The Electoral Finance Bill

[fixed_truth]

it seems people have latched onto a bit of partial hearsay here.

the bill aims to regulate the spending on political campaigning by registered interest groups, and also on how much parties can spend on campaigning - not what joe public does.

with any bill there's always gonna be a pedantic focus on perceived loopholes to take the focus away from the bills actual intention

as for people not being able to protest, express political opinions in e-mails & forum sites/blogs, campaigning by parties in election year etc etc - this is simply not true - and this evident if read the amended bill

*AB i believe what you cited refers to 'PAID advertising' rather than the opinions of individuals* (thats what this is all about)

(1) No person may, during a regulated period, publish or cause or
permit to be published any election advertisement unless—
(a) the advertisement contains a statement that sets out the
name and address of the promoter of the advertisement;
and 5
(b) the promoter is entitled to promote the advertisement.

[sky_]

Intentions may change, but the law will remain the same.

That's the reason why you simply can't let bad legislation through. Because the horrible fucking law is abused by someone in the future.

[Hannibal]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

it seems people have latched onto a bit of partial hearsay here.

the bill aims to regulate the spending on political campaigning by registered interest groups, and also on how much parties can spend on campaigning - not what joe public does.

with any bill there's always gonna be a pedantic focus on perceived loopholes to take the focus away from the bills actual intention

as for people not being able to protest, express political opinions in e-mails & forum sites/blogs, campaigning by parties in election year etc etc - this is simply not true - and this evident if read the amended bill

*AB i believe what you cited refers to 'PAID advertising' rather than the opinions of individuals* (thats what this is all about)

It looks to me like they are being pro-active based on what has happened in the US. US elections are bought, there is no denying that whatsoever. I say good riddance to that.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Hannibal

It looks to me like they are being pro-active based on what has happened in the US. US elections are bought, there is no denying that whatsoever. I say good riddance to that.

I completely agree. However the proposed Electoral Finance Bill does nothing whatsoever to stop such spending -- and it wouldn't even stop the Exclusive Brethren from spending up large for the National Party, even though that's what the Labour PR machine is claiming this Bill is for.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

*AB i believe what you cited refers to 'PAID advertising' rather than the opinions of individuals* (thats what this is all about)

While in normal everyday use we understand "advertisement" to refer to an acknowledged commercial message paid for and placed within a publication, "advertisement" has a very different meaning within the context of the ERB.

Clause 5(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);

Any form of words or graphics that can be regarded as encouraging people to vote or not vote for someone or some party or just to vote or not vote based on views, positions, or policies even if a person or party isn't mentioned. In other word, pretty much ALL POLITICAL OPINIONS.

Do you get why people are freaking out yet?

I'll rewrite your quoted section above.

(1) No person may, during an election year, convey any political opinion unless—
(a) the opinion contains a statement that sets out the
name and address of the person holding the opinion;
and
(b) the promoter is entitled to convey that opinion.

No person is allowed to express a political opinion in the year of an election unless he identifies himself and where he lives, and then only if the government gives him permission. Welcome to New Zealand.

[chubby]

Originally Posted by Ab

I completely agree. However the proposed Electoral Finance Bill does nothing whatsoever to stop such spending -- and it wouldn't even stop the Exclusive Brethren from spending up large for the National Party, even though that's what the Labour PR machine is claiming this Bill is for.

its not about stopping loathsome groups like the bretheren having a say(as much as i would love for it to be.... that wouldnt be DEMOCRATIC. which concept we all allegedly hold in high esteem). its about putting a stop to the sneaky, deceitful relationship between groups such as this, and political parties( in recent history, typically the torys).

[fixed_truth]

yeah but right after that 5(2) it becomes more specific

(2) The following <publications> are NOT election advertisements:

(da) any editorial material, other than advertising material, published on a news media website that is written by, or selected by or with the authority of, the editor or person responsible for the website solely for the purpose of informing, enlightening, or entertaining readers:

(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).

the legislation (though not perfect) does maintain individuals rights to freedom of speech

[cyc]

Originally Posted by Ab

No person is allowed to express a political opinion in the year of an election unless he identifies himself and where he lives, and then only if the government gives him permission. Welcome to New Zealand.

Thank goodness - at least ONE person gets it.

People need to understand that wanting to control sneaking spending and elecion buying is fine -- no one disagrees with this except for a minority of nutjobs. What the intelligent and sane people -- e.g. the Law Society and the Human Rights Commission -- are arguing is that the methods employed by this Bill are disproportionate and do not restrict the limitations upon a fundamental freedom, i.e. freedom of speech, to the minimum extent necessary to achieve the objectives of the Bill.

Until reactive "HAHA this is designed to shaft right wing bastards" blowhards like Draco and Fixed_truth can make an argument as to how this Bill constitutes a legitimate AND proportionate (notice it's a conjunct, kids) limitation upon freedom of speech and freedom of political thought, as guaranteed under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, they really should stay out of this debate. This is a government riding absolute roughshod over the NZBORA and its international obligations (the NZBORA implements the Internation Covenant on Civil and Political Rights). Needing the government's permission before you can engage in most forms of political speech in an election year is a proportionate limitation of NZBORA rights only if you happen to be Val Sims, the moron at Crown Law who released a garbage opinion supporting this Bill and who was then oh-so-quickly promoted to the Law Commission as a Deputy Law Commissioner.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

yeah but right after that 5(2) it becomes more specific

(2) The following <publications> are NOT election advertisements:

(da) any editorial material, other than advertising material, published on a news media website that is written by, or selected by or with the authority of, the editor or person responsible for the website solely for the purpose of informing, enlightening, or entertaining readers:

(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).

the legislation (though not perfect) does maintain individuals rights to freedom of speech

No. Those two specifications only refer to editors of news media websites and individual non-commercial webloggers. Conversation? Email? Sticking up a poster? Posting to Usenet? Carrying a placard in a street protest? Bitching in a bar after work? Forget it.

[zeekiorage]

Originally Posted by Ab

(b) the promoter is entitled to convey that opinion.

No person is allowed to express a political opinion in the year of an election unless he identifies himself and where he lives, and then only if the government gives him permission. Welcome to New Zealand.

Where are you getting that part from Ab?

[Ab]

Clause 52(1) para b.

[Rince]

I was discussing this with a colleague - and he can have some leftist/socialist views: ie antinational and the EB - he likes the bill... and when I asked him about the things that are being discussed here, he said:
1) you're just quoting some random website's view on this - and its out of context
2) who's going to police it? ie when you are chatting to a guy in the pub, are the brownshirts going to be listening in?


I'm not eloquent enough to debate these things, so what say you, NZG massive?

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Ab

Conversation? Email? Sticking up a poster? Posting to Usenet? Carrying a placard in a street protest? Bitching in a bar after work? Forget it.

during the regulated period, i agree that the distinction between public & private is the crux of the matter - as well as marketing vs advocacy

trying to define legislation that is broad enough to reign in unequal 3rd party marketing; yet specific enough to allow for individual advocacy - is problematic

some interpret the legislation as too specific and impinging on freedom of speech, & others see the legislation as necessarily broad to ensure no loopholes for 3rd parties (e.g., 3rd party organized protests [marketing] under the veil of individual free speech)

private conversations (including internet) is fine (advocacy) - its when you take this to the public level that it starts to get into marketing (placards, speeches etc)

IMO - i would rather have a broader bill with individual advocacy vs advertising being up to the discretion of reasonable authorities

Originally Posted by Ab

No person is allowed to express a political opinion in the year of an election unless he identifies himself and where he lives, and then only if the government gives him permission

imo this is applicably unrealistic & in reality laws actually do have reasonable discretion in their interpretation

[cyc]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

IMO - i would rather have a broader bill with individual advocacy vs advertising being up to the discretion of reasonable authorities


imo this is applicably unrealistic & in reality laws actually do have reasonable discretion in their interpretation

Why would you KNOWINGLY agree to give government agencies the tools to trampel upon your rights by mere invocation of such tools? Seriously, should they decide to be "unreasonable", they can get you and you haven't got a comeback in hell. And, no, the Courts don't have a discretion -- the law is clear here.

[Redneck]

Reminds me of many responses from pro-Iraq war types when confronted with overwhelming evidence that Bush's war policies were completely worthless: "The intentions were good, so everything he did was ok!"

[Draco T Bastard]

Originally Posted by Ab

I refer you to Clause 53(1) paragraph a and Clause 4(1) paragraph g. This isn't a "news media website". Neither is email, IRC, amateur blogs, Usenet, Youtube, or Trademe. And all of them now fall under the Bill.

I refer you to

Originally Posted by Clause 5, 2, 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).

The bracketed bit may cause some confusion due to it being too specific but I think this makes what you listed, except trademe as it's commercial, is covered as not being an advertisement. Email is not a public dissemination of views but a private conversation so isn't covered by this act at all.

The megaphone issue is being sorted but all of his other 19 points are still wrong (sorry Hannibal) (You'll need to read through the comments).

I'm not saying that the act is perfect. I think it could still do with some refinement and I would like the second reading to send it back to the select committee. That said I would still prefer to have a bad law in place that can then be refined through practicle experience than no law at all.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by Draco T Bastard

I refer you to

The bracketed bit may cause some confusion due to it being too specific but I think this makes what you listed, except trademe as it's commercial, is covered as not being an advertisement. Email is not a public dissemination of views but a private conversation so isn't covered by this act at all.

Draco this is, at best, utterly ignorant rantings of the legally ignorant or somebody wilfully misinterpreting that clause.

Once again, it states:

"...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)"

The word "being" qualifies everything before that. Only a blog is covered by that clause of the Bill when interpreting it in the manner that Courts will, having regard to established statutory interpretation principles of giving clauses their plain, literal meaning and that specific clauses and definitions trump the general. If blogs were being used merely as an examples of exempted publications, the clause could easily have been drafted as follows:

"Without limiting the generality of this section, the following are not election advertisements:

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); and .....

It pays to actually know something about the issue that you're trying to debate before spouting off, in addition to the institutional rules and practice that necessarily inform the issues that surround this Bill. At the moment, your views on this Bill appear to be nothing but uninformed noises. They are about as worthless as a fart.

[TnT]

Originally Posted by Draco T Bastard

That said I would still prefer to have a bad law in place that can then be refined through practicle experience than no law at all.

The problem I have with this statement is the word 'can', that does not ever mean will.

In fact a bad law is a harder thing to get changed, have a look around at how many badly written, out dated laws there are, and how fucking hard it is to get them updated or changed. You can't be serious with this statement.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by cyc

Why would you KNOWINGLY agree to give government agencies the tools to trampel upon your rights by mere invocation of such tools? Seriously, should they decide to be "unreasonable", they can get you and you haven't got a comeback in hell. And, no, the Courts don't have a discretion -- the law is clear here.

i don't think that laws have to be semantically flawless in order to be applied effectively.
in a clinically pedantic sense, yeah the govt could trample my rights - in practice though, do you think the govt. could (logistically) or would (accountability through elections) enforce curbing personal political expression on a non-marketing level?
i think the fact that 3rd parties spending can be regulated is great for democracy - even though this creates a potential (imo in theory only) opportunity for my rights to impinged.
its a shame that these two issues seem to be mutually exclusive (though hopefully the bill can get tweaked some more before it goes through to address peoples concerns)

[Draco T Bastard]

Originally Posted by cyc

Draco this is, at best, utterly ignorant rantings of the legally ignorant or somebody wilfully misinterpreting that clause.

Once again, it states:

"...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)"

The word "being" qualifies everything before that. Only a blog is covered by that clause of the Bill when interpreting it in the manner that Courts will, having regard to established statutory interpretation principles of giving clauses their plain, literal meaning and that specific clauses and definitions trump the general. If blogs were being used merely as an examples of exempted publications, the clause could easily have been drafted as follows:

I was quite aware of that which is why I said it would cause complications but I think those complications could be argued in court or have that part removed before the third reading which is one of the reasons why I said I would like it to go back to the select committee. That part really screams to me that the law makers aren't really aware of what a blog is or they don't know that discussion boards such as this exist (or both).

[Draco T Bastard]

Originally Posted by TnT

The problem I have with this statement is the word 'can', that does not ever mean will.

In fact a bad law is a harder thing to get changed, have a look around at how many badly written, out dated laws there are, and how fucking hard it is to get them updated or changed. You can't be serious with this statement.

And have a look at the fact that there is a study going on into NZ law ATM to remove bad and outdated laws. ACT has put forward an idea to roll over laws so as to keep them fresh. These things take time but, IMO, it's still better to have a bad law than no law at all.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by Draco T Bastard

I was quite aware of that which is why I said it would cause complications but I think those complications could be argued in court or have that part removed before the third reading which is one of the reasons why I said I would like it to go back to the select committee. That part really screams to me that the law makers aren't really aware of what a blog is or they don't know that discussion boards such as this exist (or both).

You don't get to wiggle out of what you wrote quite so easily. You wrote:

"The bracketed bit may cause some confusion due to it being too specific but I think this makes what you listed, except trademe as it's commercial, is covered as not being an advertisement. Email is not a public dissemination of views but a private conversation so isn't covered by this act at all."

You asserted the clause in question as having a meaning that turns out to be utterly unsupportable having regard to the bloody rules against which it will be interpreted. This is what I mean by uninformed bullshitting. Now that we have this issue out of the way, let's just have a think for a moment on the effect upon political/quasi political speech when an utterer of any potential "at risk" statement knows that he/she faces the prospect of a prosecution and having to spend thousands of dollars just to defend his/her right to say what was said in Court.

Just engage the brain for a moment and ask whether this would have a chilling effect. If your answer is "yes", you still have some hope yet. If you want to regulate political speech, it had better damn well be done in a clear fashion so people know where they stand. The failure to do so just delivers a gigantic dose of "STFU" loaded with kerosene to everybody that doesn't have the deep pockets necessary to afford a QC for a potential showdown with the government.

[zeekiorage]

So is my political bumper sticker illegal now?

Speaking of bad laws reminds me of the NZ copyright law that basically says thou shall not copy your own CD and convert it to MP3. Almost everyone with a MP3 player is in violation.

[Hannibal]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

(though hopefully the bill can get tweaked some more before it goes through to address peoples concerns)

I hope not.. it's just a few fringe groups spitting the dummy because they can't use a warchest of tithes to force their agendas on us..

[pxpx]

What a waste of energy. Labour are out next year and National have said they'll scrap the bill.

But then again, polititians don't always(ever?) do what they say.

[Hannibal]

Originally Posted by pxpx

What a waste of energy. Labour are out next year and National have said they'll scrap the bill.

But then again, polititians don't always(ever?) do what they say.

No fan of Labour or the other parties but I highly doubt they are 'out'. They will pander to the sheeple and slide right back in. They simply play the game better than National can.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by pxpx

What a waste of energy. Labour are out next year

The Appropriations Bill and the Electoral Finance Bill together make it much much harder for Labour to be voted out. The AB allows Labour candidates to campaign using parliamentary funds, essentially with no spending limit; the EFB prevents people from opposing the Labour candidates, either financially or by speaking out.

I hate to sound like a stuck record, but this is shitty legislation pushed through in total contempt for legislative process and the rights of New Zealanders for no other reason than to ensure that Labour is not voted out at the next election. Yes, electoral financing laws need reform. But this law doesn't do it.

What this law does is limit the ability of free citizens to engage in political discourse during the only time in which political discourse actually matters. Political speech is the MOST IMPORTANT type of free speech, and this bill stomps all over it.

[Hory]

No it doesn't, it stomps all over political advertising and anonymous funding.
As an individual your right to free speech is not affected.
Unless you define "free speech" as spending an infinite amount of money on political advertising and anonymous donations to political parties in an election year.

My issue with the bill is it does not clamp down enough on anonymous donations, instead of taking the sensible option and banning all anonymous donations, the Government has taken a half-assed approach and made a limit of $240,000 in anonymous donations.

No doubt this is because the Labour Party is a beneficiary of large anonymous donations, although not to the extent of National who derive most of their funding from laundered money funneled through trusts.

[StN]

I'm sure we can add something in here about the potential for Labour's suport base to be eroded by Destiny Church's tithing system too.

I heard a question in the house yesterday addressesing the supposed double standards of sitting MPs not being affected by the funding cap, and it was refuted, although in a very convoluted way - to the point where the speaker told the respondant to stop waffling.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by Hory

No it doesn't, it stomps all over political advertising and anonymous funding.
As an individual your right to free speech is not affected.
Unless you define "free speech" as spending an infinite amount of money on political advertising and anonymous donations to political parties in an election year.

Thank you for just asserting everything. Please feel free to continue to ignore what people who know something about the law and statutory interpretation actually think. Are the Human Rights Commission and Law Society fringe groups? Heck, I look forward to your argument as to how individual political utterances on the web are not severely curtailed by the clauses that that Ab's raised by way of examples.

[Hory]

Those clauses are fucked and badly written, and will be fixed by a competent party (i.e the Greens) before it is passed.
And although the clause is fucked it is actually about electoral speech, not political speech.

The bill is nowhere near perfect and Labour have done a shit-ass job of it, but it's a lot better than the status quo, where limitless anonymous foreign donations are ok and party officials can overspend without any punishment whatsoever.

Which of course is why National want the bill scrapped entirely, and to have nothing change before the next election.

[Hannibal]

The president of the Law Society, John Marshall, QC, did not want to give a "kneejerk reaction" given the bill's significance. "In the submissions that we made to the select committee, we said the bill wasn't capable of being patched up and should be withdrawn and rewritten. On a quick initial reading of the report, I haven't changed my view on that.

This guy is a known holy roller, is there anyone denouncing this bill who is not connected to the church in some way shape or form? ffs

[Hannibal]

BOYCOTT HELL'S PIZZA

Hell's Pizza continues to Offend Families, and Family First is calling for families to boycott them.

Hell's Pizza are distributing a 20-page glossy magazine called Hell-O?

Families have contacted Family First to express their outrage and disgust at this material being made available to families who
simply want to purchase a pizza. The magazine has been included in home deliveries in some areas of NZ.

Companies like Hell's Pizza, and their advertising agencies, continue to push the boundaries of decency and morality and show no regard for the effect on children or on attitudes in society. It is essential that we speak up and 'draw a line in the sand' for our children and families.

Do we really want organizations such as this in control of the NZ govt? The electoral finance bill can shut them down. SUPPORT IT!

[Ab]

And now, from the TRUST US WE NOE HOW TO RITE REELY GOOD LAWS department...

The new Section 55B of the Electoral Finance Bill:

The following persons and bodies may not publish or cause or permit to be published any election advertisement:
(a) the chief executive (however described) of a department of State or a Crown entity:
(b) a department of State:
(c) a Crown entity:
(d) a State enterprise (within the meaning of section 2 of the State Owned Enterprises Act 1986) or a Crown owned company:
(e) any other instrument of the Crown.

Boy, that law would be REALLY FUCKING STUPID if there were, you know, a TV company or a radio network controlled by the government.

[funnel web]

A reminder to everyone interested that the Wellington march against the Electoral Finance Bill is today, leaving Civic Square at 12.30 pm.

[Rince]

Family first in favour =
DTB/Hannibal/F_T/et al opposed =

weighing up the pros/cons gives

[Draco T Bastard]

Originally Posted by Ab

The Appropriations Bill and the Electoral Finance Bill together make it much much harder for Labour to be voted out.

Just complete and utter BS.

Originally Posted by Ab

The AB allows Labour candidates to campaign using parliamentary funds, essentially with no spending limit;

National has the same parliamentary funds available to them - in fact, AFAIK, they have more than Labour.

the EFB prevents people from opposing the Labour candidates, either financially or by speaking out.

No it doesn't. People can still speak out, have discussions etc. What it does is limit how much that can be spent to get that message out. Like I've already said - it brings everyone under the electioneering rules rather than only have select groups ruled by them thereby leveling the playing field.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Ab

The AB allows Labour candidates to campaign using parliamentary funds, essentially with no spending limit

I expressed myself badly - my apologies for the confusion. What I should have said is:

The AB allows INCUMBENT MPs to campaign using parliamentary funds, essentially with no spending limit.

Here's a summary from our very own rabid left-wing NZ Herald:

Sitting MPs will have a huge advantage over non-parliamentary parties and candidates. The immunity on their spending runs for the entire three years of an election cycle. Their opponents have restrictions placed on their advertising from January 1 of election year.

Each party, or an individual MP, could run, say, a $15,000 newspaper and radio tax-payer funded campaigns on their policies funded by Parliamentary Service - at any time of an election cycle up to election day.

These parliamentary-funded campaigns, if they did not explicitly seek support or money, would not be classed as an election expense.

A similar campaign run outside Parliament will fall within the definition of an election advertisement under the Electoral Finance Bill.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/...0474678&pnum=0

Originally Posted by Draco T Bastard

Just complete and utter BS ... National has the same parliamentary funds available to them - in fact, AFAIK, they have more than Labour.

Do you actually understand what parliamentary funds are?

[funnel web]

Draco's ideological views preclude him from removing the blinkers.

[TnT]

For a guy who claims to support anarchism, he certainly is putting an awful lot of faith in government here.