19 April 2005

Libz say abolish state funding of party broadcasts

"Political parties should pay for their own TV and radio time," declared Libertarianz Leader and Wellington Central Candidate Bernard Darnton today, shaking his head at the outrage expressed by almost all parties over their allocated broadcasting funds from the Electoral Commission. "They're like children complaining that someone else got more lollies than they did - and just like children they forget who is picking up the tab."

Libertarianz hasn't forgotten who is paying for parties' election propaganda. Darnton says his party objects to taxpayers being fleeced to pay for party propaganda they wouldn't buy voluntarily. "Political party support should by rights be voluntary, not compulsory. People shouldn't be made to pay for the dissemination of ideas with which they disagree. "

"As with all government handouts no-one is ever pleased," says Darnton. In this case the biggest parties always get the most funding and the smaller ones always want to be treated the same as the bigger ones, "and of course democracy is the loser on the day."

The solution is to scrap the system!" Darnton said - to let parties buy their own funding with their own money, and to scrap the broadcasting prohibition placed on parties.

Asked why a party that says all tax is theft will be accepting taxpayers money to advertise, Darnton said, "Libertarianz would like to use its own funding to buy the broadcast time it wishes to use, but is prohibited from doing so. Our only option for coverage - albeit a reluactant one - is to participate in the only system available to us."

"I can promise," he concludes, "that a vote for Libertarianz will be a vote for this system of propaganda funding to be scrapped."

ENDS

© Scoop Media

Arguably Reassuring: Inspector-General Finds GCSB "Arguably" Legal

Of the 88 individuals:

• 15 cases involving 22 individuals did not have any information intercepted by GCSB.

• another four cases involving five individuals were the subjects of a New Zealand Security Intelligence Service warrant and the GCSB assisted in the execution of the warrants. The Inspector-General is of the view that there were arguably no breaches and the law is unclear.

• the Bureau only provided technical assistance which did not involve interception of communications, involving three of the individuals, so no breach occurred.

• the remaining cases involved the collection of metadata, and the Inspector-General formed the view that there had arguably been no breach, noting once again that the law is unclear.
More>>