Electoral Finance Bill, 3rd reading
The third reading has begun, after many passionate speeches in the house. I have a particular liking for this one:
Phew!
Bookmark to:
48 Responses to “Electoral Finance Bill, 3rd reading”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
December 18th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Is there a link there frog? For some reason I cant see it.
December 18th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Yes NickC, there is a YouTube video embeded, which is visible and working for me. Try a refresh. If still no joy leave another comment, I’ll check it when I get home tonight.
December 18th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
Any comment on United Futures last minute decision to vote against this communist piece of legislation?
December 18th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Pure opportunism BB. At least the Greens stand by their principles and what their members want, rather than pander to opinion polls driven by the NZ Herald and its major advertisers.
December 18th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Toad
You are right about that, in your own arrogant style you go against the wishes of the public when it comes to the s59 debate and the EFB.
You seem to be spending far to much time with Clark, the arrogant way you dismiss opposition as “major advertisers and the NZ Herald” is something that I think the public should know about don’t you?
Or is that all part of the sneaky little back room deals.
December 18th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Well welcome to communist New Zealand . I am thankful I am a trained sapper ,as things are about to hot up in frog land , that I can assure you utopian toads . I will not let this happen without huge resistance and civil disobedience . No more Mr Nice Guy crap as the party is over ! Most of the fools that infest parliament are just former activist cockroaches from the nippy hippy years in the 60’s , yuck ! NB ; You started this fight - common sense will finish it !!!
December 18th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
d4d - There’s a pretty aggressive spam filter on this blog. Not much sneaks through. Some words trigger it, too many links trigger it as well. Hard to tell what happened until the frogmeister brings the posts out of the woodshed.
Nick C… the link is OK… you do have to have javascript enabled and a flash player hooked up. Check your settings I think.
respectfully
BJ
December 18th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
anyone else see dad4justice’s comment as advocating terrorism? Doesn’t seem to be too different from the transcripts of the Maori activists to me. Surely the police should raid his house forthwith!
December 18th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
BB said: You seem to be spending far to much time with Clark, …
I’ve only ever spoken with the woman twice, and both times were in the 1980s when she was a junior Minister in the Fourth Labour Government dominated by the extreme right (Douglas/Prebble/Bassett etc).
December 18th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Nice one stuey ? Got Court tomorrow already thank you very much ol’ chap . What a nice bloke you are -lol .
December 18th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
BB said: You are right about that, in your own arrogant style you go against the wishes of the public when it comes to the s59 debate and the EFB.
That is all a matter of perspective BB. As the Greens see it, we are not there to represent public opinion as expressed by opinion polls or by the NZ Herald. We are there to support the policy our membership, through a democratic internal process in the party, has endorsed.
If that gets the Greens offside with public opinion occasionally, then so be it. Even if it gets us chucked out of Parliament, then so be it.
At least the Greens can stand and say we are principled and internally democratic, and have done what our members wanted us to do. We acted honourably on both s 59 and the EFB, while all the other Parties acted expediently on these issues.
The Greens didn’t achieve what they wanted in negotiations with Labour and NZ First on the EFB, and I think we’ve got a bit of a shambles. But I think history will show the Greens were correct to not back National’s total opposition to the Bill, which I suspect was motivated by total self-interest (as was Labour’s refusal to agree to several of the Green amendments).
December 19th, 2007 at 12:09 am
so, the Greens voted for a bill that it calls “a bit of a shambles” with a lawyer leading the charge. Incredible.
It initially wanted an electoral finance bill, specifically with rules to make it illegal to split up large donations into lots smaller than $1000 to avoid disclosure of identity. That was the policy your membership supported. It never got that so it voted for the bill anyway - hardly reflecting membership support. The very least the Greens could have done was to do an SOP to outlaw repeated anonymous donations, but your allegiance to Labour appears stronger than your alleigance to your own members.
Your members did not want you to vote for this bill. You didn`t listen to them.
December 19th, 2007 at 4:56 am
D4d
Just so you understand what we are trying to avoid, here’s another hint.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13953.html
In the USA, as currently administered, it is impossible to even find out who has visited the President or Vice President in their official capacity. Not who showed up at the ranch for a BBQ… who came to the White House. They don’t want us to know which checkbooks own the office, but it is damned clear that it isn’t the average citizen’s.
Common Sense tells us that this is far worse than limiting someones ability to purchase advertising and lie about someone else, as was done in the Swift-Boating of Kerry and Gore in elections past, and was attempted against the Green Party in the last election. If Greens are to lose because of their positions it had better be GREEN positions, not what someone else says we think, that govern that result. On current form that is not the case. It is certainly not the case with respect to the NZ Herald. The Dom Post was a bit more respectful, though they are not always so.
Davec… I do not think you know what the Green membership “wants”. To get that answer you’d have to poll the greens. Of the members I know of frequenting this board, there is unanimous support of the bill in its changed form. Some are more enthusiastic than others, but the “better than nothing” argument is a pretty strong one.
Just because we didn’t get what we wanted doesn’t mean we won’t take what we can get.
respectfully
BJ
December 19th, 2007 at 9:38 am
A sad day for New Zealand.
NZ Herald: “The Electoral Commission has hired a firm to begin surveillance of political advertising from January 1. And it says it will refer breaches of the Government’s new election spending law to the police. The watch-list will include Invercargill Mayor Tim Shadbolt’s tertiary funding campaign”
Yeah, thanks Greens.
December 19th, 2007 at 9:54 am
Better than nothing is not unamimous support. You will hear people saying that $22 tax cuts are better than nothing but there wont be unamimous support -particularly those on lower incomes wh get $6.
Collectively, the better than nothing argument is only stronger if most of the colective believe that the bill is better than nothing and can explain why. If they cant explain why they probably dont know why.So, tell me how it is better than nothing and I`ll fisk you.
December 19th, 2007 at 10:08 am
More like a sad day for the NZ Herald.
Much of the public opposition to the EFB has been led by that newspaper’s scurrilous campaign of blatant lies about what the Bill will and won’t do.
We see it again today - on the front page: “Citizens must now register with the state - through the Electoral Commission - if they want to spend $12,000 or more on advertising a cause which might influence voters, even if their message does not name a party or candidate”.
Absolute rubbish. Whoever wrote that either hasn’t read section 5 of the Act, or has chosen to deliberately distort it.
December 19th, 2007 at 10:37 am
Toad,
We could really do with some official Green Party clarification on what a non-registered person or 3rd party can or cannot pay to be published in an election year.
You appear to suggest that a non-registered 3rd party can spend as much as they like providing information if their message does not name a party or candidate.
December 19th, 2007 at 10:39 am
Frog
Can he be critical, either directly or indirectly, of the government? How much can he spend then?
December 19th, 2007 at 10:52 am
unaha-closp said: Toad, We could really do with some official Green Party clarification on what a non-registered person or 3rd party can or cannot pay to be published in an election year.
This isn’t official, and I might have got it wrong as there were many amendments while the Bill was going through and the final Act hasn’t been published yet, but my understanding of how section 5, (which defines “election advertisement” for the purposes of the spending cap and registration requirements) ended up is as follows:
5 Meaning of election advertisement
(1) In this Act, election advertisement—
(a) means any form of words or graphics, or both, that can reasonably be regarded as doing 1 or more of the following:
(i) encouraging or persuading voters to vote, or not to vote, for 1 or more specified parties or for 1 or more candidates or for any combination of such parties and candidates:
(ii) encouraging or persuading voters to vote, or not to vote, for a type of party or for a type of candidate that is described or indicated by reference to views, positions, or policies that are or are not held, taken, or pursued (whether or not the name of a party or the name of a candidate is stated); and
(b) includes—
(i) a candidate advertisement; and
(ii) a party advertisement.
(2) The following {publications} are not election advertisements:
(a) an advertisement that is published by the Chief Electoral Officer, the Chief Registrar of Electors, the Electoral Commission, or any other agency charged with responsibilities in relation to the conduct of any official publicity or information campaign to be conducted on behalf of the Government of New Zealand and relating to electoral matters or the conduct of any general election or by-election and which either contains a statement indicating that the advertisement has been authorised by that officer or agency, or contains a symbol indicating that the advertisement has been authorised by that officer or agency:
(b) any editorial material, other than advertising material, in a periodical that is written by, or is selected by or with the authority of, the editor solely for the purpose of informing, enlightening, or entertaining readers:
(c) any broadcast, in relation to an election, of news or of comments or of current affairs programmes:
(d) any content of a radio or television programme, other than
advertising material, that has been selected by, or with the authority of, a broadcaster (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1989) solely for the purpose of informing, enlightening, or entertaining its audience:
(e) any editorial material, other than advertising material, published on a news media Internet site that is written by, or selected by or with the authority of, the editor or person responsible for the Internet site solely for the purpose of informing, enlightening, or entertaining readers:
(f) a book that is sold for no less than its commercial value, if the book was planned to be made available to the public regardless of any election:
(g) a document published directly by a body corporate or unincorporated to its members:
(h) a document published directly by—
(i) an incorporated body to its shareholders or members:
(ii) an unincorporated body to its members:
(g) the publication by an individual, on a non-commercial basis, on the Internet of his or her personal political views (being the kind of publication commonly known as a blog).
December 19th, 2007 at 10:54 am
Oops, got some of the alphabetisation wrong putting it together, but you get the jist?
December 19th, 2007 at 10:54 am
If Greens are to lose because of their positions it had better be GREEN positions, not what someone else says we think, that govern that result.
Or this might just be critical analysis of Green policy. Are you saying people shouldn’t be able to comment on Green policy?
Green MPS seem very comfortable putting forward their version of the truth, as if it is the only version of the truth. Why not others?
December 19th, 2007 at 10:59 am
I was not impressed with Metiria’s speech. I particularly like Hone Harawira’s speech: Harawira speaks true
December 19th, 2007 at 11:16 am
Zentiger I think you’re overreacting here. “GREEN positions” was (presumably) in reference to all the crap the EB were saying the last election ZenTiger. Not really what I’d call critical analysis.
December 19th, 2007 at 11:18 am
Maybe i should have waited for bjchip to speak for themselves, but i was feeling hasty
December 19th, 2007 at 11:38 am
Seen it now, I though John Keys speech was better:
http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=Vy36zgOT1_M
December 19th, 2007 at 11:38 am
toad,
“….and the final Act hasn’t been published yet,”
So the greens voted for an act which has not been published yet.
Or are you implying that the members of parliament had the final unpublished act in front of them when they voted?
If they did why was that not distributed?
Either way it is not a good look.
“At least the Greens can stand and say we are principled’ by voting for an unpublished act.
December 19th, 2007 at 11:38 am
Personally, I think the Greens over-reacted to the Exclusive Brethren brochure. If the EFB was all about limiting anonymous donations and stopping interest groups publishing brochures, then I think (a) they failed (b) the process was flawed and the Greens should hang their heads in shame over this (c) there was insufficient public participation (see b) and (d) the Greens take on free speech is one that simply reveals eroding principles.
But that’s just my opinion of course. The Greens are no doubt happy to allow me an opinion, just as long as I never get into the situation where I have enough money to publish it. No doubt viral, low cost campaigns that spread via email, you tube, and cunning use of media press releases to carry a story will be next on the list of things to control.
The excuse here is it was about “money”.
The next time the excuse will be about “truth”.
December 19th, 2007 at 11:39 am
Last election a group I was involved with published a report card for animal welfare, listing all the parties and giving them a grade. I remember the Greens got an A, the Maori Party got a B, Winston first and UF got a C, ACT, Labour, National and Anderton failed. My question is would this need to be registered and be restricted under the new Act. If so, then I cannot support it. If not then I will give my qualified support as being better than nothing.
December 19th, 2007 at 11:54 am
Well, we’ve had the EFB passed for a few hours now, and strangely, no jackbooted soldiers of communist bent have passed my door (or broken it down), and apart from the weather nothing much seems to have changed from yesterday. It certainly doesn’t feel like a sad day.
This is all most odd, I was given to understand the world was about to cave in…
December 19th, 2007 at 11:58 am
Perhaps you’re a frog sitting in a pot of water.
Perhaps ithat’s steam you notice out of the corner of your eye, but maybe it’s just fog. Yes, I’m sure it’s just fog.
Phew, eh.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
dbuckley, I think the date of Armageddon is 1 Jan according to the new act and this book.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
dbuckley,
Qoute from the Herald
“The Electoral Commission is to hire a firm to begin surveillance of political advertising from January 1.”
“And it says it will refer breaches of the Government’s new election spending law to the police.”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10483198
So you are a bit early, even the state apparatus cant get up to speed that quick.
Notice the investigative branch is going to be a private company?
You will be aware of course that the governments and all political parties dubious spending habits will be reported to the Police as well.
Police, public prosecutors and the courts are going to be busy people.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Well, we’ve had the EFB passed for a few hours now, and strangely, no jackbooted soldiers of communist bent have passed my door (or broken it down),
Setting aside the utter stupidity of that statement, one of the issues I have with the EFB is that the definitions are not particularly clear. Like all good jack booted communists, it means that the government can selectively enforce the law against the groups they wish to attack, whilst allowing others latitude. To add insult to injury, they will proclaim that they are being “fair” because they don’t enforce the law on every single group, but use “common sense” to prove they are being fair minded, rather than intolerant.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Yes I am slightly concerned that a private company is going to be monitoring these rules. Diebold v2 ??? I suspect though that this idea is to use a media aggregating service to collate all media and have someone sort through them all. Though just writing about it that sounds like a task.
kiore: I think it is fair wouldn’t you that third parties (or other parties if you want to be PC like national) involved in the election campaign play by rules just like all the candidates do. You (and for that matter I, and I expect bb) would no doubt feel that animal welfare is an important topic and that all parties policies on this matter should be independently ranked and brought before members of the public. In the interests of fairness you being able to (cause you got yourself 3 million dollars of donations from a concerned wealthy citizen) completely overwhelm the ability of any of the parties to respond. Say ACT wanted to say you actually hadn’t evaluated their latest policy and that applying your criteria to it they would have past. But due to the spending cap they couldn’t not really that fair is it?
December 19th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Zen: All law and definitions are deliberately unclear; it is the courts that bring the clarity to law. As an example, in the Privacy Act, there is a definition something along the lines of “Personal information means information held about an individual”. Nowhere does the act define what “information” means. You would think that in an act which is all about the protection (or otherwise) of information it might tell you what it is that is being protected. But it does not, the courts have and will continue to figure out over time what is “information”.
So this jackbooted mob you anticipate: who exactly are this group? When you say “the government”, do you mean the elected bit, or the state agencies such as the police? Who do you think will make the choices over where any possible prosecutions will be aimed? Especially bearing in mind that as a certain cabinet minister found out, use of the legal system is not restricted to men with funny shaped hats, the ordinary folk can invoke the thing too. So even if The Police choose (or are told not to, by some means) not to prosecute organization X, it doesn’t mean that you cant…
December 19th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
dbuckley - you are the one who brought up jack boots and bent soldiers. I just used your colourful words in my response. I understand that this was a weak attempt by you to make out that now that the law has passed, opponents of this law, and the process the law went through are somehow unreasonably paranoid.
Well, the government has just purchased a whole fleet of BMWs that dont measure up to their new standards. By the same logic, why should we complain. The sea level did not rise 6m moments after they decided to spend $5 million dollars of tax payer money on this new mode of moving political billboards. Perhaps any criticism of this decision is wrong?
Re: Your privacy law point - that is a very creative way of justifying bad electoral law. You ever considered a job in the Green Spin department? Although, a profession as a lawyer may prove profitable.
December 19th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
IN these times of increased surveillance, bio-metric id cards, cameras, eye scanners etc being implemented around the world; what’s happening here in the hope of gettting a few more seats in parliament since it seems terribly “undemocratic” for moonbats to participate in elections agaisnt your point of view and interests?….
That’s right kids, we are introducing classifications systems and data record keeping on the “process” of people using their right to participate in democracy. Once again, a CLASSIFICATION and RECORD KEEPING system is getting implemented in NZ for what gets said and done in our elections, in this obvious time of an increased movement globally of surveillance societys. ANd you wonder why National etc have put up such half-hearted opposition??
Not only that, but all it is doing is empowering the sector of society that really calls the script quite obviously; while at the same time not taking into account the “huge” advantage parties in parliament have over those that arn’t, and face facts, the greens for example by far are second to National in the exposure their platform gets by and large compared to all the other smaller parties in parliament.
But apart from all of that which should give pause to the claimed reasons for it………there is being introduced a CLASSIFICATION and RECORD KEEPING SYSTEM about who(individuals,groups) says what in NZ elections!!!
NO NO NO NO NO.
December 19th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Bah, n i’m banned from posting more than a sentence, viva free speech!
December 19th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Gerrit said: So the greens voted for an act which has not been published yet.
The MPs who voted for it knew what they were voting on and had copies in front of them. I am not an MP, just a Green Party member, so I had to cobble it together from what was reported back from the Committee of the Whole.
No Act is formally published until it receives the Royal Assent.
December 19th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
davec Says:
December 19th, 2007 at 12:09 am
“Your members did not want you to vote for this bill. You didn`t listen to them.”
The Green Party’s negotiating position was based on responses to a discussion paper the policy committee circulated around the membership earlier this year. And it wasn’t one of those discussion papers that gives you one option and asks you to say yes or no to it. It sought to give multiple sides to every issue, and asked lots of open-ended questions. Of course Russel didn’t manage to get everything that consultation shows the party members wanted (which wouldn’t have been unanimous anyway, cos its very hard to get consensus from an open-ended discussion paper), but I have no reason to doubt that he tried his best.
So basically, the Green caucus did do what we wanted them to do.
December 19th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
“So even if The Police choose (or are told not to, by some means) not to prosecute organization X, it doesn’t mean that you cant…”
Great, so not only can the police fish around and check me out to ensure I’m not spending more than $12,000 on a political campaign, I have to worry about my political opponents taking a case against me as well. Given some activist groups are good at running things on the smell of an oily rag, any large campaign runs the risk of being dragged through the courts on the basis that they appear to have spent more than the limit.
December 19th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Mr Tiger - my language, although “colourful” was actually based on Mr Bro’s assertion in another thread about this bill and communists, and I (still) fail to see the link.
I’ve never held the position that opponents of this law are “paranoid”; my position remains that the opponents are using the spectre of free speech limitation as a tool to garner public support and to paint the proponents of the bill as oppressors. But the bill never was about free speech, it was about the power to make ones self heard, which is a very different thing. Of course, the bill can never succeed in very realistic way, as those with the money will find ways to use it creatively. But its a start.
I’m not a lawyer, but do take the time and trouble to read stuff carefully, as we know that the devil is in the detail.
I do share Evan’s perspective, but would remind him that our so called “secret” ballots are anything but; the identity of every vote is traceable, watch carefully at the polling station next time you cast a vote. Of course, I have no idea if the references are actually collated, but they could be…
Sam’s point is an interesting one, and one that (prior to this Mallard nonsense) would never have occurred to me. Perhaps the lawyers are in for an exciting and profitable time…
December 19th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
But the bill never was about free speech, it was about the power to make ones self heard, which is a very different thing.
What is was about, and what it actually does are different things. Which is why Metiria’s speech is so pointless. It’s nice to say “Lets level the playing field” but if the solution is to kill a dolphin, the Green’s would be the first to point out that the stated aims do not align with the action.
December 19th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
toad,
Thanks for that clarification.
“…..informing, enlightening, or entertaining” That is where to court cases are going to happen.
If Tim Shadbolt is “informing and enlightening” his rate payers that voting for labour will see a reducting in funding for the Southland Technical Institute, he would technically not be breaking the law?
December 19th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
“But the bill never was about free speech, it was about the power to make ones self heard, which is a very different thing.”
Good grief,… we really are hopeless arn’t we?
December 19th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Zen
If someone does a critical analysis of actual Green Policy and accurately quotes the policy in question, I have no problem with it. There are some Green policies that have what I regard as problems, usually with wording rather than intent, but problems nonetheless. Criticism is fine if it is something we’ve actually advocated or said.
If someone caricatures Green Policy and criticizes the words they put in our mouths without our speaking them, as has been done in the Dom Post a while back, in the Herald almost constantly and elsewhere (the EB pamphlets are only one of many examples)…. in other words… making up sh!t about us…. what has been going on in this country since Moby Dick was a Minnow…. then I should hope to have a law in place to provide them appropriate levels of legal entertainment.
DaveC - What I said was that of the Greens on this forum the support was unanimous. I didn’t say we all agreed entirely with everything. Just that we were unanimous in support of the rewritten bill. If there is a Green on this forum who isn’t, please speak up. No? Then it is unanimous. The Forum does not provide for polls… yet… (and how IS that coming Frog?) but the degree to which we agree is not related to the fact that we all do actually agree. So yes, I can claim unanimity on this forum. Which represents the entire party quite poorly but at least gives your position no support whatsoever. You still do not know what the entirety of the Green party thinks.
I’m not going to spend a lot of time on “better than nothing” arguments… I don’t have that kind of time these days… maybe during the holidays, but most of the arguments have already been made on this forum if not in this thread. First off, we have to define whether “nothing” is open-slather money can do as it pleases or the idea of leaving the existing law unchanged. I expect that the latter is the target for “nothing” as in “nothing changed from the previous situation”.
Under the previous law, without recourse and almost without being able to identify the perpetrators, the Green Party was “swift-boated”. When people lie about you, slander your good name and drag it through the mud do you forgive them? We may be against violence but we are still human… it will be a long time before we forget or forgive that abuse, and we are I think, happy to see it limited now. Better than nothing. Thanks.
I will come back again and see if I can go through an entire list of what we wanted and how well what we got approaches each goal.. I am more familiar with what I did NOT get out of this process that I wanted because I too am human. I have to consider each point and look at what the PARTY wanted, not what I wanted. That’s a list I have to find and ask about… unless others will fill in the gaps in my knowledge.
I reckon there are several here who can make the list of what we wanted from the top of their heads… but I am not one of them. I am perhaps one of the LEAST enthusiastic of the Green supporters of this bill, but I am quite firmly in support of it. It isn’t as simple or as draconian as I would have had it, and it is longer than I would like it, but I prefer it to the previous system.
You see, my preferred 3rd party spending cap for the election campaign period is zero. The spending cap for the parties is reduced from what is shown as well. The period is 60 days and the election starts 90 days after the date is randomly chosen. I didn’t get any of that. No incumbent wants to have to be on their best pre-election behaviour through their entire 1-4 years in office. I don’t want them feeling safe. Even if through divine intervention a Green was elected PM… I don’t want him or her to feel so secure as to be careless but the incumbents are the ones making this law. They LIKE that security …. you betcha.
respectfully
BJ
December 20th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Yes BJ you wanted more the Canadian approach - much tigher rules but for a much shorter period - but with lower spending threshold! It’s a fair argument. Would also be good to have a fixed date for the election so the incumbent can’t muck it around unless they actually lose a confidence vote.
December 20th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
If it is random like I ask for, the incumbent can’t muck it around AND doesn’t know when it will come up any more than the opposition.
Keeps ‘em insecure and attentive to doing their jobs properly.
respectfully
BJ