Wednesday, 19 December 2007

Electoral Finance Act: "It's about the sweet scent of power, and the lust for control" (updated)

Crikey, Hone Harawira can get to the heart of an issue.  Here he is speaking yesterday on the Government's Incumbency Protection Act, (passed last night by 63 votes to 57):

Yes folks money talks, but nothing talks quite like the truth, and the truth about this Bill is that it's nothing but an arrogant dismissal by this Labour-led government to deny the citizens of Aotearoa / New Zealand the right to participate in one of the fundamental rights of any so-called "democratic society" – how you elect your government.

And no – we will not be fobbed off by any talk about how this is only about election finances, because it ain't.

If this was only about election finances, then why did this Labour government push through special legislation to validate their $800,000 over-spend at the last election, rather than let the legal process take its natural course?

If this was only about election finances, then why didn't this Labour government ask the Auditor General and the Electoral Commission, to present a range of options for public consideration, and presentation to the House?

If this was only about election finances, then how come the Human Rights Commission says this Bill is a dramatic assault on fundamental human rights – freedom of expression, and the right to participate in the election process?

If this was only about election finances, then how come the Human Rights Commission says that even this rewritten, flea-bitten, revised and patched-up version should still have been given back to the public for full discussion and debate?

I'll tell you why Madam Speaker, it's because this ain't just about election finances.

It's about the sweet scent of power, and the lust for control. It's about the decadence of corruption, the stench of deceit, and the refusal to accept the reality of impending defeat.

Yes, there have been amendments, hell we even voted for one of them, but given the constitutional importance of legislation that will play a critical role in determining how the next election will be fought – stitching up this deal behind closed doors, and then adding a veneer of democracy through a select committee process, is nothing but a sick joke.

Mind you, this government denying the people of Aotearoa the right to open and public debate on the process by which we manage the next election, is right up there, with their changing the law to bypass any serious questioning of their expenditure, at the last election.

Madam Speaker, the Maori Party will not be party to a bill which is clearly aimed at restricting freedom of speech.

We will not be party to this desperate attempt by Labour to stay in power at the expense of the fundamental human rights of the citizens of this country.

We will not be party to a bill designed to put fear into those who would speak their mind, by forcing them to run the gauntlet of registration, audit, notification, financial agency, monitoring, reporting, scrutiny, and penalty.

And we will not be party to a bill that slams the door on opposition spending, while allowing government to continue to spend millions on promoting its own policies and programmes.

Madam Speaker, the Maori Party was borne out of Maoridom's absolute rejection of this Labour government's arrogant denial of our basic human rights to the foreshore and seabed.

And we will reject this Bill to rewrite the law to allow that same government to stay in power - with the same vigour and determination.

Madam Speaker, money is not what drives people to vote, it is truth...

And I sincerely hope and pray, that those who have sacrificed the truth for the delusion of power, that overwhelms this decadent and depraved piece of legislation, will come to see the folly of their ways when the people reject this sham, come Election 2008.

UPDATE: The Free Speech Coalition sums up the impact of the Act, which will come into force in just two weeks!

The Act discourages individuals and groups from participating in the electoral process and spending their own money, while at the same time allows MPs and parliamentary parties to far more easily use taxpayer funds on their election campaigns and not even have it count towards their spending limits. It is the ultimate act in hypocrisy.

The MPs have

- Ignored the Law Society's advice that the Bill should be scrapped

- Ignored the Human Rights Commission opposition to the regulated period, and their request to allow the public to submit on the amended Bill

- Ignored the NZ Institute of Charted Accountant's advice that the Bill is unworkable

- Ignored the Electoral Commission's advice on spending limits

- Failed to provide legislative certainty around the exemptions for MPs

- Protected anonymous donations with massive loopholes which may result in less, not more, disclosure

- Continually misrepresented key clauses of the Bill

"New Zealand has no written constitution. At the end of the day 61 MPs in Parliament can pass any law they like, no matter how repugnant. Previously constitutional conventions have protected Acts like the Electoral Act, but the passage of the Electoral Finance Bill sees the demise of that convention." said spokesperson David Farrar.

"We hoped the parties supporting this Bill would listen to the near universal opposition from the media, from the legal profession, and from the public and do the right thing. Sadly they have chosen not to.

"We do not believe there should be no consequences for those parties which passed the Electoral Finance Act into law. The NZ Herald correctly labeled it as an "Attack on Democracy" and we believe it is time for Democracy to attack back.


  1. Well done Hone!

  2. I like Hone's speech but I don't understand this line in it:

    "Madam Speaker, money is not what drives people to vote, it is truth"

    I agree money appears unimportant, but I'm pretty 'truth' is a meaningless word in this context.

  3. I hate to say it...eeekkkkk...but, yes, most impressed with Hone's speech.

    He sums it up rather well.

    (Just a shame he cannot talk properly)

  4. Ha! In what can Harawira 'not talk properly'?


  5. Oh...his repeated use of 'aint' (whatever that means)..and talking about something called 'Aotearoa' (whatever that is).

    You must forgive me, DenMT, I do not speak 'Working Class'.

  6. Elijah,

    Would you rather Mr. Harawira had delivered his speech in Maori?

    I'm sure it would have been entirely free of grammatical errors, and his use of the word Aotearoa wouldn't have jarred your precious upper-class ears one little bit.

    Frankly, your obsession with the faults you perceive amongst the 'Working Class' betrays an utter lack of class - in the correct sense of the word - on your part. If it's an affectation it's pathetic, and if it's not an affectation, it's vile and reprehensible.

    Oh, and I dare you to stand up in a Waikato pub and wax lyrical about the economic benefits of the Waikato land confiscations. You could even take a break between beatings to correct your assailants if they say "fucken" instead of "fucking."

    I'd pay for a ticket to watch that, in fact.

  7. Duncan 'Lineberry' is nowhere near upper class.

    My husband has been asked by the Crown to be an expert Police witness against people like him.

    He assumes his cloak of eccentricity and his posts on his blog pre-empting investigation will divert attention.

    More to come. Let's hope Organon doesn't go down with the ship.

  8. Duncan

    So he does not like a politician, speaking in a public forum, mangling the language. Why does that upset you so much?


  9. Anon

    You have a husband? Well, he'd have to be an expert in oddities then.

    Hope he doesn't go down.


  10. Advocating 'egalitarianism', hatred of class systems, opposition to freedom of speech, advocating (for the third time) violence to get his own way, expecting everyone to think and act as he wants, anal retentive misanthrope...hmmmmm...Duncan appears to be a Socialist!

    (One thing I have enjoyed in recent months is showing all manner of people up for what they 'really' are, rather than what they claim to be)

  11. Hi Elijah .. where, in his comment, does Duncan 'oppose' free speech?

    He might be critical of what you've said, but that's not synonymous with denying you your right to speak. Yes?

  12. Obviously he will deceitfully deny such a thing...

    But I think his motivation is very much against my right to say whatever I like.

    This is at least the 30th example from Duncan in recent a trend has long since emerged.

    To come to a different interpretation is just being silly...'rose tinted glasses' (so to speak)

    As I have often said...the most politically correct, censors of free speech, misanthropic, collectivist and deceitful people I have ever had dealings with are self proclaimed 'libertarians' and objectivists.

  13. Elijah,

    But I think his motivation is very much against my right to say whatever I like.

    I think you misread what I wrote. I'm very much in favour of you expressing yourself as freely as possible.

    For example, the fact that you're happy to blog in favour of the Taranaki land confiscations means that people are free to read your blog & draw their own conclusions - presumably negative - about your character.

    As far as violent responses to offensive speech go, they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, the perpetrators jailed, and reparations paid to the victim. But you know what? If I saw someone thumping you for being a racist prick, I'd just sit back and watch.

    As I have often said...the most politically correct, censors of free speech, misanthropic, collectivist and deceitful people I have ever had dealings with are self proclaimed 'libertarians' and objectivists.

    That's a fine set of insults there Elijah. Care to back any of those up with some evidence?

    Also, if I were you, I'd be mighty careful about accusing people of collectivism, given your stated opinions on 'class', accents, dress and so on.

  14. Elijah, I have to say that whilst free and unfettered speech is very important, perhaps some targetted self-censorship is in order.

    Duncan raises the relevant point that you seem overly keen (twice in this thread alone) to reinforce class distinctions within society. Do you think this is particularly libertarian? Which mode of political thought do you think would best encompass that particular view?

    As I said some time ago, I had hoped for your own sake that you were some kind of caricature sock-puppet invented for the entertainment of someone else. It seems more and more likely that you are just the holder of some views that (in my opinion) are particularly dodgy, and certainly not advisable to air on such a public forum.

    Having read Duncan's commentary on this blog for quite some time, I think that your accusation that he is an 'opponent of free speech' is frankly ridiculous. You are really painting yourself into a corner.


  15. I do not intend to get into a bun fight on Peter's weblog...

    All my opinions and actions are based on the furthering of Capitalism.

    To those who wish to engage in the "New Zealand Disease" of busybody-ism ...and get all hot and bothered because 'ticking the boxes' are a problem with me...I say "So What?"

    You will find that 99.9% of my comments about other people online have been positive.

    To take a dislike to someone whom you have never met, and would not know from a bar of soap is absurd...and I pity those who have seen fit to do so.

  16. Scratch a socialist and out comes the demand for censorship. Of course, it's always censorship of someone else. Funny that...



1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.