Idiot/Savant is telling  his readers not to believe the hype.

The Justice and Electoral Committee is sitting all day today hearing submissions on the government’s Electoral Finance Bill, and NZPA reports that the bill has come in for criticism from unions such as the PPTA and NZEI. Except when you read their actual submissions [both PDF], both organisations are in fact very supportive of the bill, and are suggesting amendments along the lines of those suggested by the Coalition for Open Government: a tighter definition of “electoral advertisement”, a higher cap for third parties, public funding, and applying the disclosure regime for third parties to political parties as well (something the PPTA wryly notes would be “one rule for all”) (the EPMU and PSA [both PDF] make similar points).

Except I’ve just read the PPTA submission, and I don’t believe this supports the bill:

8.2 It is the Association’s submission that the Bill misses the mark in its approach to these issues and requires modification along the lines recommended.

8.3 Finally, the Association notes that the Bill eschews public funding for party and candidate campaigning. We believe this is a serious flaw and that public funding should be considered most carefully.

True, 8.1 (the first section of the conclusion) is more supportive, but overall I don’ t think it is unfair to say that this submission is coming out against the bill as it has been presented.

I don’t think the stuff.co.nz report on this misrepresents the submission at all. Labour is closely aligned with the unions, but those unions have come out and critized their bill. Those are facts.

Something is very wrong when your friends tell you in public that what you are doing has “serious flaws”, and that it “misses the mark”. People know full well where unions stand, and the fact that they make any criticism at all is extremely telling.