Peace And Freedom At 11 On The 11th Of The 11th
Heather Roy's Diary
Peace And Freedom At 11 On The 11th Of The 11th
Most countries have a day to honour their war
dead. For most of the
Allied participants in WWI, that
day is November 11 - the date that the
armistice was
signed on the Western Front in 1918.
Although
Germany was still theoretically at war with Britain and
France
until the signing of the Treaty of Versailles, it
was Armistice Day that
marked the end of armed
hostilities and the beginning of a negotiated
settlement.
Many soldiers, given the horrors they'd witnessed,
thought
there would never be war again - they were to be
sadly mistaken.
In Britain, November 11 is Remembrance Day
and people honour the fallen by
wearing poppies and
observing two minutes silence at 11am. Last year I
took
part in Britain's Remembrance observances as I was in
London
celebrating the unveiling of the monument to New
Zealand British relations
in Hyde Park.
In New Zealand
and Australia we honour the fallen on April 25 -
the
anniversary of the landings of the Australia New
Zealand Army Corps at
ANZAC Cove. While Armistice Day is
observed in New Zealand, it is not a
national
holiday.
There have been many wars since November 11 1918.
In terms of lives lost,
WWII was worse. But Armistice
Day marks mankind's first emergence from the
horrors of
industrialised warfare. There is something dashing about
the
thought of a cavalry charge, but when men are hung up
in barbed wire and
machine-gunned it's hard to feel
anything but despair.
Are there lessons from the great
wars of last century and our current
military situation?
We live in a time when liberal democracies dominate
the
world militarily and, to date, democracies have not waged
war against
each other. But democracies are constrained
by the need to respect human
rights, making us vulnerable
to guerrilla and other types of irregular
warfare.
Wars of this kind have rarely been defeated and there
seems to be no
coherent plan to deal with the wave of
'Islamic Fundamentalism' that's
sweeping the world. Some
of the participants seem to have little more in
common
than a love of radical internet websites and bomb-making.
Finding
and combating them lies somewhere between police
work and a military
operation.
I can only say that the
answer does not lie in becoming an authoritarian
nation.
Our forefathers fought to keep New Zealand free, lest we
forget.
Electoral Finance Bill - Attack On Freedom Of
Speech
Like so many Bills introduced and passed under
Labour, the Electoral
Finance Bill - currently at Select
Committee - is a knee-jerk reaction to
the Exclusive
Brethren's participation in the last election. Like
most
knee-jerks it will flail around uncontrollably, be
ineffective and have
unintended consequences.
The Bill
makes significant changes to the regulation surrounding
general
election campaigns. Its purported purpose is to
improve transparency and
accountability in the democratic
process, with regard to donations and
election spending,
to prevent the undue influence of wealth and
promote
participation in Parliamentary democracy. As the
New Zealand Law Society
put it so
succinctly:
"Unfortunately (the Bill) detracts from,
rather than enhances, that
process".
The Bill as
introduced to Parliament seeks to restrict the level
of
donations, and imposes further regulation on political
Parties and
candidates - both of which are already
required to submit signed
declarations of donations and
spending to the Electoral Commission
following a general
election. Under the Bill, they will now need to
also
appoint a financial agent.
Further, lobby groups
or others who wish to participate in elections -
by
distributing flyers, for example - must register as a
'third party', and
will be subject to regulation over
what they say and spend. The length of
the election
period for advertising spending - three months prior
to
polling day - is to be extended, and will take effect
from January 1 in
election year until the election day.
The best description of the changes
can be found on
Kiwiblog (www.kiwiblog.co.nz).
ACT has opposed this Bill,
which is an attack on freedom of speech - vital
to
democracy - and restricts New Zealanders' ability to fully
participate
in the political process. Limiting
expenditure of political parties,
third parties and
individuals means that their ability to exercise
their
fundamental right of freedom of speech is
suppressed. Australia's High
Court struck down an
attempt to cap electoral spending in the 1980's on
the
grounds of freedom of expression.
There were 575 written
submissions and 101 verbal submissions on this
Bill,
showing strong interest from many groups. Two submissions
made very
strong statements against the Bill.
"While
some of the purposes of the bill may be admirable, the
detailed
response to them lacks any principled approach.
Some reform in the area
may be desirable, but this
particualr bill should be returned to the House
with the
recommendation that it not proceed. The bill has serious
defects,
which mean it will not achieve its stated aims.
Moreover, it is likely to
curtail the legitimate
expression of opinions while failing to curb
(and
potentially even incentivising) clandestine conduct
in relation to the
electoral process. The bill as a
whole represents a backward step in the
integrity of
democracy in New Zealand." - the New Zealand Law
Society
The Human Rights Commission raised a large number
of concerns, including
that the Bill breaches the Bill of
Rights. The Commission stated that, in
its current form,
it could have a "chilling effect on the expression
of
political opinion".
"The Commission's principal
concern with the proposed legislation relates
to the
cumulative effect of a number of provisions which have
the
potential to undermine the right to freedom of
expression and,
consequently, the ability of New
Zealanders to participate in the election
process in an
informed manner."
This week the High Court in Wellington
agreed that, on November 27, it
would urgently hear an
application for judicial review of the Electoral
Finance
Bill. Plaintiffs are former ACT Treasurer John Boscawen,
the
Sensible Sentencing Trust's Garth McVicar, Greypower
president Graeme
Stairmand and ACT Leader Rodney Hide.
The legal action seeks an opinion
on whether the Bill
breaches the Bill of Rights.
Under section 7 of the Bill
of Rights, Attorney General Michael Cullen is
required to
report any apparent inconsistencies with the Bill of Rights
to
Parliament at the time a Bill is introduced. He did
not do so, and the
plaintiffs believe he was negligent in
his duty. The High Court is now
asked to decide whether
it can review the Attorney General's reporting
duty. The
court has given the matter urgency.
This is a complex
Bill and the proposed rules around registration,
donation
disclosure, spending limits and related offences are
confusing
and uncertain. It will make participating in
Parliamentary democracy
difficult. ACT believes it is
unnecessary. The freedom of speech that
our forebears
fought and died for should not be given away lightly in
the
unholy rush we now
see.
ENDS