Electoral Finance Bill: The purpose is clear

The crucial and main thrust of the Electoral Finance Bill is as follows and is the clearest part of an otherwise confused, contradictory and appallingly written bill. From part one of the preliminary provisions and purpose of the bill:


5. Meaning of election advertisement
(1) In this Act, election advertisement –

(a) means any form of words or graphics, or both, that can be
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 and persuading voters to vote, or not to vote,
for a type of party or 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):

(iii) taking a position on a proposition with which 1 or more
parties or 1 or more candidates is associated; and

(b) includes-
(i) a candidate advertisement; and
(ii) a party advertisement.

Lets have a closer look:

(a) means any form of words or graphics, or both, that can be
reasonably be regarded as doing 1 or more of the following.

So the purpose of the bill is clear, any words or graphics constitute an election advert.

(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:

This blog will be captured as a result of this and so will political writers, broadcasters and individuals who support or have a contrary view to a particular party. Even though in other parts of the bill this purpose is contradicted by saying it allows blogs like this one and the other media I mentioned.

(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 and persuading voters to vote, or not to vote,
for a type of party or 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):

Part one and two of the purpose are similar so I will look at them as one. Largely self explanatory and very clear about their purpose. That individuals are unable to express views that may influence others by encouraging them to vote for or against a candidate or party.

"Advertising" those views, as expressed in the purpose and definition of an electoral advertisement, is merely giving ones own opinion to another individual or group to the positive or negative and may be seen as an "advertisement" as a result, according to this portion or the purpose of the bill.

This shuts down all opposition to the incumbent government in an election year and is clearly designed to favour Labour at the expense of democracy and our rights to speak our minds.

The debate continues in parliament this week and the bill looks set to pass into law soon.


C Political Animal 2007

Herald gets angry at Electoral Finance Bill(again)

The New Zealand Herald has ripped into the Labour Governments' fascist anti democratic Electoral Finance Bill this morning. Once again granny has put their editorial on the front page and cut deeply into the morass of subterfuge and cover ups over the direction of this piece of trash bill.

Parliament debate the bill today and Labour and its hangers on plan to pass it into law before the end of sitting this year, for it to take effect on January 1 2008. It is possible that the bill could be passed this week.

This will be the last time New Zealanders' will be able to freely debate political issues in an election year and all opposition against the incumbent government will be censured to such a degree people will be too scared to speak out should they be tapped on the shoulder and charged for inciting other people to vote or not to vote for a particular party.

Along with a whole host of other anti democratic laws passed by this power crazed government over the last 9 years, the ditching of the Privy Council and the hiring of politically appointed judges to the "Supreme Court" high among them, the EFB bill passed into law, will mean the end to one of the worlds longest running democracies and put us into the realms of banana republics like Zimbabwe, Russia, Malaysia, Indonesia and Pakistan, where those governments keep criticism by its citizens in line by similar means.

The Herald is doing a fine job exposing this fascism and seems to be man alone in mainstream media circles. Other media outlets ignoring the fact that they will be unable to publish such criticism in election year:

Editorial: Speak now, or next year hold your peace

5:00AM Tuesday December 04, 2007

This morning's Herald front page

Democracy under attack

• Clark to tough it out on election cash bill
• Cartoon: Winston Churchill Clark

The Herald has today, for the second time in a month, run a front page editorial calling for the Electoral Finance Bill to be scrapped, saying it is an attack on democracy

There will be no winners if the Electoral Finance Bill is passed into law this week. The Labour Party will have revised the electoral rules to suit itself, but that will be a pyrrhic victory if it loses the next election, as polls suggest it will. The National Party has promised to repeal the bill as soon as it gets the chance.

Thus our electoral law is reduced to a game of political ping-pong, a game that would not have started had the Government done the right thing from the beginning.

Even its friend the Green Party has been urging it to refer its concerns about election finance to an independent body that could recommend changes to the law if necessary from an impartial position.

But the Government has ploughed ahead, making minimal changes to the bill's clamp on political expression from January 1 until after election day next year, and adding an extraordinary new dimension, making the Electoral Commission the vehicle for disbursements of parties' secret donations. That drastic sudden proposal alone should tell the Government this is not the way to make constitutional change.

Unless the Greens and United Future act on their reservations and withhold support for the bill this week it will pass. And they will be as guilty as Labour and New Zealand First for the offence to free speech.

From next month until a probable November election, any person or group wanting to promote an issue of concern would face a legal and bureaucratic minefield. For the right to spend their money they would need to register as a "third party", file declarations about donors and expenses and keep within a spending limit of $120,000, just 5 per cent of the amount MPs' parties may spend.

The regulations would apply to any material that might encourage people to vote or not vote for "a type of party or a type of candidate" described by reference to views, positions or policies even if the party or candidate is not named.

As revised, the bill seems to catch everything from a billboard to a bull-horn, but the Justice Minister says "common sense" will apply. Whose?

The self-serving electoral fix is being done now in the hope it might be forgotten at an election 11 months hence. Those 11 months will be quieter than they would have been without the electoral finance gag. Labour's union allies will be as constrained as any moneyed group agreeing with National. Public debate will be constrained and our politics poorer.

Money does not win elections unless the message it is financing strikes a popular chord. Labour is legislating in fear of messages it might not like. At the same time, it has given parties in Parliament the right to use public funds for purposes the Auditor-General ruled improper at the last election.

The country should not stand for this. It is not unduly susceptible to paid campaigns. The bill is an insult to our intelligence as well as our rights. Even now, at the 11th hour, it can be stopped and sent to an impartial panel. Let's hope the common sense outside Parliament can prevail.

C Political Animal & NZ Herald 2007

Mallard in the docks

Trevor Mallard in the Wellington District Court earlier today, unusually placid.

I was fascinated by the innocent plea from Trevor"The Bash" Mallard today in the Wellington District Court over the charge put before him over his assault of Tau Henare, in the Parliamentary precinct a few weeks back.

Mallard admitted his guilt in assaulting Henare at the time and faced no disciplinary action from the Prime Minister.

Helen Clark made a revealing comment today on this issue:

"I just say that with something like this, I think everyone in public life - whether they are media personalities or a politician or whoever - we're all vulnerable to someone deciding they will try a private prosecution and I think that is an issue of some concern,"

Missing a salient point though , Clark of course managed to wangle herself out of prison by changing the law last year to make her parties stealing of taxpayer money, to buy the 2005 election, legal.

Also missing prosecution for fraud, for falsely signing a painting and aiding and abetting dangerous driving when she ordered her drivers to speed through a small town at 170km per hour so she could watch a rugby game.

May I add, the amount of photo shopping of Helen's image on Labours' election material made voters think they were voting for Paris Hilton rather than the very sweet lady we know Aunt Helen to be.

But I digress.

Perhaps Helen could change the law to allow all Labour Politicians to be immune to private or criminal prosecution for assault or fraud. It would certainly have allowed a least half a dozen of her cabinet to escape the scrutiny her and her party faced when they transgressed various laws over the last 9 years.

What really made me laugh though is that Trev's lawyer wanted media banned from the courts proceedings because images of Mallard would reflect him in a bad light to the public and he would be associated with such "negative images" that would affect his reputation for the rest of his life.

Kerthump!!

The sound of me hitting the floor with laughter.

Mallard's reputation has been long associated with nastiness, bullying and pushing his weight around, so pictures of him sobbing falsely in the dock isn't going to do the poor boy any harm.

Trev will be back in the dock December 18 for the hearing.


C Political Animal 2007

Current credit crunch a blessing in disguise

The current credit crunch could turn out to be a blessing in disguise.

With the private equity boom earlier this year we saw cheap money being used to buy public companies at hugely over inflated values and it looked like it was going to escalate to the point of explosion and huge economic destruction looked certain.

This fallout was gazumped by the sub prime blowout where lunatic lending institutions lent money to private individuals for houses, cars and other goods and surprise surprise they couldn't pay their loans back.



The effect of the latter scenario though is the same outcome that would have happened had the private equity boys been allowed to continue to borrow money from the drunken sailors that were lending it to them- the credit market is very tight and bankers don't trust anyone all of a sudden.

Credit is tight right now, it has slowed down US M and A activity, the housing sector and investment in business expansion and will have further downstream effects as time wears on.

In New Zealand we have seen questions over our own finance companies going bust, 13 in the last 24 months or so and with more to come. They lent money to questionable property developments and car and chattel purchases and have cost a collective NZ$1.5 billion so far.

A major takeover of a large New Zealand company, Sky City Entertainment, is in peril because a couple of the interested private equity partners are having trouble raising cheap credit to purchase the casino and entertainment company.

What is the blessing?

Well, all this recklessness, which the financial world seems to like to go through with monotonous regularity, has put a brake on stupidity and seems to have focused the minds of lenders and borrowers.

Unfortunately the lenders have pulled back way too far and don't want to get their wallets out at all but the overreaction seems a mirror reaction to the gay abandon that they handed out dollars to anyone in a suit in the first instance.

These overreactions always happen and lenders will start to loosen again when trust is back in the market.

The focus from the beginning then, one would hope, that the reasons for lending money in the first case would pass the basic questions from the lender when one asks for credit.

Can he pay it back?

Is his credit history good?

In the case of a business, much the same but with the addition of whether the business makes money and are you paying too much for it.

Simple huh?

Then how come lenders got themselves and as a consequence, us, in this mess in the first place.

Until the next credit cycle of madness!


Disclosure: I own Sky City Shares


C Share Investor 2007