Pakage Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 Editorial: Speak now, or next year hold your peace 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. :| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Known One Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 Hope they pass the bill... seriously Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pakage Posted December 3, 2007 Author Share Posted December 3, 2007 Hope they pass the bill... seriously same actually. taking the money out of electoral campaigning wouldnt actually be a bad thing imo. i would really like to see less advertising and more political debating tbh. politics are not products to be sold. its a far more important issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nato Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 I just vote for whoever spends teh most on their electoral campaign. :armata_pdt_30: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr_weazel Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 Hope they pass the bill... seriously same actually. taking the money out of electoral campaigning wouldnt actually be a bad thing imo. i would really like to see less advertising and more political debating tbh. politics are not products to be sold. its a far more important issue. Unfortunately the majority of people are either too simple-minded to understand the issue properly or just too apathetic to give a shit and are quite likely to fall for this mass-hysteria inducing bollocks. Fucking NZ Herald. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 The only question I ask is... How much does the herald stand to LOSE in lost advertising revenue from all of this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nato Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 The only question I ask is... How much does the herald stand to LOSE in lost advertising revenue from all of this? It's common knowledge for people who have some understanding of society and politics that the Herald is a right-wing biased organisation, I just hope that the voting majority can see these editorials for what they are. Now I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with being right-wing, politics needs to have alternate viewpoints to keep itself in check, however an organisation with as much influence as the Herald blatantly pushing their personal agenda on the public is a scam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a-tech Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 The only question I ask is... How much does the herald stand to LOSE in lost advertising revenue from all of this? for realz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeb Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 what happens if noone votes?like noone in the whole country... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 My money would be on a re-election. But the politicans would vote for themselves so it doesnt work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nato Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 You know it was written in NZ law many years ago when the country was colonised: "If all citizens pass up the vote the decision be decided by a fight to the death partook by all party leaders". Of course these days with our MMP system this also allows for party leaders to form battle-coalitions in the ring mid-fight. My money would have to be on the Maori Party + Labour if it were to come to this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teret Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 My money would have to be on the Maori Party + Labour if it were to come to this. Fuck off, who do you back from labour as a Jake the Muss? All about the likes of Winston Peters and Rodney Hide (Don't let the marshmallow exterior full you) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nato Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 Helen would take em both. She fully mantastic. Don't you know she's a seasoned tramper?? Trampers are like the next best thing to WWF pro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grind Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 Fair enough that a politically biased editorial on the front page of a newspaper is probably quite poor form, and yeah, perhaps the bill is a good idea. But Labour is legislating in fear of messages it might not like. Blatantly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 Id rather see a fight to the death personally. A government that does not want criticism is not listening. A government that does not listen is not paying attention to the public... Though million dollar mesages from invisible third parties with vested interests who can influence governments is worse. The Mc National Party... Bought to you by Coke - The Real Thing! Transperancy in donations = good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Grant Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 I dont understand why the new zealand election system is trying to imitate american stylez. We arent that stupid... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr_weazel Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 I dont understand why the new zealand election system is trying to imitate american stylez. We arent that stupid... "We" may not be, but the vast majority of NZers are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 hang on... maybe i'm a little confused, but didn't it say "any person or party wanting to promote a particular message or cause..." or something like that. doesnt that mean members of the public as well. it seems these days that the TWO's to put together are happening a lot more dramatically and regularly... sensational. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 ie; 2 + 2 + 2 + 2....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeb Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 fuck it..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grind Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 Shadbolts getting involved on the hat0rade. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10484803 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now