Sit down, and shut up NZ

[avgas]

umm....have you got anything relevant to say though?

No, its all irrelevent..... dont want to burst any bubbles or anything

[Mr Merde]

No, its all irrelevent..... dont want to burst any bubbles or anything

Bored arent you?

[avgas]

really? cool.....always wanted to being a serf.

Really?? i find the whole foot stool to life approach as exciting as paying taxes.

[avgas]

Bored arent you?

Give me a reason not to be.

[yod]

They ran their own pro-National, anti-Labour campaign, but didn't correctly acknowledge who was behind it.

which is covertly funding national election advertising isn't it.....

[Finn]

The new electoral spending proposals are anti-democratic.

When Justice Minister Mark Burton told Parliament that the government was “seeking to encourage full and open expression from a diverse range of interests in the run-up to a general election”, he must have known that he could hardly have been introducing a bill less likely to achieve that.
As drafted, the bill casts its net so widely that potentially something as innocuous as writing a personal letter saying “Don’t vote for so-and-so” would bring the writer under its auspices. It would be laughable if it were not so alarming.

If the bill is passed in this shoddy form, it would very likely result in hundreds and possibly thousands of New Zealanders inadvertently committing breaches of the law from January 1 next year. And it would be for no other reason than trying to do exactly what Burton, and most New Zealanders, would say is desirable, namely, having “full and open expression from a diverse range of interests in the run-up to a general election”.

The most grievous part of the proposals is the restrictions and impositions placed on “third parties”. Again, the government probably had in mind the Exclusive Brethren, but every group from Women’s Refuge to Federated Farmers would be affected. By the bill’s own definition, “election advertising” includes encouraging someone to vote or not to vote for one or more parties, and is also defined as “taking a position on a proposition with which one or more candidates, or one or more parties, is associated”.

So, other than political parties, no individual or group is allowed to spend more than $60,000, which is about the cost of one full-page ad in three metropolitan newspapers on a single day, in the entire calendar year up until the election, commenting on any subject on which any party has a policy. And the group will first have to register with the Electoral Commission. That is not fostering full and open expression. Rather, it gives the government a largely unfettered run in election year. It is an embarrassment that the bill in its present form has been put before Parliament.

But even that is not the end of it. If a group that is not an incorporated society happens to have even a single member who is not a registered voter – for example, because they might be only 17 – then that group is not allowed to become a registered third party and can spend no more than $5000 in election year.

And even those likely to spend less than $5000 are still caught in the net. As the Coalition for Open Government has pointed out, a student who writes in chalk on a footpath “Keep NZ GE Free” will have to sign a statutory declaration that their election expenses will not amount to more than $5000 and they will have to write alongside their slogan their full name and residential address. This restrictive and ridiculous bill will curb the vigorous and spontaneous debate that is desirable in a democracy in an election year.
The Electoral Finance Bill gives the strong impression that there has been a quantum shift in thinking about participation in public debate. Suddenly, it is as though any forms of communication to do with politics after January 1 – unless it is by the media, bloggers or the government itself (and possibly even some government communications will be caught) – are dangerous and need to be monitored and restricted. The proposition is absurd. There is no evidence to support it. It is not the public’s excess that needs curbing in this draconian proposal, it is the government’s.

Public submissions on this bill are now being sought. People should have their say. If they don’t, after January 1 they may find they cannot say much at all.

Basically, Labour are self imploding and since they have run out of ideas, the only thing they can attemp is an attack on John Key for being successful. The truth is that they are shit scared of him.. .and they should be giving the recent polls (even though the lefties are rigging them) This of course backfired and Labour are showing their true colours. A pack of nasty, digusting, corrupt, self serving theives.

Even our left wing media and former Labour "friends" have turned against them. It's just a pity we have to wait over 12 months to fire the bitch. She'll do a lot more damage to NZ in that time.

Over.

[Animal]

Since when does the government listen to us anyway ?

E.g. The harsher sentencing referendum ?

The apathy has resulted from years of not being listened to. The Gov't of the day does what it wants. Labour have become too comfortable in their position to the point of arrogance - and Helen takes the cake.

A conversation: "Are you ignorant, or just apathetic?" Reply: "I don't know, and I don't care."

[Crisis management]

I don't often agree with you on politics Finn, being a labour supporter, but have to admit to an increasing feeling of disallusionment with the party over the last year.
This bill is beyond belief and stamps all over our basic rights, so all of you, get to the public submissions and make a statement.


Failing that, break out the gear from the '81 protests and reform Patu....I'll be better prepared for the batoning this time!

[007XX]

Thanks Kro...Doing my bit on the petition right now, and forwarding this very interesting piece of info to everyone I know...

They weren't exactly advertising that one in the Herald though, were they?

and for what it's worth, I happen to agree (to an extent) with Avgas...we have become apathic and are being led like sheep.
What did it for me was the anti smacking bill, and the fact that we needed a group of lunatics (my opinion) to raise arms and put a stop to it...

If the Destiny's Church hadn't gone and reacted the way they did, what would have happened? Nothing, very likely!

Is this new bill going to be the same?

maybe it is time to show this government what the real ruling voice should be and finally act as the democracy we're supposed to be...


Otherwise: Communism anyone?:mad2:

[ghost]

i think the main issue with the brethren was that they were attempting to influence political function without being open and honest about it

it's bad enough that they can force mindless drivel to their children who just accept it since they know no better, i for one certainly dont want idiots like them pulling political strings in my country

"Unions"

They do the same for the lefties too, ya just dont here about it as much.

Just goes to show there are idiological loonies on both sides of the political spectrum

[Hitcher]

which is covertly funding national election advertising isn't it...

No. Any individual or organisation should be free to publicly endorse and support electioneering by political parties with whom they agree or disagree. They just need to do this in an honest and transparent manner, which the Brethren didn't do. Surely this is a fundamental and necessary part of a democracy -- freedom of speech?

Trade unions have been mentioned in an earlier post. The role they traditionally play rousing up support for Labour and other "left wing" parties is no different to what the Brethren were doing.

However under the proposals contained in the new Bill, none of this activity would be allowed one year prior to a general election. Nor would private citizens such as ourselves be permitted to engage in such banter, including on this site.

If you haven't done so already, I strongly urge you all to read the draft Bill, draw your own conclusions and not to believe everything its supporters and detractors may be saying about it.

[yod]

No.

umm...Yes.


you said:

"The Brethren didn't covertly fund National's election advertisements. They ran their own pro-National, anti-Labour campaign, but didn't correctly acknowledge who was behind it."

...didn't correctly acknowledge who was behind it... = covert
They ran their own pro-National, anti-Labour campaign = National election advertising


I'm not sure what you think you're disagreeing with??

[Sanx]

I received one of the Exclusive Brethren leaflets before the last election. From memory, it wasn't pro-National or anti-Labour (particularly), it was anti-Green (and the more people that expose that tree-hugging bunch of krypto-communists, the better. What's more it did comply with all the relevant election requirements insofar as it had the authoriser's name and address printed on the back of the leaflet.

There is no requirement to attach the name of any group to such a publication and the Exclusive Brethren claimed (rightly or wrongly) that the Exclusive Brethren church itself wasn't behind the leaflet, it was just a group of business-men who happened to all be Exclusive Brethren. As far-fetched as this claim sounded, if you examine the logic it's perfectly valid. If I and my numerous cousins decided to pool our resources and issue a leaflet criticising a political party, the same logic used to condemn the Exclusive Brethren leaflet could be used on us. Suddenly this leaflet would be issued by a white supremicist group (as we're all white) or a pro-Jewish group (as we were all brought up Jewish).

The Labour election funding bill is about restricting free-speech. In the UK, the situation is worse; Private Eye magazine made a joke that carrying a copy of a newspaper with the headline "It's time for Labour to go" within a mile of Westminster can theoretically be classed as a criminal offence. Protests and similar such gatherings need to be authorised by the police, even if the protest is one guy standing on the street carrying a placard.

As much as I would like to think that the petition linked to earlier will do something, it won't. I signed it anyway, but I'll put money on it that this bill will sail straight through without the merest hiccup. Like in the UK, the majority of the population is either too apathetic to actually do anything about it, or too stupid to understand what the ramifications are. Or both.

You know, Australia's looking better each week.

[Hitcher]

I'm not sure what you think you're disagreeing with??

No question about your "covert" comment.

The Brethren campaigned in support of National's policies. The National Party also ran its own campaign that the Brethren weren't involved in. I'm not sure what you think you're disagreeing with.

[kro]

When you look at it objectively, democracy is a hinderance to what some countries consider "effective government". The idea of democracy is good, but the execution of it is frought with potholes large enough to fit Texas into.

I think the reason this caught my eye, is that I have known for some time, that the day would come where we were told how it was going to be, and to shut the hell up and accept it, and this looked like an in-road to this very style of government.