United Future

Nice to see you admitting you have "screwed up".

Now why don't you instruct Labour to stop voting your proxies with them on this bill.

When you look at the vast levels of additional public money that have been allocated to MP's (incumbents) which incidentally you voted for in the Appropriations Bill rollover despite having a policy opposing public funding of political parties, is it any wonder that Kiwi's are aghast at the limits being applied to their speech.

Just to take an incumbent MP, you as one can vastly more on Electioneering than someone trying to stand against you who is limited to $20,000 for the whole year. That is a rort pure and simple and it is a rort that you voted for.

Do the decent thing Peter, and vote against the Electoral Finance Bill. You are the self styled Mr Reasonable, how about you display it?

Oh and another thing, how about aying back the last lot of cash you "borrowed" from the public purse before you go dipping back in huh?????

In New Zealand the 'tall poppy' culture is still alive and well as Peter has experienced recently. Those who put their name forward, make a stand and open themselves up for debate on issues are treated as targets rather than leaders.

Trevor Mallard has recently displayed an 'arrogance for survival' whereby admitting a mistake and apologising (the Hugh Logan issue)is not an option for him. He sees this as admitting incompetence and inviting wolves in to feed on the corpse of credibility. So cognitive dissonance, denial and buck passing comes to the fore.

But the general public and, indeed parliament, subscribes to this culture and looks for the chinks in the armour to prise open and permit doubts on credibility snowball.

The recent revelations in Capital Coast DHB is a classic example of the transactional culture we live in with all the symptoms of shame, blame and buck passing in a dysfunctional system (or culture).

True leadership can be defined as 'the first person to effect change for the positive' and we can all do that if we have enough knowledge and conviction.

For one to admit they screwed up in public, in my view, is a honourable thing. I screwed up last week and it hurt like Hell came for a visit. But to owe up and correct was by far a liberating effect.I am now more aware of the frailities of the human mind and soul when performing in specific tasks given.

It is right, that you, Peter Dunne, had to say: tolerance and reason and courtesy is not in the fore when it is in the public discourse on crucial mass issues. The Media feed distrust and disloyalty in the name of 'for the public interest to know' that Trevor, Peter, whoever screwed up and that certain issues make incredible 'entertainment news'.

As I have said in Denise Krum's blog - there is a major concern with the way media portrays culture and comment, to the general public. Yes, the issues of electrol finance,DHB issues are concerns but the reporting of these is not balanced.

There needs to be a public address of the way we act and react to issues. I believe as Peter said I quote,"Surely, it is time, in the interests of civil society, to restore reason, tolerance and courtesy to public discourse, and deal with things as they are, not what one's prejudices might lead one to imagine them to be." unquote.

For to do less, would mean we become a highly immature people in an ocean near the cold of Antarctic Circle.

I watch news, am a qualified journalist and I don't like what I see- it angers me and I want to do something about it. Let me know how-?-

Hello, Peter;

As an expatriate American, and a recently-joined member of your party, allow me to make a few observations.

1. I concur with Brian Ward's observation that New Zealand society, in general, is a "high blame" culture. I have worked for several companies since I came here 8 years ago, and my current employer is the first one which actually understands what "Quality Management" is all about. Everyplace else I have worked, when something goes wrong, the response has been not to analyze the event and get to the root of the problem, but rather to find whoever is standing next to the problem, and clobber him. This approach is morally dishonest and intellectually lazy.

Kiwi's exhibit the same mindset when it comes to social problems. The whole conversation about domestic violence is a prime example. Judy Turner appears to be the only person in New Zealand public life, who actually looks for systemic causes of the problem, rather than reflexively blaming men in general (all men!) for all the social problems of the world.

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.

Therefore, I ask you, Peter, to stand by your principles, and say "No" to this bill, because it is simply **bad law** If Labour and National don't like such a stand, tough luck. The public will support you, and I believe that such support will translate into party votes.

Hi Peter, you may bemoan the death of reason, tolerance and courtesy, but some of us are bemoaning the death of accuracy, particularly with your comments on the Electoral Finance Bill. If anyone should know what this bill says it is the Minister and those on the select committee.

Since 1956, the law has placed limits on how much political parties and individual candidates can spend on election campaigns and has required them to disclose the sources of their funding.

In todays NZ Herald you said that the EFB places similar limits (on how much political parties and individual candidates can spend on election campaigns) on lobby groups promoting a political party during an election campaign.

According to David Farrar from Kiwiblog, the limit under the Electoral Act 1993 is $0. The limit under the Electoral Finance Act 2007 will be the same. Who is correct? If it is you, then could you kindly point out where Farrar is incrorrect.

Dear Peter
The American Michael put it best.

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.

I think you have let yourself, your party (read self) and New Zealand down with not sticking to these principles.
This is what I expect of the Labour Party not United Future.
Michael

So, Peter, Have you paid back the last lot of money you nicked, then voted to retrospectively legalise?

What is the point of a blog if legitimate questions go unanswered?

Peter, when are you going to pay back the money you and your party nicked at the last election that you subsequently voted to retrospectively make legal?

Just wondering? You know.... Do you have any integrity left after so much time in parliament?

From your email you just sent out it would seem you haven't even read the Electoral Finance Bill as you seem to not have even a passing understanding of its design and consequences.

In fact one could almost say that you lied deliberately in your email or you got Heather Simpson to write it for you.

It is great that we have Michael here who can see where our culture fails as most NZers only know the culture that they have grown up in.

However I support the 'anti-smacking' legislation even if it's the best we can do for the moment. There are many laws and bylaws that are not enforced, that just sit passively and send a message. A criminal is only a criminal when convicted in court, not before, and they will be those who insist on violence to discipline. To me the message this law says is you must not abuse your power to humiliate a child (or anyone for that matter).

Anyone who doesn't fully understand human psychology and is driven by a narrow cultural or idealogical upbringing is less likely to appreciate alternative views.

It is interesting for such individuals as Cam or Micheal or Brian or Dave to pass judgement on a man who has to work in the Hive.

I would be keen to see if you lot can do the job Peter Dunne does. Now I know from my reading that not "everything" works like, "on principles need to be adhered to - or you are simply not doing the job of a party". quote.

Let's get a reality check: ask better questions and not judge before the jury's heard the full picture. I am sure Peter Dunne will agree with me on this.

There has been a misreading of the Electrol Finance Bill in my view, in that some "right to freedom of speech" individuals or lobby groups are actually quite devious and Machiavelli would be laughing in his grave saying 'I told you so'

I am referring to the Exclusive Brethen subversive, using money for manipulating MPs. Thats not quite the way rules, in fairer societies like ours works. Is it gentlemen?

The right to freedom of speech needs a law to protect genuine voice of concern and parties need to be sure they don't cross the line into dirty politics. A nice way to say - Transparency please.

Another example would be overkill.

I've read some of the comments here a few times, and I honestly can't tell if some of them are in support or not.

That aside, I just wanted to say that it's refreshing to have someone admit when they're wrong. It's not the easiest thing to do, but takes courage and integrity

Clearly not everyone can see that, and it saddens me how personal some people get in their attacks. Is it really necessary ?

Damian,
a thousand amens and yes you are right-it does get ugly with the attacks. I am particularly concerned for good people who try their best and get plastered for their simple mistakes. we are human after all and thats what we forget. So no- it is not necessary to attack others because we would not want to be attacked either!.

The more support we give the leaders of United the better they will be able to do their job.

Dave said:

Since 1956, the law has placed limits on how much political parties and individual candidates can spend on election campaigns and has required them to disclose the sources of their funding.

Not true. Political party spending limits only came in very recently (late 80s or early 90s).

Disclosure of funding is another one - though arguable - the National Party's donation return after the last election listed only one person's name.

So Peter, before you help pass the Electoral Finance Bill into law, have you paid your money back yet?

Have you got all your talking points from the ninth floor ready? and are you ready to reap the whirlwind?