Comments on: Coalition for Open Government welcomes revised Electoral Finance Bill

By: JohnMacC

JohnMacC — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 09:57:04 +0000

Tracey - the current law might not be perfect, but YES I would absolutely prefer to keep it rather than see this disgraceful process produce the bad law that it will. If the current law had been enforced properly, we could have seen prosecutions of those who put false addresses on pamphlets, and prosecutions of political parties who intentionally breached the electoral act. The problem was weak enforcement.
If I want to stand in the street (with or without a megaphone) and tell people that some politician deserves the boot, I don’t see why I should have to invite a visit to my home by that politician’s friends. Simple really.

By: tracey

tracey — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 02:56:54 +0000

JohnMac

in what way does the current law leave you satisfied that intelligent voters ever get the chance to KNOW who’s funding a campaign? At least there is now an opportunity to debate this entire issue. ot making any changes would have left us with wat we had, and despite the very undemocratic nature of it, would never have prompted a “campaign for democracy” from the NZ Herald. I agree changes need to be made, however I dont want to see those changes slowed down, as some quarters do to enable them to skate through the next election under the “old” rules.

People who wish to openly criticise a politician, or anyone ought not be frightened by putting their name to their statement, should they?

By: JohnMacC

JohnMacC — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 08:10:49 +0000

I agree with Milo - Steven and co you are blinding yourselves to the negatives about this bill as you look for something positive about transparent funding. Maybe you should think a bit more broadly about what “open government” means.
There’s nothing open about the way this bill was prepared and is being pushed through.
There’s nothing “open” about heavily regulating political speech in the manner this does.
I’m all for transparency and openness about who’s funding the parties and lobby groups. But I have a lot more trust than COG does in the intelligence of voters when they’re informed about who’s funding a campaign. And I have a lot LESS trust than COG does in the motives of the self-serving power hungry pols pushing this bill through.

By: milo

milo — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 18:18:00 +0000

Sorry. first paragraph should read “any kind off public political advocacy is now defined as an election advertisement.”

By: milo

milo — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 18:16:58 +0000

This morning’s Dompost notes the restrictions on free speech, but omits to mention that they have been extended from the election period to the whole year. They also fail to mention that any kind of public political advocacy is now defined as free speech.

I note the COG spokesman suggests that common sense applies, and it is unlikely to be enforced.

EXCUSE ME? Speech is not free if it relies on the police choosing not to prosecute. Of course normal political advocacy is unlikely to be prosecuted, but when it becomes too annoying or awkward, or the police want to get somebody for some other reason, there it is on the statue books, waiting to be used. The sedition example shows just how easily these things are abused.

So from 1 January, political advocacy requires either publication of your name and address OR the forbearance of the police. THAT IS NOT FREE SPEECH.

I ask for the Coalition for Open Government to point out the errors in my analysis. If there are none, I ask for them to revise their position on this bill.

By: John

John — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 10:00:50 +0000

I think its great news that the rich wont be able to have a unfair avantage by being able to give their National party 2 million dollars . Naturally the rich wont be to happy about it after being allowed this unfair advantage for so long . No longer is it so easy to dictate and buy a election .Great news and a step towards real democracy .

By: Nicholas O'Kane

Nicholas O'Kane — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 05:30:19 +0000

What is the opinion of COG on the ban on verbal advocacy (i.e. peacefull protests) in the revised bill, or the definition of overseas donor to include someone who hasn’t lived in New Zealand for 40 years. See http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/11/18062.html for details

By: COG vs ICA - Smackdown « KiwiBlogBlog

COG vs ICA - Smackdown « KiwiBlogBlog — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 04:17:19 +0000

[...] Me, I prefer to cite the opinion of a non-partisan group established to promote better democracy, the Coalition for Open Government. http://cog.org.nz/2007/11/18/coalition-for-open-government-welcomes-revised-electoral-finance-bill/ [...]

By: milo

milo — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 03:49:26 +0000

As far as I can see, Clause 5 makes any expression of support for or opposition to a political candidate an election advertisement. Clause 53 then requires that publication of such advertisements be accompanied by publication of the utterers name and address. Failure to adhere to this is made an illegal practice. The definition for “publish” includes “Bring to the notice of the public in any other manner”.

Therefore, encouraging people to vote (or not vote) for a candidate or party becomes regulated. Whether you carry a placard, address a meeting, stand on a soapbox or just express an opinion, it becomes regulated for every individual in New Zealand.

From 1 January, you are prohibited from public expression of your views about the suitability of politicians, unless you include a statement that sets out your name and address.

Why on earth should people have to state their name and address, just to express an opinion on a politician? From 1 January 2008, free speech is dead.