Posts by DaveC
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Russell your rewrite on the HRC submission is still very misleading:
Yesterday and today, the Herald has quoted the Human Rights Commission's scathing submission on the bill, and reported that the commission has called for the bill to be scrapped altogether. It's not actually true.
The HRC submission, i is concerned, rightly, with the over-reaching definitions of election advertising and regulation of third parties, and wants the bill either rewritten from scratch or significantly altered to meet its concerns (it suggests alterations)
Which part of the Herald's editorial do you think is "not actually true"? From the text of the HRC submission: The HRC "considers that the Bill is inherently flawed and should be withdrawn". (section 10.2).
Section 10.3 continues: "If it is not withdrawn, the Bill requires substantial redrafting to ensure that it does not have a chilling effect on the right to freedom of expression during and in the run up to an election."
So the HRC's preference is clearly for the bill to be withdrawn. They only suggest alterations if the government persists, against their advice, with this "inherently flawed" bill.
-
Where is the supporting quote for "It [the Herald] sees no problem in very wealthy individuals being able to anonymously pursue their interests by funnelling millions of dollars through secret party trusts that are opaque to the public."
Anonymous donations were not addressed in the Herald editorial, nor were they addressed in Labour's draft bill (well they were initially, then Labour pulled that part).