United Future

Posted at 2007-11-20 19:13:54.486. Permalink.

Hmmm... OK, but I can't say I'm happy with
(i) the limit on 3rd part spending.... I see spending $ to argue a point as a right in democracy and I don't like the idea of any limit
(ii) the period kicking of on 1Jan in election year.. seems excessive

Also, I'm a little confused with some of the detail .... will I have to have an address on my United Future T-shirt if I wear it after 1 Jan?

Posted at 2007-11-20 20:15:19.309. Permalink.

Let me answer your questions as best I can:

1. The limit on third party spending only applies to groups campaigning as part of the election process. It does not apply to people or groups expressing an opinion. What it is intended to get around is the situation where a group says to a political party, "Look, we know you can only spend so much, but we can run a parallel campaign using your logo and style,and it won't count against your spending entitlement."

2. We don't feel all that strongly about the regulated period. In The UK it is a full year before the election; in Canada it is a much lesser time frame. The only thing I would say is that the longer period evens things out for the smaller parties who do not have as much money to sepnd, because it will stop the big spending splurges just before the current three month limit kicks in (which does not have to be accounted for)such as National's billboard campaign just over three months before the last election.

3. No.

Posted at 2007-11-21 13:03:55.452. Permalink.

I am glad that these changes have been made and that we are now supporting the bill.

As to the future I hope the other parties will support an independent review of party financing.

An old boss of mine once said that 'if parties couldn't afford to fund themselves then they shouldn't be in the business'.

My gut feeling is that applying this kind of market principle to political parties is the right thing to do, though I am less convinced that this is a sensible political position for a small party to adopt!?

Posted at 2007-12-02 11:26:09.86. Permalink.

point 1.
If the opinion can be seen as encouraging or persuading people to support or not support a party or a candidate or a class of party or candidate it will be limited. If you want to run a campaign which says �Support parties which support Kyoto� then that is captured.

point 3. If the t-shirt can be seen to encourage support for United Future, they may now be considered an advertisement and need authorisation

Also it may be worth pointing out although the UK has a one year regulated period, it has a five year election cycle, meaning this bill is the most regulated for all western democracies.

Posted at 2007-12-03 10:59:40.304. Permalink.

With respect, Dave, neiter of those claims are true. To be caught, a group has to be apending more than $120,000 in support of a particular party, from the period of registration through to the leection. That is from Writ Day onwards - about a month before the election. Taking the last election as an example, the only group that would have been caught by the Bill were the Exclusive Brethren. Every other group that participated in the election in any way would have been with the provisions of this Bill.

Posted at 2007-12-04 08:47:29.757. Permalink.

John/Dave/Peter:

1. The limit does not apply to everything political, only things aimed at the election. However, something like "vote for parties which support Kyoto" is covered. I note that the Electoral Commission is of the view that the IMVDA's Crazy Car advertising a few weeks back would "clearly" be covered.

http://www.crazycar.co.nz/

If this advertising is covered, then I imagine things like the Sensible Sentencing Trusts advertising would also be caught (it would of course depend on what it said). I note that while they didn't spend more than $120,000, the value of the advertising they received was more than that, they too would be covered.

2. The regulated period in Canada for political parties is the entire election cycle from one election to the next. It is only short (5-8 weeks) for third parties.

3. The T-shirt with "Vote UnitedFuture" will require an authorisation, but it won't have to be yours. If UnitedFuture arranged for the T-shirt, then it would be the financial agent of United Future whose authorisation would be needed.

4. Yes, the limit only applies from the time of registration to the election, but you are banned from spending more than $12,000 (on influencing votes) before registering. If you want to spend on advertising earlier in the year (well before writ day) then you have to register earlier and the limit kicks in immediately. I note that new clause 55A of the Bill also applies the limit to unregistered third parties.

5. The support does not have to be of a particular party. Supporting a particular party is illegal without that party's permission (clause 55). It can also be opposition to a particular party. Or support or opposition of a group of parties (e.g. parties that support Kyoto, or Government parties). As I note above, this may be quite broad - go to the crazy car website (ads ran in various papers, if you recall). The Electoral Commission is of the view that those advertisement would clearly be cuaght by the EFB.

Posted at 2007-12-04 10:36:35.581. Permalink.

I admit to an error - the $120,000 figure applies to the full regulated period.

Posted at 2007-12-04 11:30:46.124. Permalink.

Thanks Peter, in light Mr Edgelers comment, any comment on whether all my points are still incorrect - particularly activities that are captured by the bill during the election period.

Posted at 2007-12-04 11:34:06.346. Permalink.

Peter: One wonders when you will admit to your other mistakes about the bill.

Dave: All your points are correct. Peter clearly hasn't read the bill other than in the talking points issued by the ninth floor.

Posted at 2007-12-04 14:29:19.339. Permalink.

Peter, you said

'Looking to the future, UnitedFuture believes there should be an independent inquiry into all aspects of election financing, including the vexed question of state funding of political parties, in time for major change to be implemented for the 2011 election and beyond.'

If this bill is a good bill and will be a good Act, why do you need to open it all up again with an inquiry? If it needs an inquiry, why support this bill in its current form?

I am dismayed by your lack of understanding of how this bill can be interpreted. It seems to me that you have received a briefing on what the bill is supposed to say, and not read the bill to see if that is what it actually says.

Whilst I don't think many in NZ believe the rhetoric that this party or that party will hound ordinary citizens with threats of prosecutions, convictions etc, the scope for this behaviour is there in the EFB even if you didn't intend it to be, even if your briefing didn't say it would be, and even if your briefing said it wouldn't be. It's there. Some of it may be ambiguous. Some of it may be confusingly written. But it's there, sufficiently for august independent agencies to speak against it even after redrafting.

The EFB is bad law, and you're absolutely right it needs an independent inquiry. I am disgusted that you are putting your name to this bill given that you also think it needs an inquiry to sort it out. I am an Ohariu/Belmont voter and I will not be voting for you in the next election if you support this bill's passage into law.

Posted at 2007-12-05 21:08:15.275. Permalink.

The Electoral Finance Bill is based on an unsupportable premise, and no amount of modification will therefore make it acceptable.

The unsupportable premise is that a member of a widely despised group such as the Exclusive Brethren (which I am not a member of) has less right to express a political opinion than a member of a more mainstream group, such as a trade union (which I am a member of).

Any Act of our parliament seeking to give effect to such an abhorrent principle deserves to be strongly opposed, and it is no surprise that the Electoral Finance Bill has been so opposed. This opposition comes not only from overtly political groups, but also from non-political groups with concerns for equitable treatment for all, such as the Law Society, and the Human Rights Commission.

While I have in the last 2 elections given my party vote to United Future, I will not be supporting any political party which has damned itself by backing such legislation.

Posted at 2007-12-05 21:15:22.194. Permalink.

The premise on which the Bill is based is actually that while everyone or group has an absolute right to express their political views, including the Brethren or any other fringe group, the voting public has a right to know who they are, and that those groups in turn cannot conspire with political parties or candidates to thwart the campaign expenditure limits on the the political parties or candidates by running parallel campaigns which are not subject to any spending limits.

Posted at 2007-12-05 22:59:22.302. Permalink.

Peter

Are we certain (100%) that UF voting for the EFB is fully in line with our party principles , i.e.

"We uphold the right of all citizens to participate fully in the process of government. We welcome the contribution of different political parties and other groups to the overall political process.

We will treat all who participate in political debate with dignity, integrity and respect." ?

That last point of course is what you have tried to do with those who have engaged with us on this debate ! Well done for admitting your mistake- how on earth anyone could understand some of the gobbledygook in this Bill is past me !

Posted at 2007-12-06 08:28:09.002. Permalink.

Robin, my short answer is yes. We believe very strongly in the right of people to be able to express their views, whatever they might be. As I said in my previous comment, this Bill is essentially about campaign financing issues. I havce been amazed by some of the messages I have been receving from people: for example, a comment query is will people still be able to write letters to the editor, or have political conversations, or go meetings to discuss political issues. Lobby groups have asked me will they still be able to lobby for thier concerns, and so on. The answer in all these cases is yes. I do feel very uneasy about the tenor of this debate, and its lack of reason, tolerance and respect. Shouting past each other heightens misinformation and misunerstanding, rather more than it persuades.

Posted at 2007-12-06 12:19:15.438. Permalink.

Peter, could you please answer my question, which was

If this bill is a good bill and will be a good Act, why do you need to open it all up again with an inquiry? If it needs an inquiry, why support this bill in its current form?

It was not a rhetorical question, I genuinely want to know. Are you really saying "Let's pass this now and fix it later"? This attitude shows enormous disrespect for the law-abiding citizens of NZ who trust MPs to make quality law to live their lives by.

It could be that part of your argument will be that something, anything must get onto the statute books before 2008 and we don't have time now to make a good bill. This appears to be the stance of other supporters of the bill that have reservations about it. I don't understand the urgency - would it be so terrible if in 2008 we have an electoral system exactly like the last one and the one before, the ones that voted you in along with your colleagues, one more time before an independent commission can do its work for 2011?

And now that I'm logged in again, I can ask: why the fixation with the Exclusive Brethren? The incident that is referred to in the media and by MPs as being perpetrated by "the Exclusive Brethren" was actually by seven individuals who happened to share a religious conviction. Why mention their religion?

Your thoughts?

Posted at 2007-12-06 12:40:34.87. Permalink.

The reason why I think there needs a separate more wide-ranging inquiry is because there are many other issues that ought to be examined that were beyond the scope of this legislation. For example,the issue of state funding of political parties (something we do not support) has been around since the time of the 1986 Royal Commission on the Electoral System, but it has never really been fully considered publicly. There is also the question of whether we should have a fixed election date, rather than the present system which leaves the power to call elections with the Prime Minister. The reason for acting at this point and not waiting until 2011 is that the last election exposed practices that were at the margins of electoral which could, if left unchecked, be exploited to an even greater extent in 2008. My final point is that contrary to the assertions of some, this Bill is not being rushed through Parliament. It is being dealt with in precisely the same way as any other piece of legislation. It was considered by a select committee for just over four months, and is being progressed through its Parliamentary stages in ordinary sitting time, not Urgency (because we objected to that), and over about three weeks by the time the debate is finally completed.

Posted at 2007-12-06 18:10:54.138. Permalink.

Peter any chance of answering my question as well - the one posted on 11:30am 4 December?

Posted at 2007-12-06 22:21:34.094. Permalink.

Thanks for answering one of my questions. I agree an inquiry should be broader than just what is covered by this bill alone, but disagree that this bill should be passed in advance of that. With all the publicity around this bill and consequent heightened awareness of the perils of anonymous donations and unfettered advertising, I think New Zealanders will be perfectly capable of making up their own minds.

I disagree that this bill isn't being rushed through - 150 tabled amendments the other day belies that. And besides, electoral law reform should not be treated in the same way as any other bill, that's the whole point.

Posted at 2007-12-09 10:09:01.661. Permalink.

Peter
I have already posted that iIagree with this post from the UF member Michael of the USA.

"2. Having said all that, I do disagree with your recent votes in favor of Sue Bradford's repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act and your current support of the Electoral Finance Bill. In both cases, we have extremely sloppy legislation, log-rolled through Parliament, which makes nearly everyone in New Zealand a technical "criminal," and which had to be Band-Aided with an escape clause to the effect that "Yes, everyone is a dastardly felon under this law, but that's OK, because we will only prosecute certain people."

As I see it, a central principle of United Future is that we support (and propose) only legislation which has been properly drafted, and which is buttressed by empirical evidence, not blind ideology. Both of these bills fail ignominiously by that standard."

The EFB fails all the tests and therefore so do you Peter. As an MP at the least I expect you to "properly apply your mind" to the issue and the drafting and especially the unintended consequences of a bill you have publicly uttered on.

You clearly haven't done so.

Moreover Ian states earlier in this thread
"The unsupportable premise is that a member of a widely despised group such as the Exclusive Brethren (which I am not a member of) has less right to express a political opinion than a member of a more mainstream group, such as a trade union (which I am a member of)".

Your answer does not address this issue at all Peter. Rather it is a "sound bite" intended to deflect further examination.

Investigate Magazine ran an article on Union Funding of Labour's campaign in the election before last which put the lie to this whole process and the hypocrisy over the Brethren monies.
I also can't help thinking of Fay Richwhite's funding of Lange's Labour election and the hundreds of thousands of hidden monies from different businessmen.

Then we get to the 150 amendments in one day.
That is a serious case of "shock and awe" against the opponents of this bill.
I thought you were better than this Peter, that is why I voted for UF in the last two elections.

At this juncture I don't think I will be if this is the way you are going to carry on.
Michael

Posted at 2007-12-12 17:09:25.721. Permalink.

Peter, you wrote

The premise on which the Bill is based is actually that while everyone or group has an absolute right to express their political views, including the Brethren or any other fringe group, the voting public has a right to know who they are, and that those groups in turn cannot conspire with political parties or candidates to thwart the campaign expenditure

Really? Consider this.

If someone is motivated to make 20 $1,000 anonymous donations over time, and the party takes the money, and the electoral commission won�t even learn about the donations, let alone have them count as part of the $240,000 cap. The Electoral Commission and the public will have no who has donated what.

Also, one can can receive not only up to $30,000 over three years [Clause 22A(1)(b)] in undisclosed donations from a donor, plus they can give $36,000 anonymously [Clause 28C(3)] through the Electoral Commission. This is because the law allows for both undisclosed donations and anonymous donations. So United Future is saying that $66,000 can be donated to a party without the identity being known, while stating that the public has a right to know who the are.

Thats called double speak.

And the Exclusive Brethrens "secret seven" could even run joint ads for a total of $840,000 - the EFB in Clause 105A(3) allows for ads to be apportioned between third parties

And you, Peter, are happy with that?.