The Electoral Finance Bill

[funnel web]

This has been posted over at kiwiblog. It will be interesting to see if TVNZ has been caught by this bill.

TVNZ is a Crown-owned company . So it’s caught by Section 55B(d) which you’ll see reads:

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:

[Ab]

timeline!

[funnel web]

doh!

[StN]

Does that mean Air New Zealand can no longer call itself the national carrier?

[Draco T Bastard]

Originally Posted by Ab

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.

Yes - so nothing extra for Labour, ergo, no laws helping to keep Labour in power.

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

Last time I looked the NZ Herald was rabidly right-wing

Do you actually understand what parliamentary funds are?

The funds that I was referring to are the Leaders Funds which are made available to all parties to help them do their job. Their job includes informing the populace of policy changes etc.

Originally Posted by TnT

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

Anarchism doesn't have a central government but it still has rules. Rules are needed to maintain civilisation, to restrict what the individual can do, within reasonable limits, so that they can't harm society. This harm is predicted in Garrett Hardin's The Tragedy of the Commons but it is misnamed and should actually be called The Tragedy of Unrestrained Individualism.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Ab

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

Originally Posted by Draco T Bastard

Yes - so nothing extra for Labour, ergo, no laws helping to keep Labour in power.

You don't get it, do you?

[Skanks]

Originally Posted by Draco T Bastard

Yes - so nothing extra for Labour, ergo, no laws helping to keep Labour in power.

If they are currently in power, that implies there are more of them. So if this extra money allows the incumbent to stay in power then Labour will always remain as the government.

[Redneck]

It's not unlike a poison pill. Labour smite themselves slightly knowing it will spite their opponents might'ly.

[Draco T Bastard]

Originally Posted by funnel web

This has been posted over at kiwiblog. It will be interesting to see if TVNZ has been caught by this bill.

TVNZ is a Crown-owned company . So it’s caught by Section 55B(d) which you’ll see reads:

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:

Does that mean to say that during election year we get better TV?

[Draco T Bastard]

Originally Posted by Skanks

If they are currently in power, that implies there are more of them, hence more money. So if this extra money allows the incumbent to stay in power then Labour will always remain as the government.

Does Labour actually have more than National in parliament? The smaller parties are certainly getting rorted though. I've said before that I don't like these rules.

The argument, though, is that these new laws favour Labour but they're no different than what has been happening for decades.

[doppelgänger of someone]

What I don't get in this whole mess is that some of the provisions are OBVIOUSLY bonkered i.e. definition of election advertisement, why didn't someone go 'hey this definition is too broad, maybe we should narrow it down'?

The other parts of the bill can be up for debate, but this is so retarded it just doesn't make sense. I mean, it went through a select committee, pour over by numerious staff of MPs ffs, and NO ONE thought it is too broad?

WHY? My theories are:

1. They (those in select committee, ALL OF THEM) are incompetent
2. They know something is wrong, they just don't bother to fix it. National can say 'hey part of this bill is fucked, that's why the whole bill is fucked'. Labour can say 'we tried to regulate election spending, but National just flat out oppose it (wink wink)'. They want to play the blame game.
3. Their idealogical blinkers prevent them from seeing what the other side is saying, even if those opinions are perfectly reasonable.

(Truth of each theory is not mutually exclusive, all of the theories can be true ALL AT THE SAME TIME. OMG what kind of government is this.)

[Hory]

Originally Posted by Draco T Bastard

Does Labour actually have more than National in parliament? The smaller parties are certainly getting rorted though. I've said before that I don't like these rules.

The argument, though, is that these new laws favour Labour but they're no different than what has been happening for decades.

I think for the particular funding you are referring to, cabinet ministers are ineligible for it therefore National does actually get more funding than Labour as they have more non-cabinet MPs.

However, cabinet ministers get extra funding and perks that other MPs do not get.

[chubby]

Originally Posted by Ab

rabid left-wing NZ Herald:

sarcasm? surely.

why is it that people who poo-poo the idea that national gain a campaign advantage by receiving sneaky donations from big-money are so bunched up at the thought labour might enable themselves to access more for the same reasons?
you wouldnt be suggesting that war-chest=inequity surely.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by chubby

sarcasm? surely.

yes

[chubby]

^^ whew.

[Sp0nge]

Originally Posted by chuby

sarcasm? surely.

lol.
i sensed a bit of sarcasm/devil's advocate tone in a few of Ab's posts on this thread:

eg, quoting David Farrar is even worse than quoting wikipedia....
wasnt he campaign manager for some National party candidate?
not only that, but i've always thought DF is a bit of a headless chicken
...he even talks like one.

there is a lot of scare mongering surrounding this bill by national and the right
...which is one reason why i support it....
when it comes down to it, this is a law for the people:
a law which attempts to stop money secretly buying elections.

but the Nats will deny this just like they denied that they were meeting with the brethren at the last election
...until they could deny it no longer. lol

this law will not prevent people speaking out on this forum.
get real.
I'll be able to say "Vote labour" here without any fear that im advertising i support comrade helen.

this law needs to be rushed because it must come in before the election.
it will be fine tuned with time, and people will realise that NZ is still a democracy.

like annette king said about Mr English's scaremongering:
"the law of common sense" will apply
....i like the nonsense of that....

vote progressive.

[funnel web]

This is what you get when you rush shitty laws through.

Quote:
National Party deputy leader Bill English said the bill prevented Television New Zealand screening party advertisements because Government entities, including crown- owned companies, “may not publish or cause or permit to be published any election advertisement”.

Justice Minister Annette King said the Broadcasting Act would allow the television network to broadcast such advertisements.

However, there is no provision in either act to state which act prevails - and Ms King later effectively admitted Mr English had a point by issuing a press release saying she had asked officials to look into it.

[Saladin]

Originally Posted by funnel web

This is what you get when you rush shitty laws through.

Sounds like parties on both sides are doing their job as their supposed to? Opposition are raising questions and the government are addressing them - guess the system works :P

[Evilmonkey]

Further to that she then goes on to say, "the law of common sense" would deal with remaining anomalies in the bill.

On Radio NZ National yesterday, Dr Catt echoed the phrase, saying her agency did not want to have to interpret the law of common sense.

[Ab]

Law of Common Sense, yeah right. In other words we're back to a Sue-Bradfordesque world of "just make everything illegal and trust the police not to prosecute the minor stuff".

Anyway, here's a good non-partisan summary.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4284208a1861.html

[StN]

Originally Posted by Ab

Law of Common Sense, yeah right. In other words we're back to a Sue-Bradfordesque world of "just make everything illegal and trust the police not to prosecute the minor stuff".

Yeah - common sense like the guy who got 9 months supervision for spanking his 8 year old boy three times for being a little turd at school...

[[Malks] Pixie]

Originally Posted by StN

Yeah - common sense like the guy who got 9 months supervision for spanking his 8 year old boy three times for being a little turd at school...

You failed to mention leaving a big bruise on his shoulder? Or the fact that the couple had already sought out councilling for anger and relationship issues? Or the fact that he actually plead guilty to the charge? You seem a little selective in the facts that you have chosen to present.

Sorry but this seems to be a case where the law has worked - and it actually benefits the couple because this means their councilling is paid for by the state. I am failing to see what your problem is here.

Pixie

[StN]

Whilst they are all excellent points, I really don't like Sue Bradford's haircut.

[[Malks] Pixie]

Originally Posted by StN

Whilst they are all excellent points, I really don't like Sue Bradford's haircut.

LOL - thanks I actually really needed a good laugh :-)

Cheers

Pixie

[Rince]

Originally Posted by Ab

Law of Common Sense, yeah right. In other words we're back to a Sue-Bradfordesque world of "just make everything illegal and trust the police not to prosecute the minor stuff".

Anyway, here's a good non-partisan summary.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4284208a1861.html

heh - I was reading that (the real dead tree version) at lunch.....

[Hannibal]

It is bizarre to say the least watching people protest over this legislation. Are they too out of touch to see what happened to America? Corporates and evangelicals took over America and literally destroyed it. The country I grew up in is DEAD. Now NZ is practically begging for this and actually believes giving corporates/evangelicals power to enslave the majority is a great thing!? I'm in awe! If this legislation gets scrapped say hello to the Americanization of the NZ government. When you folks 'wake up' to the fact you allowed this to happen it will be far too late, trust me I know.

<SIGH>

[Ab]

The problem is, this legislation has been rushed through by an "angry and paranoid" Labour Party (the Dominion's words, not mine) and it has resulted in a legal mess that ITSELF will lead to an American situation. The ERB is so badly-written that it can mean whatever you want. There's more loophole than law in it. The Electoral Commission -- the public body whose responsibility it is to explain what's legal and what's not at election time -- has flat out said "we don't have a fuckin' clue what's legal and what's not if this becomes law".

Quote from the CEO of the Electoral Commission:

Our fear is that litigation will become part of the election campaign, you know, it will go the American route where each party lawyers-up and firing the lawyers at each other becomes as much part of the campaign as the traditional advertising, I mean, that’s the worst-case scenario, that’s our fear, that everywhere where we’ve got areas where interpretation isn’t clear that the parties will start using that as part of their attack on each other and that’s not going to do anything to encourage public interest in politics, trust in the election campaign.

[Hannibal]

Originally Posted by Ab

The problem is, this legislation has been rushed through by an "angry and paranoid" Labour Party (the Dominion's words, not mine) and it has resulted in a legal mess that ITSELF will lead to an American situation. The ERB is so badly-written that it can mean whatever you want. There's more loophole than law in it. The Electoral Commission -- the public body whose responsibility it is to explain what's legal and what's not at election time -- has flat out said "we don't have a fuckin' clue what's legal and what's not if this becomes law".

Quote from the CEO of the Electoral Commission:

That is inevitable and unfortunately the way western politics has evolved.. But in my mind it is the lesser of two evils to have litigation battles vs. these corporations and fringe groups buying off the government at will. I hope they can tweak this thing but the vocal minorities are so loud you would think the entire country is up in arms and we have become a police state. All we have are corporates & churches crying foul so loudly that a portion of sheep think it's the end of the world. Don't get played.

[chubby]

it cracks me up to hear laywers arguing for specific, clearly worded legislation.
"yeah, right"

[Sp0nge]

Originally Posted by Hannibal

All we have are corporates & churches crying foul so loudly that a portion of sheep think it's the end of the world. Don't get played.

qft...and i'd add right wing parties to that list

[::Shocker]

Indeed, the NZ Law Society, Human Rights Commission and Electoral Commission are all well-known right-wing mouthpieces.

Dimwit.

[Hannibal]

Originally Posted by ::Shocker

Indeed, the NZ Law Society, Human Rights Commission and Electoral Commission are all well-known right-wing mouthpieces.

Dimwit.

NZ Law society dude is a holy roller. HRC and EC not sure, a few of the top 5 names in each org will likely be puppets for the church/right wing/we must return to the stone ages teach creationism ban hell pizza and obey the lord crowd

[chubby]

Human Rights Commission

hahaha,finally being used to back up right wing arguments. how long will that last?

[IoriDyson]

Originally Posted by Hannibal

It is bizarre to say the least watching people protest over this legislation. Are they too out of touch to see what happened to America? Corporates and evangelicals took over America and literally destroyed it. The country I grew up in is DEAD. Now NZ is practically begging for this and actually believes giving corporates/evangelicals power to enslave the majority is a great thing!? I'm in awe! If this legislation gets scrapped say hello to the Americanization of the NZ government. When you folks 'wake up' to the fact you allowed this to happen it will be far too late, trust me I know.

<SIGH>

your so on the money! welcome to the new world order. which is the old world order reasserting itself rip nz... hello usnz

[Sp0nge]

Originally Posted by ::Shocker

Indeed, the NZ Law Society, Human Rights Commission and Electoral Commission are all well-known right-wing mouthpieces.

the system is right wing, and there are many instruments within it that support this system.... nz law society being an example of this.

the human rights commision are now pretty happy with the recent changes to the Bill, they issued this statement:
"Several significant changes to the Electoral Finance Bill go some way to addressing the Human Rights Commission's concerns about freedom of expression and citizen's rights to participate."

[SpaceCowboy]

there are two evils here to deal with:

1) the fact that humans are greedy and selfish and will find any way to get around rules, in order to benefit either themselves, or a second party. this is where the bill is good, as its massively broad restrictions prevent money winning elections.

2) loss of free speech. the same people as above will also try to claim their (no, our!) rights to free speech are in jeopardy, in order to get around the rules (see fact 1).

which would you prefer? fair elections based on a party's track record vs their promises + shouting over the other partys via massive amounts of billboards, tv ads, etc..., but fear of prosecution for uttering a word about another party; or freedom of speech for all and possibly skewed electoral results as a byproduct?

personally, i say ban all electioneering, all spending on advertising your party, and let your past record speak for itself... ban all statement-like preaching about a party and rallies, but encourage debate and reason, both public and private.

of course, im an idealist looking for utopia. but why cant we have it?

[Know me.]

I do not want to see a repeat of the last election where the big spending nut jobs at the Brethren church had a major impact on the election. Fortunately perhaps not the final result. But I am not against anonymous donations which in some climates maybe the only source of a suppressed movements funds but I do not want the state to hand out money to parties for their electioneering either. Once again I can only see the answer in educating people to think for them selves and to be immune to political rhetoric.

[Ab]

Isn't crafting legislation fun when neither the Minister of Justice nor the Attorney-General is a lawyer?

[Russian]

Originally Posted by StN

Yeah - common sense like the guy who got 9 months supervision for spanking his 8 year old boy three times for being a little turd at school...

OH NO HE WASN'T ABLE TO PLEAD THE STATUTORY DEFENSE UNDER THE OLD S59 FOR BEATING UP HIS KID!!!

[Saladin]

Originally Posted by Ab

Isn't crafting legislation fun when neither the Minister of Justice nor the Attorney-General is a lawyer?

Bring back Palmer!