Posts by Angus Robertson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Good idea Keith.
Every New Zealander will have one last reminder on how to most appropriately thank Labour for their EFA come November, as we stand in line 10x as long waiting patiently to fill in a ballot with a 100 new "parties". The recounts looking at spoiled ballots, the additional "party" observers crowding the room, heck even the inevitable Green protest at the waste of paper...
-
If that's really the case, then aren't we just talking about influencing the outcome of an event where we will inevitably end up voting for one of the spinning, lying, manipulative, untrustworthy, useless (etc.) pricks anyway? Surely, there must be some redeemable part of the political system, or else why bother?
The redeeming feature is that each 3 years the rest of the country (who are not so concerned with pursuing power that they must lie, manipulate, spin... to achieve it) gets to redistribute that power.
...there's little room to address the actual debate, which is whether people or groups with substantial wealth should be allowed to use it for electioneering.
Two part:
Yes, they should be able to "__electioneer__" for the purposes of furthering public debate. We need sources of information in an electoral cycle that are not state, media or political. If people feel strongly enough about an issue they should be able to inform as many people as they can, as effectively as they can. The EFB hobbles the amount of information distribution funds non-party & non-media can use.
No, they should not "__electioneer__" a "Wag the Dog" scenario. Which is something the EFB makes bugger all attempt to prevent. It says third party groups will be revealed after the election. Whilst not enough to sustain a wide ranging public campaign $120,000 could be used to in a more effective, subtle approach. Essentially anon small groups of wealthy individuals can act quasi-independently to mount sabotage. (Would have to be wealthy, because can you imagine 2000 less wealthy coordinating an effective campaign?).
Further nothing underhand, like robo-calls to associate annoyance with your opponents name, is made illegal by the EFB. Presumably because the politicians intend to have an unfettered election.
I do not like the bill.
"POLITICIANS VS PEOPLE!"
It is. Politicians (of Labour/Green/NZFirst) have decided that public debate shall be led by politicians alone. That private groups cannot independently engage the wider public.
-
Contrary to appearances, the debate hasn't been getting more heated. It's been dying a slow, desperate death. Even as the voices grow more shrill and the words more angry, people are becoming more cynical about the debate itself and the institutions responsible for it.
Good point, lets hope we don't make a law that restricts our electoral process to a debate carried solely by these institutions of press and parliament which people are so cynical about.
Ooops, too late.
-
We are arguing about the right of us citizens to publically object to policy. The EFB says me must do it quietly, so as not to "impinge" upon whatever mindless debate our politicians are engaged in.
And the bottom line, the people who spend the money seem to think that money can influence. I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt...
No, you do not give any benefit of doubt. Your position is that anybody who wishes to engage the debate in an election year must be a politician. That other voices can form no legitimate platform and any outside influence is inherently wrong.
People are losing faith in the currency of politics.
So making it law so there is an entire year where only political parties can effectively be current in politics, is going to help?
Everybody knows that Wellington is full of spinning, lying, manipulative, untrustworthy, useless, wasteful, self aggrandising politico insiders playing tricks of smoke & mirrors. People who should not be trusted to frame a picture, much less a year long election debate.
My reintegration into Wellington has been a relief.
No offence meant.
-
It's hard to defend a legislative process as shambolic as that around the EFB. It's also hard to defend some of the people who are making all the noise about it.
Politics 101: when defending the undefendable, launch an ad hominen attack. Shoot The Messenger.
Like all spam, it is a form of applied arrogance -- if I spam you I am asserting that my time is more valuable than yours. You can run to your phone, peasant; I'll go about my business.
Like all spam, it is relatively cheap compared to more respectful forms that are slightly less annoying (TV, radio, mail). Most people hate robo-calling, so with each robo-call of 2008 (priced in courtesy of the EFB spending restrictions) let's offer our own special thanks to the originators of the legislation.
-
Tussock,
Way I read it, if you coordinate a campaign in excess of $120,000 you are in violation of the EFB even if you yourself do not spend more than $120,000, this being collusion which cannot be seen to be happening. The EFB requires that such coordination does not occur.
Kyle,
You'd be wanting to talk to Karl not me.
-
Rich in ob - good on the Greens for removing the underage restriction.
Steven,
Or it phones up some wealthy pals and coordinates its $120,000 spend with their $120,000 spends so that their messages lined up (for example, AA helps them design their leaflets). Not allowed either.
Setting up a web based community called "Get Up NZ" to specifically coordinate people of a political tendency is certainly a no no and something this bill will prevent. However a well established church with some 4000 members in NZ some of whom are quite wealthy, if several groups from that church spend $120,000 dollars there is no way of 'proving' collusion and so any campaign they choose to make is quite legitimate. No slyness is required for groups putting across their similar points, because they are similar people.
If that is all that is to happen, then surely this bill is the most pointless, stupid, waste of time, vote losing, divisive...(rant continues off line).
PS - State offers a reasonable breakdown service with their car insurance.
-
Steven
Yours -
(though there are some provisions to stop people colluding to get around the limits).
Mine -
You presume incorrectly, if they say the same thing. If an AA member wanted to spend on any additional advertising [in support] of the AA campaign, they shall not be able to.
How is the prevention of collusion in a campaign not a block on any of the million New Zealanders who are AA members supporting the AAs message?
If you are right and I am wrong, why is the limit so high? If it is as you suggest 100 rich men can put up $12 million for any concerted campaign they want. It would officially make this the greatest waste of time bill in the history of the universe.
-
rich in ob -
No, they would just be limited to spending $120k in election year. That buys an awful lot of web hosting.
Yes it does, but we will not be allowed to do any of this campaigning marlarky:
http://www.getup.org.au/campaigns/
And technically the limit is lower ($500?), by involving people under 18 in the democratic process.
kyle -
If an individual is a member of an organisation, that organisation can do their electioneering, and the individual could do their own electioneering, independently. Correct?
You presume incorrectly, if they say the same thing. If an AA member wanted to spend on any additional advertising of the AA campaign, they shall not be able to.
God that gets tiring. It regulates election spending, debate that. People can still associate with who they want, and they can still say what they want.
Unless they want to say the same thing their association says and it relates to an election.
The EFB ensures that any few thousand ordinary NZers banding together in a common cause can only be as loud as one rich man and nowhere near as loud as a politician. The EFB is crap, because it claims to be protecting ordinary NZers from the influence of big money, when it so obviously restricts their ability to unite against the rich & powerful*.
The Coalition for Open Government is in seemingly favor of a bill that prevents NGOs from effectively questioning government action in an election year. That seems oddly ironic. IMHO - Large groups of New Zealand citizens involving themselves in an electoral campaign is a good thing and needs to be encouraged. If I had my way I would limit each NGO to a campaign funding of $X per member. That way all New Zealanders rich and poor can have the same voice and actually have a voice.
* rich & powerful does include career Labour Party politicians, being as they are both rich & powerful.
-
How can you justify calling this "heavy regulation" of free speech? Shouldn't you mention that no more than a handful of people want to spend more than $120,000 on electioneering?
Shouldn't you acknowledge that there are organisations consisting of more than one person?
The AA have more than a million members in NZ, this bill classifies any amount they spend more than 12 cents as undue influence. Regulating a million New Zealanders to 12 cents expenditure is "heavy regualtion". How do you justify calling otherwise?
Get Up Australia is a left wing on-line political community opposed to the Howard government, they have 220,000 members. They organise actions and protests and campaigns from online and it is really very good at spreading the left wing ethos to the wider community. A similar NZ community would effectively be made illegal under this bill, because though it might be possible there are an equivalent proportion of NZers (40,000?) who aspire to be politically involved any action entailing more than $3 or $4 per member will be illegal under the EFB*.
This bill is a heavily regulates free association and free speech.
* Actually that is a moot point as some members of Get Up Australia are (shock horror) under voting age and so the whole political organisation would be restricted to less than $500 (?).