Just what are Labour thinking?
If there are two things that you can be sure about the NZ public as a group, it's the 'fair go' mentality and that they all think politicians are thieving mongrels.
So, I just can't fathom why Labour would introduce a law that:
Why Labour thinks it will get away with this law has got me completely puzzled!
So, I just can't fathom why Labour would introduce a law that:
- Obviously favours there own electoral chances over National.
- Provides for taxpayer funding of political parties.
Why Labour thinks it will get away with this law has got me completely puzzled!
posted by Michael at
11:16 AM
15 Comments:
Michael, I think the proposed law changes are overdue and will clean up the funding abuses caused by outfits such as the Exclusive Bretheren and overseas right wing reactionary think tanks often funded by the US Government through their various "friends". The Auckland Herald article you quote was very unbalanced as is usual with this particular writer. trade unions as well as Employers and manufacturers outfits have always been able to donate funds for political parties so long as they are New zealand based outfits. this seems right and fair to me.
By
Steven, at 12:23 AM
What right wing reactionary think tanks Steven?
If you have proof why don't you name them, rather than just spouting a Labour talking point from Mallard before the last election which was proven wrong.
Of course they put an exemption for Labours large backer who hasn't lived in this country for 40 years, but have denied it to people who own property in this country and live here.
Also can you explain why non-unions groups should have there freedom of expression stifled during an election campaign doesn't this breach the Bill of Rights in this country.
Why are Unions explicted exempted?
Maybe because they support Labour.
The proposals are so full of holes it actual promotes the possibility of a dirty tricks campaign in this country than actual competing under ideas.
By
Anonymous, at 2:23 PM
Business Round Table = RW Think Tank.
Of course only NZer's should be able to vote or influence voting. Owning property just doesn't cut the mustard. many foreigners live here but if they use a foreign passport then they ain't no kiwi! No committment to the country, then surely no vote.
What "Bill of Rights" gives anyone the right to say what they wish, when they wish. It just ain't so.
Surely a religious group claiming special rights such as tax exemptions, non payment of rates etc should be just that and not start being anything else such as a business or a political party. Otherwise they are getting money (and tax breaks) on false pretences. I'm no union supporter myself but so long as they are a New Zealand outfit without foreign influence they have a requirement to try to improve the lot of their members and this is often best done by entering the political scene. there is no difference in them doing this compared with any other grouping such as a farmers group, a medical group of sufferers etc.
Why do you sign your item as anonymous? Unions support labour because they know from history that Labour looks after their members better.
I never listen to what Mallard says as I know he often speaks a lot of rubbish engaging his mouth before starting up his brain. Many things he has said are wrong but what does that prove other than he often doesn't know what he is talking about! many, many other politicians suffer that problem.
By
Steven McLachlan, at 1:14 AM
1ferretThe law in NZ applies equally to all in NZ - regardless of residence status and nationality.
This includes the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act passed in 1990, which is "to affirm, protect, and promote human rights and fundamental freedoms in New Zealand" - which includes clause 14: "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form."
The Electoral Act defines who can vote - citizens, permanent residents and those who first entered NZ before 1975 (?) from other 'white' Commonwealth countries are eligible.
To change our Bill of Rights Act so that only some people are covered by it would be a retrograde step.
By
Michael, at 6:40 PM
The 1990 "Bill of Rights" is a fairly useless document as it claims so many things that are denied elsewhere. Prisoners and the mentally insane can't vote, nor can those under age.
The right of free expression is very limited. Reference those who want to report court news or openly slander anybody. In these instances you are guilty unless you can prove your innocence. I'm not suggesting it should be otherwise but it does show that freedom of speach is often restricted. Movies are also often censored although thankfully not so often as previously.
Rights of a citizen are important but so surely are obligations. it is not easy having a black and white set of rules for running an election but I do think the recent tinkerings while not heroic are in the right direction and will solve some of the abuses as seen in the last election.
By
Steven McLachlan, at 1:39 AM
Steven,
You think the people who were involved with the worst abuse of stealing over $800,000 in the last election and admitted they did they same thing in the last two elections to pay for the pledge card should be the ones now writing the rules.
That's like allow criminals to re-write the crimes act.
No logicial person would support that.
Finally, the Bill of Rights is an important document in this country set to protect the basic freedoms all people should enjoy without fear or favour.
That fact you see this as a useless document shows what you really think.
This country is moving closer and closer to Zimbabwe.
By
Anonymous, at 12:18 PM
Steven you also made the claim that of "overseas right wing reactionary think tanks often funded by the US Government".
You changed it when ask to provide proof to the NZ Business Round table.
Which isn't a right wing think tank it's a lobby group for it's members.
It's still a big back down from you first post.
How can we trust anything you say.
By
Anonymous, at 12:23 PM
Wow "anonymous", go easy on the hyperbole. Why should we take you seriously when you won't even tell us your name?
By
Richard, at 2:52 PM
The name is Mark (this is my brother's blog).
Does that make a huge difference to the points I am making?
I thought not.
If you want to debate the points fine. Don't just dismiss someelse point of view on a blog because the comments are made under 'anonymous'.
By
Anonymous, at 3:56 PM
Hi Mark,
I didn't say the "Bill of Rights" was a useless document. I said it was a fairly useless document which is a lot different.
Nobody "stole over $800,000". As you well know the word stole is a very precise word which indicates a crime and this is not what the police found.
I changed nothinmg in my references to right wing think tanks. I was asked to provide two and I did. The business round table is certainly a right wing think tank even if its members prefer that they be called a lobby group. Surely they are both? In fact they are many things just as they should be as they represent their members interests. there is nothing wrong with being a right wing think tank (or a left wing one either) as it is better that they think and plan what they are doing for their members. that is their role so why deny it?
If you want another example of this right wing influence from the USA take a look at all the "Time" magazines put into medical/doctors waiting rooms by the US Government. This magazine is heavily sponsored by the US government and it offers a US government slant on all world news. How do you think so many waiting rooms have these magazines there.
"Fox News" on television is another right wing propaganda outfit and this of course comes to us courtesy of Prime Television. recognising these things for what they are is important and they should be available to us as part of our information sources but when they openly try to change a particular NZ Government (right or left wing) via overseas funding then it should be fought against because changing a NZ Government is for New Zealand voters to do and not for anybody else.
By
Steven McLachlan, at 1:23 AM
Mark I asked you why you hid behind an "anonymous" name because you had asked me to name right wing organisations trying to influence a NZ election. My point was that you wanted others named but weren't open about releasing your own name which you still only partly do by hiding behind a "Brothers email address". Surely if you have any conviction of believing in your own words you should put your own name to them. It certainly devalues them if they are published under a "Anonymous" name.
By
Steven McLachlan, at 1:14 AM
Steven,
Obviously I am not hiding behind anonmous comments as you know my name.
I don't post very often so have never seen a need to set up a user name. But this issue about state funding proposed by Labour has got me incensed by the attack of the basic freedoms that all NZders should hold dear.
You don't from what I have read.
I see in the NZ Hearld they have a article about some of the concerns that Crown Law have raised with the Labour-led government.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10434240
The main points being:
"Crown Law has cautioned the Government that some of its election financing proposals could breach freedom of expression protections in the Bill of Rights.
It has told Justice Minister Mark Burton that restrictions on advocacy and activities by non-party groups in the lead-up to an election - which includes the Exclusive Brethren and trade unions - could impact on freedom of expression rights under the Bill of Rights Act.
The Weekend Herald also understands that Crown Law says a proposed ban on political parties accepting donations from foreign sources is potentially an unjustifiable restriction on relevant rights.
Crown Law is required to advise the Government where it believes any new laws might impact on the Bill of Rights Act 1990. But there is no requirement on the Government to heed Crown Law's advice and laws have been passed despite cautions on the Bill of Rights from Crown Law".
You claim you labelled two right wing think tanks, and keep calling the "business round table" a right wing think tanks. It isn't. Just because you keep repeating it doesn't make it so.
I also think you want them banned from your arguments.
That's like calling a "Union" a left-wing think tank. It isn't either.
You claim you named two, but the only other group you have meantioned in all your posts is the "Exclusive Bretheren". They are a lobby group, not a right wing think tank either.
You seem to think any-one or group who disagress with Labour is a right-wing think tank.
Then in your second to last post attack the "Time" magazine and "Fox News" as some world-wide conspiracy to change the NZ government from Labour-led to a National-led government.
From your posts all I can take from it is that the party you support "Labour" is justified in stop anyone from critizing it, you also want a ban on media that you disagree with.
I think you should immigrate to China, because you possible also want to ban certain blogs being read in this country.
Mark
By
Anonymous, at 2:22 PM
Mark,
I agree entirely with the viewpoints raised by Crown Law. It is a dangerous area to introduce law and caution is always needed. No doubt several tweeks are needed before the proposals are suitable to most.
My own voting isn't really important to an arguement but I have voted in the past for either left or right leaning parties depending on their policies and personell.
Regarding "think tanks", I agree that me calling an outfit one doesn't make it so just as you saying they are not also doesn't make it not so. Your arguement is no arguement at all.
You also make some weird assumptions. Just because I have a point of view it doesn't mean I don't think anybody else should have a contrary viewpoint. In fact I would worry if everybody sung from the same songbook. I certainly don't want a ban on any news media. I do however believe it is important that people understand where the points expressed are coming from. "Time" magazine is funded by the American government but that doesn't make the points of view expressed in it invalid. You do have to realise however that the views in it will be expressed with the approval of the US Government.
Surely your call for me to emigrate to China proves that you have lost your arguement.
By
Steven McLachlan, at 12:47 AM
All I'm suggesting is that you should travel to a country that has restrictions on freedom of speech! China is a good example of where dissent of the ruling party is not tolerated.
The changes proposed by Labour are out to achieve a smiliar effect of limiting dissent in an election year (once every three years) or more if elections end up being called more often.
If you lived in China for a while I think you would get a health respect for how the right to freedom of expression and speech should be fought tooth and nail to keep.
Espically when it comes for people to decide who to vote for in an election year.
This means groups you may not like, i.e. third party groups should be allowed to have a voice and it shouldn't be limited by Labour to stop dissent.
The limits Labour wants to put in place does this for groups it dislikes while having exemptions for people and groups that do support Labour.
While I disagree with you and others, your voice should be heard and I would never would want to see the right taken away.
Nobody should take that right away just because youi disagree with what they have to say.
By
Anonymous, at 4:28 PM
Oh my god, did Steven really state that there is a US conspiracy in our own doctors clinics?
Please mate, reread your comments because at the moment you are talking bollocks. How can you say that Unions are allowed to be exempt and breathlessly say that the BRT and the EB can't be?
Did you know Steven that the Govt pays unions taxpayers money from a fund every year?
If you so loudly dennounce Mallard for not thinking before he speaks surely you should apply this to yourself?
By
Heine, at 2:44 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home