Hypocritical Greens
May 29th, 2006 at 8:05 am by David FarrarOnce upon a time the Greens were known as a party of principle. They would say if they thought something was wrong, regardless of party. They would refuse to vote for urgency motions without good reason etc.
Now after months and months of saying nothing at all about Labour’s deliberate $450,000 overspending, they suddenly jump up and down to protest on behalf of broadcasters that National’s GST error is unfair.
Since National voluntarily disclosed the mistake, it has been known that it was the broadcasters left out of pocket. National in fact tried to pay them, but this would further breach the Act, so for the Greens months later to suddenly demand they pay the broadcasters back is bizarre.
What should have happened of course, is for the Police to charge National over the GST error. Because while it was a genuine error, it did result in an advantage of $112,500 (around 1/4 of the Labour over-spend). However with the Police determined not to charge Labour for a much more serious offence, they could hardly then charge National. The correct decision would have been to charge both.
I find it hilarious the Greens are also demanding that National deduct the $112,500 off its 2008 election budget. I now await them also demanding that Labour deduct $420,000 off its 2008 budget. Their failure to do so, indicates the rank hypocrisy at work here.
No tag for this post.
May 29th, 2006 at 8:22 am
Well, don’t forget Russell Norman has been fronting this in the media. He also happens to be a candidate for the Greens co-leadership – despite running the campaign that saw the party narrowly avoid electoral oblivion. I’m sure he’d welcome any distraction from his own campaigning “incompetence”.
And am I the only person who finds it deliciously ironic that the Greens are so concerned for the bottom lines of foreign-owned multi-national media conglomerates?
(BTW, this has been all over Moaning Retort. Precisely zero coverage of last night’s One/CB poll where both Labour and the Greens lost support. Funny that…)
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 8:45 am
Slightly more ominous was the Green co-leader special on Agenda this weekend. It seemed as if every sentence to come out of the candidates mouths began with ‘we need laws that prevent people from . . .’ Mike Ward and Russell Norman were the worst offenders.
And who is running their strategy – what the hell is the point of attacking the Nats? Is not as if centre-right voters are going to swing to the far left. The only time the Greens have significantly increased their vote in the last ten years was when they attacked Labour over the Corngate/GE issue. They need to understand that Labour are their natural competition, not United Future and National.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 9:32 am
weeeellll… does anyone with half a brain expect anything other than hypocrisy from the greens?
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 9:37 am
This is the same party that allowed it’s Parliamentary staff to call Don Brash rich, white, and a racist last week – and then on Agenda claim that bigotted people don’t vote for them.
P.S. Did anyone notice that the Agenda audience looked to be all white and middle class?
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 9:43 am
That was a pretty poor showing on Agenda, wasn’t it? Some of the assertions made there seemed to be in dire need of challenge but everything just seemed to be too much partisan fluffery.
But DPF has them by the short and curlies here. They’ve not attacked the party that has done far, far worse.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 10:31 am
Interesting to see whether the Greens will support National’s proposed bill which would allow them to repay the money to the broadcasters. There should be no objection from them or any other party – but then again Labour may not like the fact that National have not only fronted up to their mistake but also sought a remedy to repay the broadcasters. After all where does that place the Labour Party with their $400k plus overspend of taxpayer dollars on the pledge card?
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 10:50 am
There is a difference here, that can render the Green position defensible.
Labour overspent – and its $400k actually got paid to the printers/newspapers etc.
National overspent in theory only – it ordered $1m of broadcast advertising but only paid $900k for it.
Labour’s suppliers weren’t left out of pocket as a result of Labour’s unlawful actions, so perhaps National’s should be either. Now, as you point out, National wanted to pay the extra, but that would have been unlawful – you can only pay for broadcast advertising out of the broadcast advertising allocation – and when will National get its next allocation? At the next election. (I realise using it to pay this off would probably also be illegal.)
Now, should Labour have it’s funding reduced too? Absolutely. It gets say $5m funding from the taxpayer for its Parliamentary activities. It took (arguably in breach of the rules) $400k or thereabouts of that funding and spent it on election advertising, leaving only $4.6m to pay for its Parliamentary activities. Its funding has already been reduced by exactly the right amount (…and National’s hasn’t).
The Green Party is not saying that National should be punished by having a lower broadcast allocation limit than it would otherwise have been entitled to, it is saying that it should use some of it’s allocation to pay back the people whom it owes money. This is an entirely justifiable distinction.
You will note that the Greens are not saying National should have its funding limit reduced by the cost of the Brethren advertising. I am sure the Greens completely accept that the pledge card was election advertising for the Labour party, however they also believe (perhaps wrongly, but it is an actual belief) that the Brethren’s campaign was election advertising for the National party. Given their beliefs (which is what hypocrisy is about) they would be hypocritical if they called on National to be punished over the Brethren advertising but did not think Labour should be punished for its over-the-limit spending.
DPF – you’ve been elucidating some of the large distinctions between Labour’s election conduct and that of National and others at the election; don’t fault the Greens when they do the same – they draw on a very simple distinction between what Labour did and what National did – Labour’s behaviour left precisely no-one out of pocket.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 11:25 am
Since when did the Greens give a rats arse about fairness and monetary compensation?
They more have joined in on the Lair-bour’s mantra of compulsory compliance with no compensation or incentives.
E.g. Waitakere Ranges Protection Bill, Solar Hot Water etc.
Oh yes.. and if anybody presents an argument opposing you.. call them names. It’s much easier than logic.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 11:38 am
Perhaps Greens are only balancing out the blog world criticism of the police for not prosecuting LABOUR – for what past governments (National) had also done.
Given National again offended in 2005 (this time in a new way) …. This new way, is perhaps the neglected issue so far.
Craig, are you going to see media bias in the unanimous support for tax cuts amongst the print dailies over the past 20 years? (there is and you should).
Michael – Greens are the rich whites, who are not racists (Orewa did not appeal to them).
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 11:47 am
SPC the Orewa speech wasnt racist, no matter how much you wish it was.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 12:01 pm
Should I ignore the comments about the Orewa thing that occured “in the National party” afterwards – before and after the election?
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 12:08 pm
SPC the Greens are racist. They hate whites with money who are not them with a religious zeal.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 12:10 pm
Go on SPC, find a quote which will, beyond all reasonable doubt, show Don Brash and the National Party to be racist.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 12:19 pm
SPC:
No, but I find it rather amusing that can detect some pro-National media bias in all the commentators (from DPF and myself here to Fran O’Sullivan) who’ve argued both National and Labour should have been prosecuted over their alleged over-spending during the last campaign.
Oh, and how lame can you get trotting out the “Mummy, everybody does it” defence. I pray you end up with children (who inexorably become teenagers) of your own one day…
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 12:24 pm
Murray – all politicos, disagree with those who disagree with them. They are all somewhat passionate – though religious, is a rather sectarian way of puting it. What you observe about Greens, is true about yourself.
Kimble – I have never claimed that one needs to make racist comments to promote a racist agenda. I simply note that some Nats were concerned enough about the impact of the Orewa thing to discuss their concern publicly – Don brash included. Others wondered on the ability of National to attract Maori voters as their numbers increased. Some asked whether they could finalise any deal with the MP unless they reversed their Orewa policy line. Guess why?
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 12:36 pm
I wrote
“Craig, are you going to see media bias in the unanimous support for tax cuts amongst the print dailies over the past 20 years? (there is and you should).”
As to blog world matter (I don’t really see anything non commercial as part of the media),
I think the arguement for the police to make a first prosecution of someone, for breaking a law when they know their major rival has dome the same thing in the same position, is tenuous.
It would reek of partisanship.
The law can be brought into disrespect if it is applied selectively.
I don’t think you facetious “Mummy, everybody does it” line undermines a major tenet of law making and law enforcement
Applying the law in the same way in all cases.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
Calling for everyone to be treated equally regardless of race, is racist.
Expecting the Police to charge someone of an offence which they are plainly guilty reeks of partisanship.
SPC you have just argued that the police shouldnt have charged Labour because National did the same thing. Everyone here has been saying National should have been charged as well. Is your argument really that if two people commit a crime, the police should avoid charging one party before the other, and if that isnt possible they shouldnt charge anyone?
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 1:06 pm
Kimble
You miscomprehend the point at issue.
Which is National’s “past” breach when in government in using Parliamentary spending for campaign purposes – they were not prosecuted. So why uniquely prosecute Labour now, just because National has comitted another and different breach in 2005?
As to the issue of race and equality before the law. Name any group bar Maori who had their assets taken without comepnsation. And when they can prove this in court, they get partial compensation at best and in amounts determined by the very party who often took their property.
Is that the equality you want?
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 1:21 pm
SPC, name any other group in NZ that is trying to claim compensation for something which happened to their great grandparents.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 1:27 pm
SPC, you seem to be alone in presenting your side. Why do you think that is?
Did you read DPF’s breakdown of Labour’s overspending? I did, and if it contained errors I’d certainly expect the forum denizens to jump all over them. But there weren’t.
If you hadn’t read them. please do. And get back to us.
DPF, have you thought of giving your overspending series a special little ‘Hall of Fame’ link on the left of your front page?
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 1:59 pm
marky
No one has challenged the basis of my arguement. It is based in legal principle It, rather than some rightist conspiracy theory, is why police did not prosecute.
(I would not curse any of you to readover the earlier thesis – which is not actually relevant).
That so many are unable to challenge my line on it, without agreeing with me, is a triumph for the rightist partisanship here.
kimble
“SPC, name any other group in NZ that is trying to claim compensation for something which happened to their great grandparents.”
Can you name any other group who had their property taken?
But it just goes to show, the difficulty of trying to do over an indigenous people, when they have a Treaty. That there was the attempt, was racism by one group against another.
The term “great grandparents” indicates a lack of awareness of land being confiscated throughout the 20th century.
Only partial compensation is occuring and there is this full and final settlement mentality – which is somewhat associated with the agenda to end Maori political representation. Orewa.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 2:10 pm
“No one has challenged the basis of my arguement. It is based in legal principle It, rather than some rightist conspiracy theory, is why police did not prosecute.”
I don’t think there’s too much rightist conspiracy out there about this (some, certainly, but not much), we know why they didn’t prosecute – they released 1000+ pages of documents detailing how they don’t understand electoral law, and don’t really care.
But back to the headlined topic – thanks to I/S for bringing this to my attention:
http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2006/05/paying-their-bills.html
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 2:50 pm
Does anyone understand electoral law (those who write it, are the ones accused of breaking it)?
How often do anyone else come across the matter in any contested court determined way? Where the meaning of legislation in law is determined.
General legal principles are well tested and better known.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 3:14 pm
Why aren’t the Greens lobbying their own party to pay back the extra funding they are getting through their so-called Parliamentary ‘lie-aison’ positions? Methinks the Greens might merely be raising this because they (like Radio NZ) are govt toadies and are trying to take the heat off Cullen, Cunliffe, Parker, Horomia, etc.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 3:54 pm
Let me get this straight, National are refusing to pay up because that would be against the electoral act. In oter words, paying for services delivered the would put them in breach of the section of the act that DPF accuses the police of not properly investigating Labour under.
How cute.
Presumably the broadcasters could take this up with the SFO or something. I mean, the equivalent would be Labour having their stuff printed, sent out and then not paying for it.
I have several “but in this [insert case of National mis-behaviour] is completely different” drinks already lined up for this thread.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 4:13 pm
What I’d like to see is a list of the things the other parties did actually spend their leaders’ funds on. Obviously the circumstances would be different, in that *they* weren’t advised that they couldn’t do it, but it would be interesting nonetheless.
It would have been absurd for Labour to be prosecuted if the Brethren – who committed the clearest breach by deliberately falsifying details – weren’t, but perhaps an all-round prosecutorial slap would have been useful for the future.
But SPC is right: National has committed similar offences in the past. I think it was in 1999 that Jenny Shipley sent her mailout message to women voters using the leaders’ fund: a very clear breach that was let go. The mailout didn’t help, and I’m not really sure the pledge card was a crucial factor this time around either.
Cheers,
Vote:RB
May 29th, 2006 at 4:39 pm
Russell is right in that other parties did do dodgy promotions using parliamentary funds like the leaders funds (as Labour have most famously done).
When I did have a blog, I noted that ACT, UF and NZF all put out Parliamentary crested material like pamphlets and newspaper ads in the final month of the election, despite the fact that Parliament had already risen and technically they shouldn’t have been engaging in Parliamentary advertising.
These parties made the ads as political as possible without actually including a “vote for us” message which would then have disqualified them from using Parliamentary funding.
What that suggests to me is that these three parties did not have enough money to run privately paid for election material. Now, I should state that the Greens and National may well have put out similar crested info in the final four weeks, but I don’t recall having seen such info.
If I could suggest one law to prevent misuse of taxpayer funds in elections, I would suggest the banning of any parliamentary crested information from MPs to the public in the final month prior to the election since any messages from politicians at this point would influence the election campaign.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 5:00 pm
Russell falls into the same trap as the Police as thinking it is about whether one should use parliamentary funds. That is a totally different issue to over-spending.
His reference to some Shipley mailout in 1999 is news to me. I may have forgotten but a reference would be useful.
But once again people it is not about who pays for teh advertising. It is about how much advertising is done in the 90 days before an election.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 5:11 pm
Is it not, whether parliamentary spending allowed during the term, is seen as part of the election period limits on political party campaigning?
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 6:16 pm
Russell – I too am afraid you may be the victim of the “the law is unclear”-spin overload. The rules surrounding (mis)use of the Parliamentary Leader’s fund are unclear, however, the rules surrounding what amounts to an election advertisement (and what the campaign spending limit is) are perfectly clear. Had Labour funded its entire election campaign out of government appropriations for the NZ Police, but spent less than $2.38m, they would not have breached electoral laws.
I agree that there is no way that Labour should be prosecuted for failing to have Mike Williams’ (or H2′s) name and address of the pledge card if the Brethren responsible for the pamphlet without a false address on it was not. I also recall looking out for newspaper advertisements (and noticing some – Act, Greens, UFNZ, NZF, I think) that bore the Parliamentary Crest, and didn’t include the word vote or or proper authorisation.
You don’t really think that the fact the overspending probably didn’t make a difference, is much of an answer, do you?
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 6:50 pm
Is it not whether parliamentary spending akllowed for the term to inform the public of government policy, is party political advertising?
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 6:50 pm
No SPC. Only activity within the last 90 days counts – the Act is explicit.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 6:58 pm
Is money spent on informing the public of government policy – party political advertising?
And I mean by this, spending in that 90 day period.
If it is, what if a government promotes a new policy initiative, then loses a confidence vote and has to call an early election – but has spent up just prior to this. Is it to suffer a diminishment during that campaign?
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 10:16 pm
David I think it would be fair to point out that these sorts of issues were very much Rod’s domain. If he was still around I am sure the Greens would have said more about the campaign spending rorts of both National and Labour.
I think the 2008 election would be all the more interesting if both major parties lost a large chunk of their funding. It would be a more just solution than either of them being charged IMHO. There is an arguement that giving the major parties the vast majority of the cash is preempting the election result and thus is not democratic.
Vote:May 30th, 2006 at 5:42 am
Personally I could live with no funding at all of parties, if in return parties can spend their own money.
Vote:May 30th, 2006 at 6:33 am
Personally I could live with no funding at all of parties, if in return parties can spend their own money.
And thus Natioanl could buy it’s way into power forever? Hypocite yourself David.
Vote:May 30th, 2006 at 7:08 am
Logix:
Oh, silly boy. Where’s the hypocrisy in arguing that the state shouldn’t be funding the electioneering of any political party? Or putting up the contrary argument, for that matter – that the state doesn’t fund political parties enough?
Vote: