fixated on the non-dislosure issue.
Human nature being what it is, an awful lot of people would have read the pamphlets just to see what all the fuss was about, in the same way they NEED to read about Brad and Jennifer and poor little Paris. And they probably would have believed every word they read just as they do when they salivate over their copy of No Idea every week.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The baby’s been thrown out, and we’re bickering over the bathwater.
The fundamental reform that is required, is to cut the big parties (and their proxies) off from big money. The necessary corollary to that is public funding for the parties. If that’s “too hard”, then you can’t get a coherent reform. As the draft bill demonstrates.
Fundamental incoherence in the bill : registered third parties re not allowed to accept anonymous donations over $500. Whereas political parties can! Unfair? You bet. Can it be fixed in committee stages? No it can’t… see above.
Open slather was more or less tenable in the past, because of voluntary restraint (or lack of imagination) by the big parties. Now they’ve worked out how to get money and how to spend it under the current rules, the rules need to be tightened up.
However now that the feeding frenzy about freedom of speech has set in (many of the concerns are valid, but the general tone of frantic hyperbole is disastrous), the likely result is that the new bill will be even more lax than the current situation… National will end up being able to legally channel and funnel all the big-biz donations they can shake a stick at… Labour will probably feel obliged to be ever more “business friendly” in order to attract the contributions to keep up.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
so russel..now that helen clark is galloping away from this bill..
do you plan on standing alone..?
“..just doing what (you) think is right..as (you) shall..?..”
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Alistair
If I accept your point that big money should be cut off, why is the response to that state funding?
Why should you or I have to pay more for Labour or National or the Greens just because they want to bicker over who gets what? They get heaps as it is.
If they want money they should go out and earn it. The best way to do that is get members. State funding only rewards failure and entrenches party and policy elites.
If parties were more reliant on generating actual members they would be encouraged to engage more with them and the wider community, and it would encourage greater invovlvement in democratic processes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Insider –
The size of the membership quite certainly does not reflect the quality of the ideas. Ask Libertarianz.
Nor, in your scenario, is there any measure that a smaller party can take to grow against the larger parties, or get its ideas heard. The larger parties have more money, advertise more widely, have more campaign workers and get more new members. Size matters and you hand that advantage over without any limits at all.
The smaller party’s messages get buried in the noise.
Money Matters…. It is “the Mother’s Milk of politics”
I wouldn’t however, give money directly to any party. I’d let the government buy X column inches, Y prime-time minutes on radio and Z television minutes… as well as a couple of brochures and debates. Each party gets
the same voice, the same volume, the same monetary equivalent ad time.
And for the last 45 days before the election nobody BUT the parties can run political advertisements.
That’d make the ELECTION a bit more of an exercise in civics. People would have a chance to think about ideas. The most important part though is that the money, for possibly the first time in human history, would not really matter all that much.
Because this is about improving democracy… not about money.
respecfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
russel..
and it comes out in questiontime today..
that the cited/quoted precedents for this legislation..
britain and canada..have at best ..had their regimes ’selectively-quoted-from’
at worst..been grossly misrepresented/lied about..as in actual facts..(!)
and that neither the british nor the canadian systems are anywhere near as draconian/repressive as this toxic-soup dreamed up by you and labour..
it certainly ‘dosen’t keep getting any better’..eh..?
are we planning on ‘leading the world’..again..?
but this time in repressive/anti-democratic legislation..?
(woo-hoo..!..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)