Linda Clark declared that she had only had one pamphlet in her letterbox in Ohariu-Belmont, and this was surely the fault of the EFA

In that case, leave the Act exactly how it is k thnx...

(1) How does the Law Commission differ from "publicly funded academics"? It gets its money from the public, and it consists of ex-University professors and government bureaucrats. Perhaps the real difference is that the Herald thinks Geoffrey Palmer's alleged love of free-speech will lead?

So there should be a public voice heard on the issue, but that voice shouldn't be (a) too loud, or (b) in a form thought of by anyone except the Herald itself?

I think you've grasped the Herald's tone quite well.

I vaguely recall that I?

1) After reading this, I think the disclosure deadline should be reduced to hours (preferably 24, no more than 48) from ten days.

2) Make the WriteMark Plain English Awards Trust part of that "nucleus" the Herald was chuntering on about. Seriously. Russell was?

3) And whatever happens, please dump requiring agents to put their residential addresses on material and hoardings. Can't see what public service or genuine disclosure is served there.

I agree. An individual should be contactable, and their authenticity verifiable, but requiring their home address is unecessary.

After all the whole point is that there should be no secrets

And finally, let's greatly expand the statute of limitations for prosecutions from six months — if not do away with it altogether. I think we've seen ample evidence how you can stonewall and obfuscate for six months quite easily.

The EFA did expand the time for commencing a prosecution. The?

And finally, let's greatly expand the statute of limitations for prosecutions from six months — if not do away with it altogether.

I don't know about doing away with it entirely, but increasing it to "until the completion of the parliamentary term following discovery of the breach" would be pretty?

But it would seem prudent, now that a real-world experiment has been conducted, to identify actual harms — and sort teething troubles from fundamental flaws — rather than continue to tub-thump on the basis of philosophy.

Are you new here or something? Tub thumping is wot we do, dammit!

3)?

On the Media7 election special, Linda Clark declared that she had only had one pamphlet in her letterbox in Ohariu-Belmont

We're in Ohariu (renamed at this election, natch).

I was surprised to hear someone as politically savvy as Linda Clark get the name of her electorate wrong. (Perhaps she was?

Oh dear this proves Russell doesn't understand how this law operates.

The Electoral Commission does not provide hypothetical opinions on how it will interpret the law. They?

Tamsin – I got that same weird letter – I swear John Key wasn't hiding in my cellar – I think they'd outsourced writing that one to some nigerian spammer

From Friday 7 November's NZ Herald:
Peters' direct mail angers hundreds

Hopefully the link works.

I agree. An individual should be contactable, and their authenticity verifiable, but requiring their home address is unecessary.

After all, what does it really accomplish, apart from letting the crazies know where you live? And who the hell contacts people via their physical address these days anyway?

Oh dear this proves Russell doesn't understand how this law operates.

Oh dear yourself, Chris.

Why don't you RTFA before getting your snoot on?

It has been revealed the complainant is 21-year-old Andy Moore, a University of Canterbury commerce student and "strong Act supporter".

The Electoral Commission wrote to Mr Hide?

Basically, what the Nats will try and do is to return to unlimited, unattributed spending by the wealthy. I suspect they'll probably repeal the EFA, have?

Arranging for someone to lodge a frivilous complaint for the purpose of then claiming persecution is, frankly, silly. On this, I think the media's conclusion seems pretty reasonable. You might want to moderate your mock-indignation in this instance.

Oh and can I also suggest attacking Val Sim 'cause?

The issue of candidate election spending actually is dealt with by the Chief Electoral Officer, not the Electoral Commission. This office gives advice on its interpretation of the EFA (unlike the Commission). So as an ex post facto rationalisation, this seems pretty lame.

A bi-partisan commission to look at:

1] retaining MMP or switching to another proportional system (not a return to FPP). include a review of the 5% thresh-hold
2] retaining Maori seats.?

4] setting a fixed election date, with the official campaign season (vis a vis any EFA) starting 6 months prior. This would not negate a Govt calling a snap election.

Do any Westminster governments have fixed election dates? I don't see how it can work. What's the point of a?

when has a gentle mocking done anyone any good – sneak in tonight and leave a fish under his house

Sweetie, if you can get into his house then the thing to do is to paint the underside of all his furniture with natural yoghurt. It's a slow but insidious?

What's the point of a fixed date if the government can call a snap election early?

I think the idea is that the government would have to do more than declare a snap election, such as having to make a formal vote on it (perhaps with a grace period during?

Canada has just introduced fixed election dates.

Which Harper then went and undermined by manufacturing a "crisis" that "required" an early election.

I think this got pretty comprehensively thrashed out on another thread, but I'd turn your question around: But what practical or constitutional obstacles are there to this scenario :-

1) Fix the election date at, say, the second Saturday in November.

2) The only exception is if the Government?

3] increasing the term to 4 years, so the Govt can govern and not switch to election mode in Year 3

Agreed.

4] setting a fixed election date, with the official campaign season (vis a vis any EFA) starting 6 months prior. This would not negate a Govt calling a?

3] increasing the term to 4 years, so the Govt can govern and not switch to election mode in Year 3

Agreed.

Er... we'd start after the next scheduled election, right?

1) Fix the election date at, say, the second Saturday in November.

2) The only exception is if?

Have I missed something in that understanding?

I've always imagined 'ACT activists' as sort of the geeks who the geeks wont hang out with, they've never figured out how to make a decent living, wealth has passed them by and it's sooo unfair...

Some of them are law students, as a result of which I (bigotedly) imagine?

If you can't get into his house, you'll just have to fill his car with Space Invader.

For a few seconds there I pictured the old-style video game with the monitor mounted into a table. Man that would be a cool ride.

Around fixed election dates, the question as Giovanni?

Around fixed election dates, the question as Giovanni has put it is what then happens if you 'snap' early, come the actual election date?

Kyle/Giovanni,

In NSW, fixed means fixed so long as you have confidence and supply. If you lose that and the other mob can't form a government,?

I don't know who Chris is, but I think everyone should feel free to mock him while he's looking silly. It can be our wee bit of revenge for any part he had in bringing us Roger Douglas.

A little backgrounder by Brian Rudman at the Granny:

[[http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=9002918|Saga of Onehunga Labour?

Er... we'd start after the next scheduled election, right?

Right.
OR: we could backdate it to the last election, thereby putting Labour back in power for another 12 months.

But seriously. I'm a big fan of a longer term. 3 years seems too short. Don't know if I'd go 5.

2]?

This still creates a problem if a government loses its majority and cannot get supply passed, but also can't resign.

One other?

A little backgrounder by Brian Rudman at the Granny:

Ah. A real class act then?

It speaks of greed and poor character.

And if we're going to have a Pasifica seat (as has been suggested) will we have one for the Chinese?

Oh oh, and one for Winston supporters. It is really unfair that a lot of people voted for WP and he didn't get in because his voters are spread out?

I was never really clear on this part of the EFA. If I want to spend up to $12,000 telling people to vote for Party X, I need only include the promoter's address, yes? And, that could mean just including my address?

Have I missed something in that understanding?

Apart?

You are right, the four year term was put to the public, I think in 1990, or near that date, and it was rejected.

Although I can't speak for the rest of the electorate, this was under First Past the Post; and to my eye, the question was?

and I was struck by the singer's resemblance to a young Russell Brown....

It is really unfair that a lot of people voted for WP and he didn't get in because his voters are spread out over the country and not just in Tauranga

Looking back at previous elections, I was surprised to see how many votes NZ First got in previous elections?

Well this time I do, ask me after the next election if I feel the same way.

Think 12 years of your less than favourite party

Somehow, I managed to survive nine years of my less than favourite party without undue trauma. Democracy's like that.

Now, I know some will put it down to grumpy Labour voters staying home, or the bandwagon effect,?

Oh and Mikaere, congrats on your part in running a great campaign.

Cheers. In some ways, the Green campaign was as much internal as it was external, in that it seemed to develop an increased sense of cohesiveness.

On reflection the EFA didn't have much that much impact on my?

If anything had a chilling effect on this election it was:

1. The two larger parties refusing to debate with anyone else

2. Some?

Now, I know some will put it down to grumpy Labour voters staying home, or the bandwagon effect, or whatever.

I'll throw a few more into the mix: polls which made it seem like it was a foregone conclusion, and parties which hugged their opponents so tightly that it made?

The Onehunga house story reminds me of the scorched earth Prebble's Act-olytes left in Auckland Central in 1992, after Prebble was defeated there.

We lived in Grey Lynn when Richard Prebble held Auckland Central. In 1984 we held our Labour Party election night party at the Trade Union Centre on?

Somehow, I managed to survive nine years of my less than favourite party without undue trauma. Democracy's like that.

Craig, my reaction to this statement is in two parts.

1. Fair enough. It's true the world still spins and much of your life, which is in fact influenced by as?

We lived in Grey Lynn when Richard Prebble held Auckland Central . . .

A good story verbwrangle. I lived 16 years in Prebble's electorate, and never bothered to vote, except once, for Bruce Jesson. In my last election spent there, in 1990, a besuited Prebble appeared on a soapbox?

Now, I know some will put it down to grumpy Labour voters staying home, or the bandwagon effect, or whatever.

I'll throw a few more into the mix: polls which made it seem like it was a foregone conclusion, and...

But the two could be linked. I've long believed (off the?

Nicely put, Steve.

Seconded, but what can be done about it?

Seconded, but what can be done about it?

Cancel your sub?

But seriously, at kiwiblogblog, a commentator called redlogix, observed that the NZHerald had entirely neutered itself as a potential critic of Key/National having been so biased in its coverage of National. He was right.

I suspect it's because the?

For example I might want to put up a website or a few posters advocating an issue or a party.

I'd have to publish my home address ( which is nicely situated for people?

Mikaere, like Labour in 1996? I don't mean to be provocative, but I'm sorry Nandor's no longer in the party. Please don't feel the need to respond or divulge any deep-dark-party-secrets, I simply think he was a great voice for a particular constituency.

Maybe, I was on my OE back?

– NZ is not the kind of place where people break each others windows for their political ideas

– You can't say "Vote National". You can say "Vote for a change?

I really think it discourages people from running a little campaign unless they are professional politcals.

I think the opponents of the EFA managed to create an atmosphere of doubt over whether you could engage in good faith campaigning without fear of prosecution.

I might have missed it, but did?

My reference to 1996 was about the way Labour reacted to NZF going with National despite feigning interest in governing with Labour. I recall the night of Winston dramatic announcement – what a completely self-indulgent wanker he was/is.

After too long spent in low-level factional?

- NZ is not the kind of place where people break each others windows for their political ideas

Rich in Observationz, while I'm not disputing that. I am reminded of the story of my late great grandfather, who was evicted from the family farm and subsequently lost?

1. What I mean to say is, I think it's particularly presumptuous of the government to assume that all members of a household are going to vote in unison

2. It's?

You get the leaders you deserve(?)

NZ is not the kind of place where people break each others windows for their political ideas

Given the vile nature of some grassroots political supports, I personally wouldn't be making a statement like that with such unalloyed confidence.

A lot of signs got vandalised round our way in the?

NZ is not the kind of place where people break each others windows for their political ideas

Move to a small NZ town or locality and you will find that people do break windows if they don't like what you stand for. Or poison your dogs, or smack you round?

NZ is not the kind of place where people break each others windows for their political ideas

Tell that to Helen Clark's electoral office window, which has been attacked by an axe, and been broken by a stone earlier this year.

Seconded, but what can be done about it?

I don't we should forget about the proposal which was floated some time back, to set up some sort of funding mechanism for independent/freelance journalism. I am still willing to put $$ towards this--and if I ever win Lotto, a heap of?

proposal which was floated some time back, to set up some sort of funding mechanism for independent/freelance journalism

Someone told me APN were going to sell The Listener. Let's get a consortium together to buy it. I miss The Listener. Not the rag that goes by it's name but the?

?The Electoral Commission wrote to Mr Hide on Monday, saying that under the act the jacket might be an "election advertisement" and therefore required an authorising statement.?

Hadn?t see the story but it sort of says it all really.

Yes given Mr Hide?s strong attachment to and fondness?

I understand he is passing through the grieving process which I guess includes a ?foaming at the mouth? stage.

Oh, I'm rabid, me ...

The major weakness of many in the New Zealand left is that they personalize their politics

I understand he is passing through the grieving process which I guess includes a ?foaming at the mouth? stage.

Let it not be said that one can't preach one thing and do something completely?

The serious point remains: the only way to get guidance from the Electoral Commission is via a formal compliant.

Actually, I think the serious point was that you said:

On Mr Hide's jacket (apart from making the law look ridiculous) ACT needs to know how the Electoral Commission will view?

The objections I've seen here to the EFA seem to be addressable by:
– people would rather have a phone number/email address/PO box instead of a street address.
-?

my objection is not the street address, it's the lack of anonymity RoO.

Because what you want is people spending money anonymously on elections? Great...

but to your point Kyle. what is the issue with peope spending money on elections? they have more advertising? and people are so blinded by the bigger advertisers that they?

Which obviously works for you, but I can't see it going down well with most politicians, or the electorate.

And money does not equate to political action. You could run a campaign for zero dollars if you spent all?

?Oh, I'm rabid, me ...?

This too shall pass.

HenryB:

I never said it was exclusively a weakness of Labour boosters alone or indeed all Labour boosters. But it often emerges in relation to ACT. Of course ACT has both Labour Party and National Party ancestry. I think?

s/attribution/registration

And s/$1000/$12000, unless you're campaigning against a particular electorate candidate.

I really think it discourages people from running a little campaign unless they are professional politcals.

For example I might want to put up a website or a few posters advocating an issue or a party.

I'd have to publish my home address ( which is nicely situated for people?

Also, unlike ACT, I?

Someone told me APN were going to sell The Listener. Let's get a consortium together to buy it. I miss The Listener. Not the rag that goes by it's name but the one I used to subscribe to.

Put my name down! I miss it as well!

or an empty house where no-one actually lived

nope, that wasn't allowed either.

if you wanted to campaign pre-EFA, you had to say who you were and where you got your mail).

As I recall the Brethren hid behind a person's name and a box number. If you had to name yourself and your organisation, maybe a box number would do. I agree?

and that you can't hide behind a PO Box or fake address as the Brethren did.

Um, so you can't give a false address under the current regime? I guess the baseline assumption is that people don't make false statutory declarations, and if they do there are safeguards?

I'm not quite sure why Rodney could not have just added a little tag to his jacket with "authorized by blah...".

Frankly, one might assume that the jacket was authorized by Rodney. Seeing he was wearing it. Nothing shadowy or behind-the-P.O.Box ness about that.

Re the "Rodney was embarrassed". Rodney?

But like I say, an exception for clothing would seem reasonable, as would a de minimis rule where the Electoral Commission could just rule that nobody was being?

It was obvious in the case of Rodney's shirt. Would it be if somebody hired 100 out-of-work actors to wear promotional shirts?

Tricky that. I recall John O'Farrell in his memoir "Things can only get better" about the Labour opposition in exile in the UK, paying the au pair £5?

And by heck, it's not as if squillions?

The whole argument against money spent on advertising hinges on the notion that vast swathes of voters are braindead, which seems ironic whistled in the same breath as 'long live democracy'.

It hinges on no such notion.

It hinges on the notion that advertising is an effective way to sway?

As proven by the fact that companies and government organisations, including political parties, spend vast amounts of money advertising to achieve that very result.

And as evidenced by the fact that 'time for a change' with few facts about what the change would be, was enough for a great many?

As proven by the fact that companies and government organisations, including political parties, spend vast amounts of money advertising to achieve that very result.

Though, as I've often said, Telecom is a living case study in how if you don't have products and services worth a damn, it doesn't really?

Chicken or the egg – what comes first? Which is, I think, where Rachel came in.

Yes.

But some people have a whole chicken farm, and others not so much. In the election it's more important to know who has how many, where they come from is a secondary concern.

compared to party B, with moderate policies, but the very unique stance in that they are offering everyone a day off on their birthday,?

more money certainly buys more ad/space time kyle, but isn't creativity far more difficult to calculate, surely? isn't the success of an ad pretty intrinsically linked to the product being advertised?

Ah yup. Which doesn't change the fact that advertising influences people's decisions, and more money means more of it.?

It's not tricky. Advertising influences people's behaviour. More money buys more and better advertising.

And yet those full page ads (which I believe run well north of ten grand a throw) Labour was running on a near-daily basis during the last week of the campaign in the Herald, didn't seem?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gre4DZuA6k4

firstly, it's a question of taste, no matter how much advertising time EMI bought, there was no way?

And yet those full page ads (which I believe run well north of ten grand a throw) Labour was running on a near-daily basis during the last week of the campaign in the Herald, didn't seem to help very much at all.

The fact that there are bad campaigns, and?

The ability to spend money on advertising isn't freedom of speech.

This is not even remotely close to true.

You call it the freedom to advertise. That's fair, but the freedom to advertise is part of freedom of speech. We limit and restrict both (including around elections), but that doesn't?

You call it the freedom to advertise. That's fair, but the freedom to advertise is part of freedom of speech. We limit and restrict both (including around elections), but that doesn't mean one isn't just a subset of the other.

The point isn't about advertising itself being restricted.

The point?

But if I was running for election and my two key platforms were "freeing the Matthews family" and "deforestation is bad", then there should be a limit on how much I'm allowed to spend promoting?

If I'm not running for election or promoting an issue which relates to the election its not really a relevant argument. I can print a million leaflets to distribute to every home in NZ, no limitation on advertising or speech need apply.

Except if, as you argued:

If [Money is?

(The answers, unsurprisingly, haven't changed)

I'd like to restate clearly, that there are a few issues here, not just the advertising, firstly my quoted statement re: limitations and conditions on freedom?

If I'm not running for election or promoting an issue which relates to the election its not really a relevant argument. I can print a million leaflets to distribute to every home in NZ, no limitation on advertising or speech need apply.

So some organisation with nameless but extremely wealthy?

So some organisation with nameless but extremely wealthy backers can spend many millions on an advertising and PR campaign to convince people that massive tax cuts are really important for the future of the economy, or that privatisation of the water supply will save them lots of money.

Those sound?

namely the requirement to print contact information on placards, clothing and the like as it is under the EFA.

To me this seems relatively uncontroversial.

If you see some expensive advertising up during the election, and you wonder "well I wonder who paid for that, someone's spending a lot of?

Those sound suspiciously like issues which relate to the election. In fact, I think both of them are Act policies at the very least.

What if it's two weeks after an election, and three years before the next?

What if the Green Party comes out in support of your family??

1. Campaigner A spends $12,000 to print X number of pamphlets in Te Awamutu, Campaigner B sends me $12,000 to print 10X number of pamphlets in China. When Campaigner A finds he has ten times less pamphlets than Campaigner B, he wishes to print more pamphlets, but is?

What if it's two weeks after an election, and three years before the next?

As far as I know, we don't restrict election-type campaigning outside of the election period.

moral: B should have spent his money offshore.

Ah yup. What's your point?

moral: recycle advertisements

I would presume that the electoral law would deal with pre-spending in some way. If it was as easy as saying "oh no, we spent 20 million last year, we're only putting all the?

Point B is; you presume, just as I contrarily presume, neither of us are certain, but you're living in it.

Point C is; the entire and complete role of democratic government is to tailor the?

Point A is; replacing money onshore with scraps of paper is New Zealand currency lost.

I fail to see why electoral law should make people make good business decisions. If people spend their money badly in any commercial or private arrangement, that's their tough luck. We don't tell other people?

And, if i (someone without barnyard smut) were to spend $100,000 on advertising arguing against the EFA, would it change your opinion Kyle?

Shell could spend billions advertising, I still wouldn't buy petrol from Shell. That doesn't mean that it wouldn't affect other people.

Re: Shell. If Shell's advertising budget was limited to the number of New Zealanders they employeed. then they would definitely have an advantage over Gull.

That's silly. If you take away spending limits, it's not going to be new parties that are?

re: the portion of the EFA you linked to. It's all down to spending, by gifting the necessary resources to make things, it could be sidestepped.

You need to go read the bill or an explanation of it and come back.

Gifts or donations are recorded at their actual value.?

Re: Shell. If Shell's advertising budget was limited to the number of New Zealanders they employeed. then they would definitely have an advantage over Gull.

Electoral spending isn't limited by employees. It's a hard cap.

Political parties are limited to 1 million plus $20K per electorate candidate.

why isn't it going to be new parties who have lots of money to spend?

Because unless they've got a consortium of rich donors, each of whom is going to donate vast amounts of money, they're not going to get up to the millions of dollars that National and Labour?

So with regards to your first?

I'm referring to someone who has previously been given a printer for Christmas, verses someone who is using a printing company, and the the vast differences in output the two are capable of for $12,000.

The difference in output would be, the person who had a printer, bought $12,000 of?