19 Comments
25 July 2007
VIDEO: Journal No.16
| 25 July. In this journal John covers a lot of ground, starting with the critical importance of a politically neutral civil service and efforts by leaders in the Labour Government to undermine that principle. John also talks about a new election spending reform bill that stands to muffle all voices but the Government's and shares his insights into the currency crisis. |
#1 - Nicholas O'Kane said:
2007-07-26 19:59 - (Reply)
I ahven't seen your video journal, but I have heared about the Electoral Finance Bill, and know a large amount about it. To me it is outrageous that people (regardless of whether they are exclusive brethren, trade union members, or whatever group they belong to) should be banned from spending more than $60 000 during a whole year criticising the government, and I strongly oppose this attack on free speech, as well as many other provisions of this Bill. I am interested in whether National will repeal most of the Bill if it becomes law, and National wins the 2008 election, despite Labours atempts to rewrite the law in its own favour (note: there are no restrictions in the Bill about what the government can spend my taxes on to encourage its re-election).
#1.1 - Hammond Williamson 2007-07-30 09:26 - (Reply)
Free speech is more important than almost anything. That is why I do not want any limits on inidividuals wanting to promote their message. History tells us more than money is needed - A billionaire by the name of Pero (I think) tried to win the USA presidential election a few years back but failed despite his finances. What is money for if we aren't allowed to spend it? There is no such thing as a level playing field - the only thing is the right to a vote. so I would like to see removal of this 60K limit. I don't mind legislation requiring sponsors to be named though. This single issue like so many other single issues is enough on it's own to vote out the existing administration - and that's all they are doing now - administrating!
#2 - Kevin Liddle 2007-07-26 20:06 - (Reply)
I watched Parliment for a short time and thought that B. E sort of had a good go, but seemed to be called a hypocrypt by labour. Not good. I am 56 yrs old and seen it all. Voted for Kirk, that was it for labour. In recent times (last5 yrs)I'm not so sure about national. The appointment of D.Brash was great, also the appointment of Mr Keys, Great. Here in New Plymouth we are without a voice, let alone a candidate for national. The last one was a woman in her new RX8 that couldn't communicate with the average Jo Blo. What am I to expect for a candidate and perhaps when. Go hard John Key we will win
#3 - Shane Olsen 2007-07-27 13:31 - (Reply)
What is wrong with the development of a fair and inexpensive system of voting? Why should New Zealand's governance be subjected to the influences of the rich and powerful? In effect the National Party's statements are saying that it is OK if someone wants to buy an election. This is extremely disrepectful to an ordinary voter like me!
#3.1 - Luke Bailey 2007-07-27 19:40 - (Reply)
The thing is that the changes Labour wants to make to electoral spending legislation is making elections LESS fair and more expensive.The government of the day has a free reign to spend any amount of taxpayer (that is the ordinary voters) money it deems fit on so called "policy promotion" which ends up being blatant electioneering.All the while other parties,not just National have their spending curtailed.Fair??
#3.1.1 - Shane Olsen 2007-07-31 17:41 - (Reply)
The Electoral Finance Bill does provide restrictions to the government of the day from their own electioneering at the expense of other parties. It is most important that we aim for the development of fair and equitable principles in our legislation, despite what may eventuate through the individual choices of the controlling party. That is something we cannot dictate, and I would hope that any such instance from the Government beyond legislative control does not occur in the future. I believe the Electoral Finance Bill goes much of the way to achieving equity and fairness for all parties by restricting external funding which is the most significant issue at present.
#3.1.1.1 - Luke Bailey 2007-07-31 19:00 - (Reply)
While I admit that a more equitable funding system is in order I do not think that the electoral finance reform bill in its current incarnation ensures the proper use of tax payer money.It is often difficult to seperate the government from the ruling party and whether premeditated or not there exists a large chance for the government of the day to abuse the privelage of publicly funded advertising. I also question Labour's timing of this reform,coming a year out from an election where National looks,at this very early stage, very dangerous to the incumbent administration.Helen Clark,for all that has been said about her is an extremely srewd political operator.I think it is unwise to rule a political motive to this bill
#4 - Luke Bailey 2007-07-27 19:54 - (Reply)
It is indeed sad John that the Civil service has been slowly politicised by Labour.It is a slap in the face of over 100 years of service and tradition and a gross betrayal of the Publi trust.As an aspiring Civil servant (1 and a half years through a Massey BA) it worries me that the otherwise unblemished record of New Zealands public servants in in danger from the very people they work under.It is a hardly suprising thing considering the damage Labou did the civil service during th reforms of Roger Douglas
#5 - Graeme Edgeler said:
2007-07-27 20:12 - (Reply)
If you've closely read the proposed third party spending rules in the Electoral Finance Bill a fairly convincing argument can be made that it covers at least some Government advertising. It's obviously a matter of degree ("your tax return is due on July 7" would be fine) but if any Government advertising goes so far as to actually take a position on a proposition associated with a political party (that working for families is a good idea for your family, perhaps) then the same $60,000 limit would apply to the ministry responsible just as it would apply to any other third party.
#6 - Ann Mayers 2007-07-28 09:06 - (Reply)
We are a small business and training 4 apprentices at differing levels, I am not hearing much comment about the chalk face realities of the labour government's policies. As the minimum wage moved up so it pushed up other wages, this has effected through all the sub trades within the buidling industry, resulting in inflated home building costs. Compliance costs associated with changes labour has made to local govt act, and the RMA has impacted on inflation greatly. Labour need to be nailed for policies that have pushed inflation through the roof.
#7 - Kathy O'Neill 2007-07-28 10:48 - (Reply)
Just generally - I have returned to retire in NZ after 25 years in Sydney. All politicians, Federal and State, have been elected & re-elected on a law and order basis. The citizens hoping that these problems will be remedied. I hope you have some strong policies on this for the future of NZ. I congratulate you on your proposals for training in schools and giving incentives to young people.
#8 - Robert Richardson 2007-07-28 16:09 - (Reply)
Hi John The Election Spending Reform Bill introduced by our corrupt labour government is just another example of their deviousness, deceitfulness and adds to my opinion that we no longer live in a democratic country instead the Soviet Socialist Republic of NZ. From Helen Clark all the way down to local goverment including our illustrious Waitakere City Council again led from the top by a delinquent Mayor and his cronies to the likes of Ms Sandra Conney of ARC. I am starting to see my comments about them materialising more and more all the time. We need you in government at the next election to put NZ back on track. I have never been so political in all my life until the last few years because I like a lot of New Zealanders are fed up with the current government and the state in which they have slowly but surely turned this country into a nation of beneficiaries. We now have situations where three or four generations think receiving benefits is their right to receive. As for promoting families what about hard working individuals or those that choose not to have a family what do they get sweet b all.
#9 - GE Gorman 2007-07-28 19:07 - (Reply)
Whilst John speaks sensibly on a number of domestic issues, I would like to hear more from him on New Zealand's relations with other countries. For example, as an Australian long resident in NZ, and a recent convert to National's agenda, I would expect to hear more from him about trans-Tsaman relations, particularly in view of the recent outburst by some MPs about the Prime Minister of Australia - comments that I regard as improper and inappropriate when made behind the shield of parliamentary privilege, and against which the NZ Prime Minsiter should have taken a strong stand. How would NZ react if Australians unaware of local realities referred to the NZ Prime Minister in similar terms?
#10 - Greg Oosterbaan 2007-07-29 13:10 - (Reply)
Any legislation controlling electoral spending and donations should include controls on defacto electoral spending in the form of governments using government funds to promote their policies. On another matter, this comments page from your webstie includes a link to "subscribe to this entry". What is "this entry"? I suggest the relevant link be worded more clearly now that spam email legislation is in effect.
#10.1 - admin 2007-07-29 14:03 - (Reply)
These "subscribe" links provide users with the ability to keep up with comment streams that are of particular interest to them. The "entry" is the blog entry to which comments are being made.
#11 - Don Shute 2007-07-30 09:35 - (Reply)
We do not have a democracy in NZ. Half the parliament are nominated members and therefore not voted on as people. MMP has produced a very poor government. Much of the poor legislation is being promoted by list MP's. Labour have always promoted themselves through advertising of their schemes from the public purse. Don
#12 - Andy Wilgermein 2007-07-30 09:56 - (Reply)
Re Kiwi saver John I am not too sure if the picture being painted to the average person is accurate in fact its misleading. I read that an average house hold can have around $500000 to spend at 65 years. I recall my house 30 years ago cost me $10,000 to buy...ie house and section. The same house today is worth 500,000 an inflation increase of 50 to 1 This great sum of $500000 portrayed to the gullible will only have a house buying power of $10,000 in 30 years time...So why all the scrimping and saving for 30 years just to obtain 10,000....with an investment of 250000 over those years....if one takes 8% of an income of 50,000...has any one made any real arithmetic by calculating house inflation over 30 years to see what the real buying power is. I would like the opposition party to do this and see if the figures stack up to mine approx. Far better to put it into land...since todays house dollar can be multiplied 30 to 50 times.
#13 - Garry Rankin 2007-07-30 13:05 - (Reply)
Hi John. Here is a copy of an e-mail I sent to Katherine Rich. I spoke to you briefly at the Tauranga meeting about this. It is very pertinent to what you have said in your latest e-mail. I have just read a media release of John Key's speech. This has prompted me to e-mail you as the National spokesperson on education. For sometime I have been concerned about our education system and although I know there is no quick fix, I have a firm belief our educators have got it wrong. I was one of those kids who was not an academic (writing is not my long suit), but I am not a fool. During my sixty six years on earth I have seen many a successful person who was not an academic at school, end up very successful and ahead of those who were the so called academics at school. Through my involvement in Rotary, I have researched my theory with a psychologist and a headmaster of a large school in Tauranga of some repute and have gained positive agreement from them. There are four major ways of learning. I am sure you would know these. Audio, Visual, tactile and linguistics. As I understand from the experts, the way a person learns never changes throughout their lives. Our system does not seem to take cognizance of this fact. I believe ALL children should be tested for the way they learn as early as they can be. The results of this test should follow them throughout their school years. Too many children drop out of school because they are bored and the system as it is today is not flexible enough to take account of this. Most children unless they see a reason for what they are learning is relevant to them, they lose interest and then become a problem to the teacher. Often our class rooms are mixing people who are learning in totally different ways. The education system needs to change to keep most of the children interested in learning. At the present our system is putting the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff and not at the top. There is also a need for good disciplinary education groups such as one my Rotary club supports. There is a group of young drop outs we are financially supporting through the club who are turning themselves around with the aid of a great teacher and mentor, by going to a gym. You would be amazed at this group how it has gone from kids who had real problems to a group with real self worth. Each of them is able to stand in front of the Rotary club and be able to tell us their achievements and dreams. They are also very well mannered. I hope my veiws are of some interest to you. Garry Rankin Tauranga
#14 - Jonathan Hunt said:
2007-08-12 23:37 - (Reply)
Here's a dare for National - not in a negative way, but one I hope they might consider. Labour has previously claimed they wanted to make party funding more transparent. In their current "Electoral Reform Bill," they have largely backed away from that reform (and instead decided to ban free speech). National had rightly criticised them for failing to do the very thing they claimed as the pretext for needing this bill and instead concentrating on shutting up their critics. But, I dare National to up the anti. If National is supportive of transparent party funding, then draft the text of what National would like to see in the bill, and (here's the key) VOLUNTARILY adhere to it. This would both show National is serious about transparent party funding AND leave Labour looking rather silly.
