Cartoon and comment; Emmerson: Winston Churchill Clark

C Emmerson, NZ Herald 2007


Emmerson gets to the nub or middle finger of the Electoral Finance Bill.

Labour and its cronies are blaming The NZ Herald for whipping up undue fear among the unwashed public but it is doing a stellar job over the EFB bill. A stand, the likes of which has never been seen since the heyday of Muldoon in the 1970s-80s.

On Wednesday in parliament Labour lapdog Winston Peters called the Herald's "attack" on the EFB a conspiracy of big foreign business trying to gain a foothold of power in New Zealand to enable them to make more money.

Paranoia clearly rules in Winston's office.

We can only hope he gets his foot caught in his mouth again on his latest holiday abroad.

Link to the Herald's EFB website: Electoral Finance Bill in detail


C Political Animal 2007

Electoral Finance Bill gets stalled in Parliament

They don't call it a political grind for nothing.

C Emmerson, NZ Herald 2007

The passing of the Electoral Finance Bill by Labour into law this week isn't going to happen.

The National opposition party are hammering every new clause to the hastily rushed and badly drafted bill and it is chewing up valuable parliamentary time.

There is a very distant possibility that National could stall the bill long enough for Labour to have to come back next February after the summer break.

There is of course the possibility that the house sit under urgency to pass the bill, as they have done with many other contentious constitutional and social changing legislation.

Whatever the time line, the bill is going to pass and the net affect will be that New Zealand citizens will have their democratic right to express their political views, without fear, in election year, removed.

C Political Animal 2007

Sky City Management: blind, deaf and numb

The absolute garbage that masquerades as management at Sky City Entertainment has got to come to a logical conclusion some time soon.



The lobby of the 5 star Sky City Grand Hotel
The company let the market know that the only remaining suitor, which was rumoured as US private equity funds TPG and Apollo Management, was still attempting to arrange financing for a takeover bid.

Sky City management have been effusive, misleading and amateurish in their attempts to keep the market informed accurately and sheppard a deal with a prospective buyer.

If market experience from this end is as deficient as we know it, one can only imagine how the prospective buyer was treated.

Were Sky City management clear, precise and upfront with the two rumoured funds?

I seriously doubt it.

Now I'm not displeased that a deal looks like it is going to fall through but can you imagine this motley crew turning around the company and having the potential to put things back on track?

Not bloody likely mate.

Brook Asset Management, a large Sky City shareholder, has been angling for a board clean out for a long time and I would have to concur with that, for I cant see a way forward with sub standard people at the helm.

TPG and Apollo Management have apparently fallen short in the moola stakes because of the global "credit crunch" but I'm finding that a little hard to stomach considering the timing of the initial bid interest in September and at that time easy credit had already become a thing of the past.

What shareholders need is a clear assessment of where things are with any bid and it is certainly not up to Sky City management to wait around for a possible buyer to raise funds.

There needs to be an understanding from this last possible bidder that they are serious, give them a definite deadline-Sky City management have moved their deadline several times-and if they are not interested tell them to bugger off so we can all move on.

Without the current board of course.

You can bet the current state of indecision will also be permeating the business side of the company as well, not forgetting the considerable amount of money it will be costing shareholders in putting any bid together.

Roll the dice.

Disclosure: I own Sky City shares


C Share Investor 2007

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