Tuesday, 4 December 2007

Something in the wind on the Electoral Finance Bill?

Remember how the National Party opposed Sue Bradford's Anti-Smacking Bill, and how National Party MPs stood up on the steps of Parliament and told protestors against the Bill how vehemently they opposed it? Do you remember what happened just a week later, when John Key did a deal and those same MPs crossed the floor to vote for the Bradford/Key Anti-Smacking Compromise?

We had demonstrated to us as plainly as its possible to have something demonstrated that these people had no spine and are not to be trusted. I'm talking about National Socialist sell-outs like Bob Clarkson and Chester Borrows and Shane Ardern and Tau Henare and Maurice Wimpianson and Judith Bloody Collins who stood there on the steps of Parliament and told an audience passionately opposed to the Bill that they were too ... and who then showed with their pathetic acquiescence that their assurances and their promises are one-hundred percent worthless. As they are. As is their spineless, deal-making leader.

Guess what?

It could be happening again with the Electoral Finance Bill as the Government offers 11th hour talks on Electoral Finance Bill. I hope I'm wrong, I do hope I'm wrong, but keep your eyes peeled for signs of tongues becoming forked once again.

UPDATE 1: The Clark Government has just tabled a whopping 150 amendments to the Electoral Finance Bill -- an unprecedented sign of contempt for what is fundamental constitutional law! Says David Farrar:
Do you remember Helen claiming the Bill was great now it is out of select committee? So great, it needs 150 amendments. Could you imagine the outcry in most countries if suddenly one has 150 amendments to the constitution, a couple of hours before they get voted on? Mickey Mouse is too generous a term for it. I’ll blog the substance of some of the changes as I work through them.
UPDATE 2: David's started this morning looking at the deluge of amendments and what they might mean. Here's his first post.

UPDATE 3: From the 'I Damn Well Hope He Means It' files, here's John Key last night in the Electoral Finance Bill debate [hat tip Whale Oil]:
The rights of hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders who want to participate no longer count...

New Zealanders are sick of being told what to do. They are sick of having Labour control every part of their life and they are sick of being told whether they can participate in an election or not.

I say to Labour Party members, pick up the New Zealand Herald, read the editorial, for once in your lives recognise that you are not bigger than the people of New Zealand.

I make this promise to New Zealanders: when Labour is gone at the end of 2008 the first thing National will do is repeal this legislation. It's gone.


  1. Oh this would be the ultimate in betrayal and would greatly backfire on the National Party.

    The only chaps to benefit would be ACT who could legitimately claim to be the 'Opposition' party.

  2. This is an outrage.
    Obviously, what they're doing is ramming this pig through and betting the people will have forgotten all about it in 11 months.
    And they're probably right.

  3. I hope that National will have enough spine to bind themselves to the CIR on the Anti-Smacking Law.

    I certainly hope and trust that they will not let us down on the EFB as they did on S59.

    I mean, whatever happened to the word called


  4. "principle"? Is that related to "integrity"?
    We're talking politicians here, Andy.

  5. oh. of course, good point! Listening to Parliament now.


  6. I simply cannot believe National would change their mind on a bill that would a) increase Labour's chance of re-election and b) give Labour a fourth term legitimacy it would have never had without cross-party support for the EFB.

    It is unthinkable that National would do that.

  7. Hi Matt, no, unfortunately it is not unthinkable, as others have pointed out, it wouldn't necessarily be in National's best interest to kick out the new EF law once they do get into power in 08.

    We've already seen Key "the politician", he's one for the compromise, just to achieve what he wants.

  8. If National did this again, then they are the bigger fools, and their leader would become known as "John Quisling".


Say what you mean, and mean what you say.
(Spam will be removed, unless it's been asked for.)