Posts by Grassed Up
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Further to Chris' claim,
The issue of candidate election spending actually is dealt with by the Chief Electoral Officer, not the Electoral Commission. This office gives advice on its interpretation of the EFA (unlike the Commission). So as an ex post facto rationalisation, this seems pretty lame.
-
Three points on the Herald's suggestions:
(1) How does the Law Commission differ from "publicly funded academics"? It gets its money from the public, and it consists of ex-University professors and government bureaucrats. Perhaps the real difference is that the Herald thinks Geoffrey Palmer's alleged love of free-speech will lead to the outcome it wants?
(2) Look at section 5 of the NZ Bill of Rights. It permits reasonable limits that are justified in a free and democratic society. Then look at Canada and how comprehensively it regulates election funding (Canada is the model on which the NZ Bill of Rights is based). So the section 14 guarantee of free speech, which looks absolute and damning of the EFA, actually is no such thing.
(3) The citizens' forum main sin seems to be that it is a Green Party idea. Yet the Herald advocates for "public consultation" on whatever should replace the EFA. So there should be a public voice heard on the issue, but that voice shouldn't be (a) too loud, or (b) in a form thought of by anyone except the Herald itself?