No, the Human Rights Commission were not censored

Yesterday in Parliament National MP Chris FInlayson asked why the Human Rights Commission did not appear before the select committee hearing the Electoral Finance Bill. David Farrar noticed this and asked on his blog Was the Human Rights Commission censored? with the implication that it was.

The HRC submission notes that they did not request to appear before the committee. So no, they were not censured. However an approach was made to appear before the committee but the people who would have appeared before the committee were out of the country at the time the committee was sitting and could not therefore appear. The HRC told me today that it would like to provide an oral submission but they will wait for
the committee to get hold of them rather than being proactive.

Select committee decisions as to who is to appear are not for public knowledge until the decisions are made. Submitters can ask to appear before the committee at a later date, even if they have not stated they wanted to on their written submission - and the committee can agree to this. Alternatively the select comittee can approach submitters and ask them to appear. It often happens.

It appears the HRC want to appear but the committee is yet to decide whether they wantto hear them. Suffice to say that a government body stating clearly what the government doesn't want them to hear is not exactly going to be proactive. And a committee that doesnt agree with what that government body wants to tell them won't exactly bend over backwards to hear their views.

Chris Finlayson asks a question in Parliament todays as to how many people were asked to give an oral submission on September 17
I gave mine on that day. So did a few other people I know.

Fronted up today

After less than a day's notice I fronted up to the Justice and Electoral Select Committee today to do a short submission on the Electoral Finance Bill. About half the committee were Labour MPs and many were list MPs. It's the first time I have seen an MP who as a cabinet minister had a part in approving the wording of this bill - only to see him on the select committee considering submissions. Yes David Benson Pope was twitching away as I spoke. He even asked a couple of questions, one of which had nothing much to do with my submission. Labour are hell-bent on getting this bill through and they dont care what shape it is in as long as it passes.

If you want to know what I submitted, heres an idea - It is an article on the Electoral Finance Bill that was published in this week's Salient.

Meanwhile over at No Right Turn Idiot Savant states there has been no real effort on the part of the media to grapple with the issues raised by the bill, or the problems it is intended to address. This is a tremendous disservice to the New Zealand public, and I think we deserve better.

Fron what I have seen, there has not been much effort on the part of the select committee to grapple with the problems raised by the bill either. Most of them appear to be more focused on getting oral submissions out of the way so they can write their report recommending the bill be passed with as few amendments as possible, and deal with the SOPs as they roll in.

What a farce!

Clark admits the Electoral Finance Bill is crap

Helen Clark has admitted that the EFB aimed at shutting down free speech and third parties (but allowing political party coffers to be filled up via anonymous donations) in an Election year needs to be changed - but only after the media and blogs pointed that out to her. Yet she had a hand in drafting the bill so she knew what she was doing.She wants more donations than everyone else because Labour is broke and losing support.

"It may well be that in endeavouring to fix that, the net's been cast too wide," she said on Newstalk ZB."That's why you need good scrutiny at a select committee."

So well paid Cabinet Ministers and Crown Law don`t have to provide scrutiny - is it left over to public input with comment from MInisters only if the media and blogs are critical?

One of the ludicrous things in the bill is this: if you express a political opinion in an election year in " any form of words or graphics" you will have to sign a statutory declaration declaring how much you have spent on this expression, and unless you register with the state in order to spend up to $60,000, you will have to confirm that money spent is less than $5000, even if all you do is to spend $1.50 on chalk to express a political opinion such as " Hodgson may be the Health Minister but he is sick in the head" - and you would still break the law if you don't put down you name and address on the bottom of the chalked slogan.

Some highly paid people should be earning their money, not approving unworkable law.

UPDATESteven Price from the Coalition of Open Government has responded stated that most of the problems would be solved if we used the wording in the British law - then we can deal with Governments failure to do anything about secret donations and ensure that election advertising laws are at least restricted to that of a political purpose associated with an election - that is, not restricting individuals from campaigning or protesting or restricting lobby groups from doing their jobs or attempting to influence the political agenda in election year.

Justice Minister a danger to democracy

Matthew Hooton from the Sunday Star Times says that Justice Minister Mark Burton is a danger to democracy and should be sacked. He is trying to push through his Electoral Finance bill.

The legislation -developed in secret by Justice Minister Mark Burton under the guidance of Labour's election strategist Pete Hodgson - does nothing to stop a repeat of the 2005 pledge card rort or the anonymous donations and secret trusts that Helen Clark once said were so undemocratic. She's now decided she needs them.

Nor is the legislation about pamphlets that spread malicious gossip about our politicians, or those saying "Vote National", "Vote Labour" or "Don't Vote Green". Nor even is it about dodgy pamphlets that hide the identity of their publisher. Our existing law deals with all these issues, if only our police would enforce it.

Burton's legislation is far broader. It restricts almost every expression of opinion, on any topic about which a politician has stated a view, by people who declare who they are, where they live, how much they're spending and who is funding them.

Plunket would be caught if it published a pamphlet saying "Politicians Need To Act On Child Abuse", or even "Child Abuse Is Wrong". Press statements saying "National Does U-Turn" or "Labour Attacks Free Speech" would also be regulated by the state, as would placards at protest marches.

The legislation also goes well beyond the traditional three months of an election campaign. From New Year's Day to mid-November - 10 1/2 months - it would be illegal for anyone other than the government to spend more than $60,000 talking to the public about a policy issue.

Sixty thousand dollars may sound like a lot - it's the income at which Michael Cullen says we're rich - but it buys almost nothing in terms of mass communication.

Run just two full-page advertisements in section A of this newspaper, saying "Cut Taxes", and Labour's legislation would send you to jail.

Television advertising is out of the question, as is anything significant on radio. It might just be possible to dump a million mass-produced brochures in letterboxes - a la the Exclusive Brethren - but it would not be possible for a group to post a sensible, serious letter to everyone in the Bay of Plenty.

Burton has set the threshold so low not because he thinks it is fair, but precisely because he knows it is not enough for Labour's critics to get their message across to the public.

In the 12 months leading up to election 2005, the government spent $12 million - a million dollars a month - to remind us to check if we were eligible for Working for Families handouts. A group wanting to criticise Working for Families - disclosing exactly who they are -would now be restricted to just $6000 a month in election year.

There is not just a cap on spending. Burton's legislation sets a threshold above which groups must first register with the state before saying anything.

At an electorate level, the limit is $500. Buy more than 10 rolls of 50c stamps, with the intention of sending a letter to Wigram or Epsom voters about something on which Jim Anderton or Rodney Hide has expressed an opinion, and you will need to register with the state. Don't expect to keep your job in the public service if you do. But, if you don't register, the police will be able to enter your home to search for the stamps.

The most honest defence of Burton's plans has come from my colleague Chris Trotter. In another paper, he says the proposals are "pay-back for National's ferocious `pledge card' campaign". National forced Labour to repay the $824,524 it stole from the taxpayer, and Trotter argues Burton's legislation is the consequence. Trotter says the bill exempts Greenpeace, the unions and Forest & Bird from the spending limits - which, he says approvingly, will keep the Left in play while hampering the Right.

It's not clear whether our justice minister has a predilection for jackboots or is just incompetent and doesn't understand his own legislation. Either way, he's a danger to our democracy. His bill should be binned and he should be sacked.