This entry was posted
on Thursday, September 7th, 2006 at 9:40 am and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
Yes but come on David, you are a spinmeister as well. And so are brash et al. It is getting harder and harder to find any measured analysis from either side, or commentators on either side, of the whole thing. Lots of smoke, little light.
Labour spent taxpayers money – definitely $446,000 and allegedly over $800,000.
National were supported by members of the Exclusive Brethren who spent $1.2m of their own personal money in order to try and effect a change of Government.
I haven’t seen any hard facts on the cost of the EB brochures. Can anyone point me to the truth, or is this just a Labourites “ballpark” estimate? There is a good chance the printing costs for the brochures have been overestimated.
Secondly, National has “inherited” EB by default. They were not so much supporting National as attacking the Greens and Labour for specific policies they do not agree with.
It would be a laugh if some ultra left-wing nutjob group met with the Greens to discuss supporting the Greens directly, got told no, and then went off and printed a whole bunch of leaflets explaining that Labour are ruining the environment and are to be burned at the stake.
Given they “had a meeting” with the Greens, does that pump the Green expenditure up a few hundred grand by such tenuous association?
Whatever electoral rules the EB have broken by attacking Green policy, its only the left wing spin that has tied it so strongly to National. However, my opinion is that they have very little to do with National. They were motivated more by antipathy to left wing policy than anything particular about National.
What really rankles is that anyone should be allowed to accumulate $1.2m in order to be able to make a decision about its disposal.
You won’t have to go far to find a group of regular commenters (usually anonymous strangeley enough) who will argue that only the state (ie the Labour Party in power) should be able to spend that amount of dosh.
We will probably see a special EB levy next budget
At least we know the EBs actions What we dont know is who give funds to which party anonymously and what favours were attached to those funds. And before anyone gets on their high horse how can we trust any party given the behaviour we have witnessed Only a naive fool woulds say It couldnt happen.
Sonic, are you stupid or something ? If 92% came from anonymous donations, then what anonymous means is that the donors are unknown to the recipient. I am sure you can find an on-line dictionary if you need one.
The rules are quite clear on this, if you know who they are then you have to declare it. So, are you suggesting that National broke the law by witholding information about donors, or are you simply blowing smoke ?
“Of the $1.88 million of donations declared by National last year, $1.74 million was channelled through six trust accounts to prevent the names of the donors becoming public. About a third of Labour’s $2.2 million campaign fund came from anonymous donors”
The Labur Party thinks taxpayers’ money is their money to spend as they like. Hence their difficulty and their supporters difficulty in getting around what they did. The genral public know the distiction well and everyone I have spoken too is furious at the attitude of Labour.
Sonic
Now it is very obvious that you are on a par with Mallard when it comes to intelligence. Are you that big a nut bar that you think that different people read this thread than those who read “just when you thought they could not get any lower”? You trotted out the same stupid crap in that, got explained the facts and now you are back on the 92% nonsense.
Sonic Labour is corrupt.
Sonic Labour is threatening personal attacks.
Sonic Labour stole the money after they were told it would be illegal.
Sonic go back to school
We only “know” about the EB’s attempt to buy the last election due to some sloothing by the Greens after pamphlet number one. Certainly wasn’t the EB’s or Don Brash who revealed that, and their participation in elections overseas was well covered-up until after the event.
By the way, anyone remember who had this to say about the EBs?
“I wish to expose the Exclusive Brethren Church for destroying families” who also described them as “sinister” and users of “extreme forms of psychological blackmail that is used to rip families apart”.
The EB’s are welcome to participate in our democracy, hell, they might even vote one day, but why they should be absolved from the scrutiny of voters is beyond me.
Noddy, they shouldn’t. They’ve hardly got away scot-free. They are the basic plank in Labour’s defence of its theft (somehow). The EB’s broke the electoral law. Not sure how it’s Nationa;’s fault.
Please expain how the EB broke the Electoral Law. As far as I am aware they spent their own money to try and effect a change of government and ensure there was not a Labour/Greens coalition.
Please expain how the EB broke the Electoral Law. As far as I am aware they spent their own money to try and effect a change of government and ensure there was not a Labour/Greens coalition.
pdm – one of the EB pamphlets bore a false address (and was thus an “illegal practice” under the Electoral Act).
It has also been suggested by some here (with a quote from the Chief Electoral Officer to back up the claim) that one of the pamphlets encouraged people to vote for National.
Advertising encouraging votes for a particular party (as opposed to expressing opposition to a party, or support for a policy position) must be approved by that party. If one of the EB pamphlets did encourage party votes for National and were not authorised by them then it to constitutes an “illegal practice”.
I can’t remember how it was illegal, but it was. That wasn’t really my point. My point is, why is National (or Nationa;, as I like to call them) responsible for what the EB do?
It wasn’t the anti-green one that was the problem. There were a number of different pamphlets, the anti-green one just got the widest coverage.
A number of months before the election there was one about defence. And during the election there were also ones on healthcare and tax (and maybe others). My recollection is that the tax one was pro-National’s tax cut proposals in such a way that it might be seen to be pro-National, rather than pro-tax cuts or anti-Labour. I guess it was the problematic one.
Hey guys, what the country needs now is a good old fashioned revolution, complete with burning, looting and lynching of politicians and their cronies from the nearest lamp posts! Now thats what I call politics!!
By the way, the answer to my “who said” question is, of course, Nick Smith. You know, the man Don Brash dumped as deputy leader shortly after taking over. I do now wonder just how far back the DB/EB relationship goes…
Noddy, the EB’s supported National, not the other way around. What on earth is the big deal? A group who opposes the government met with (who d’ya reckon?) the opposition and said they wanted to spend their own money telling people why, in their opinion, the government is no good. The listening to the EB’s telling them what they propose to do seems to be the extent of National’s involvement in this evil “conspiracy”.
“Does anyone know if “get out the vote” campaigns run on election day count as election spending?”
To answer from another threat – no this expense does not count – however what can be said and done is limited. No “campaigning” is permitted on election day. The expense period is up to the midnight of the day prior to election day when all campaign activity must cease.
Returning to the pamphleteering issue the problem with any lawful or unlawful non- candidate pamphleteering is that by its nature it intends to influence voters one way or another – that is the purpose of doing it and it can be quite lawful. Influencing voters isn’t the legal test – agency is. The legal question is whether the Exclusive Brethren were acting as the agents for National – all the normal common law incidences of agency apply in considering this – principally those relating to control and direction. That is why Labour is sniffing around all the interactions between the Exclusive Brethren and National. The common law on agency is well developed and directly applicable to relationships between Parties contesting elections and other groups who pamphleteer during the three months prior to an election but don’t stand candidates. David Henry gets this wrong in his dealings with the Exclusive Brethren – actually I think he as got it wrong on the pledge cards too. Whilst he was a fine civil servant and very good commissioner of Inland Revenue I don’t know why he was giving these legal opinions on what is an electoral activity and what is not. Those seeking such opinions should have been told to seek legal advise. Certainly his very expansive and purposeful view of what is an included in an electoral activity is somewhat different to the approach of the High Court in the Tauranga Electoral Petition case where the judges stress the narrowness of the electoral activity section and its many exceptions. Note too that the sections exclude advertising done in the capacity of the member of Parliament within the three month period. All Parliamentary parties have always taken an expansive view of what is within the capacity of the MP (hence the broad rules controlling the spend) and a narrow view of what is included as a electoral activity and therefore an expense under the Electoral Act 1993. DPF is correct when he says they tend to be more careful within three months of an election. What is within the capacity of an MP has expanded given the expansion of the budget to support MPs and their communication with the electorate and changes in technology.
“Does anyone know if “get out the vote” campaigns run on election day count as election spending?”
To answer from another threat – no this expense does not count – however what can be said and done is limited. No “campaigning” is permitted on election day. The expense period is up to the midnight of the day prior to election day when all campaign activity must cease.
Returning to the pamphleteering issue the problem with any lawful or unlawful non- candidate pamphleteering is that by its nature it intends to influence voters one way or another – that is the purpose of doing it and it can be quite lawful. Influencing voters isn’t the legal test – agency is. The legal question is whether the Exclusive Brethren were acting as the agents for National – all the normal common law incidences of agency apply in considering this – principally those relating to control and direction. That is why Labour is sniffing around all the interactions between the Exclusive Brethren and National. The common law on agency is well developed and directly applicable to relationships between Parties contesting elections and other groups who pamphleteer during the three months prior to an election but don’t stand candidates. David Henry gets this wrong in his dealings with the Exclusive Brethren – actually I think he as got it wrong on the pledge cards too. Whilst he was a fine civil servant and very good commissioner of Inland Revenue I don’t know why he was giving these legal opinions on what is an electoral activity and what is not. Those seeking such opinions should have been told to seek legal advise. Certainly his very expansive and purposeful view of what is an included in an electoral activity is somewhat different to the approach of the High Court in the Tauranga Electoral Petition case where the judges stress the narrowness of the electoral activity section and its many exceptions. Note too that the sections exclude advertising done in the capacity of the member of Parliament within the three month period. All Parliamentary parties have always taken an expansive view of what is within the capacity of the MP (hence the broad rules controlling the spend) and a narrow view of what is included as a electoral activity and therefore an expense under the Electoral Act 1993. DPF is correct when he says they tend to be more careful within three months of an election. What is within the capacity of an MP has expanded given the expansion of the budget to support MPs and their communication with the electorate and changes in technology.
Sonic, Don Bash denied meetng EB, then I saw an interview where it was put to him again, and you see his memory of a meeting coming back to him… you could actually see it happening on his face, so he honestly admitted that, yes he did now recall a brief meeting with the EB and yes, they did say something about putting out some brochures. He had no idea how many or what would be in them. It was quite obviously the TRUTH.
I’m sure in similar circumstances, other politicians would have lied – but Don told the truth. And go figure – he’s still being hung for it.
Still not the conspiracy its cracked up to be. And I don’t think he ever admitted he knew. I think he conceded he might have suspected it came from the EBs.
He denied meeting them until there was some evidence and then admitted it.
The only counter argument you all seem to have is that Don Brash is an idiot who cannot remember meeting people who are about to spend $1.1 million to get him elected.
You know, sonic, you finally said something right. No-one would forget hearing someone was going to spend over $1m to help them get elected. So guess what – IT NEVER HAPPENED! They never said to him “Don, We’re going to spend over $1M on getting you elected”. NEVER HAPPENED.
Meetings recalled or forgotten doesn’t make the Exclusive Brethren agents of National.
Seeing some mock up pamphlets doesn’t make the Exclusive Brethren agents of National.
Wishing the Exclusive Brethren well doesn’t mean the Exclusive Brethren are agents of National.
The Exclusive Brethren checking the legality of their activities with the Chief Electoral Officer and in particular checking to make sure their activities don’t impact on Nationals obligations doesn’t mean the Exclusive Brethren are agents of National.
The new allegation by Pete Hodgson in Parliament this afternoon regarding passing of electoral roll information would make the Exclusive Brethren either agents of National or if National did pass the information to the Exclusive Brethren as non candidates/Political Party/Agent thereof, could mean it was involved in a criminal act which isn’t time limited either.
“Labour strategist and Cabinet Minister Pete Hodgson released copies of an Exclusive Brethren pamphlet featuring Brash’s picture against a New Zealand flag, with the catchline: “You can trust Brash to make the right decision in a time of crisis.” “
I look forward to Linda et al getting out of that one.
Sorry Sonic it is lawful for non candidate organisations to try and influence voters – the question is in doing so, whether they are acting as agents for a party or candidate standing.
And I could produce a brochure with a pic of Don Brash that I downloaded from the internet in front of a Labour party logo – and he would not know anything about that either.
Another interesting idea that was raised in the house, if I may
“Labour strategist and Cabinet Minister Pete Hodgson released copies of an Exclusive Brethren pamphlet featuring Brash’s picture against a New Zealand flag, with the catchline: “You can trust Brash to make the right decision in a time of crisis.”
The pamphlet was never published after the Electoral Office advised in an email to the Brethren, also released by Hodgson, that the pamphlet would have to be authorised by National and would be counted against its election spending limit.
Hodgson said this raised the question of whether Brash or anyone in National told the Brethren that National had already spent its legal limit. “If they did, and then encouraged the Brethren to find a way around the rules, then National has very serious questions to answer.”
Leaving aside our partisan leanings why shouldnt we the punters know who is supporting which party and by how much That is the only way we can determine if favours are being bought.Its called transperancy and its a principle of good governance. The pollies have bought the problem on themselves by proving unable to gain the voters trust.You earn trust It doesnt just come with the job.I know its sad for the people who want to donate anonymously and dont want any special favours but sometimes life is tough and this is one case.those who want to support the democratis process anonympusly could pay into a fund that would be distributed on a pro rata basis according to voter support.
Until we have a full accounting of all donations then we cant know whether or not there was a problem.A secret Trust account aint a full accounting.
If I had the money to publish in support of National as you claim EB to have done, then I would naturally assume that the National Party would have allocated all the legally available money and if I did anything that would count against their total it would mess up their budget. I would want to avoid that.
You know, I’m sure the EB’s are just as smart as me and worked that out by themselves.
“The pamphlet was never published after the Electoral Office advised in an email to the Brethren, also released by Hodgson, that the pamphlet would have to be authorised by National and would be counted against its election spending limit”
David Henry is probably wrong on this unless the Exclusive Brethren are acting as the agent of National. Attempting to Influence voters to vote in a certain way isn’t the test.
gd wrote:
Leaving aside our partisan leanings why shouldnt we the punters know who is supporting which party and by how much That is the only way we can determine if favours are being bought.
I reply:
No, I guess we could also abolish the secret ballot and let “the punters” decide whether their fellow citizens voted in good faith, or because they expect some favour to come down the pipe in the fulness of time.
sonic,
Let’s get the provable issues out of the way first and see the extent to which Labour took public funds for electoral purposes.
Seems to me quite reasonable to pursue matters where there is some evidence to suggest wrongdoing over matters which are pure conjecture.
I for one would be happy to open the discussion into matters that have supporting evidence but am getting a bit sick of wild and (so-far) baseless accusations are being flung around like confetti at a wedding.
And what test applies to allegations that any MP or party is “selling policy for cash” – presumably with legislation thrown in? I guess Helen Clark producing any evidence to back up her extraordinary allegations, or repeating it outside the bounds of Parliamentary privilege, is out of the question.
why do you need a counter-attack when you sre accused of breaking the law. Perhaps you only need to when you are guilty. Or do you support justifiable corruption.
Try telling the next traffic cop that pings you for speeding that his sister is a whore and he has been flogging the OT so you should be let off. LOL Thgink we need some perspective here on respect for the law.
sonic, it will backfire. It seems pretty clear that people have had enough of labours finger pointing at others. Also, the EBs are a minority group and eventually it will be turned around on labour for “victimising” them.Labour will be shown to be even more hypocritical.Go for it I say.
If National controlled or directed the actions of the Brethren that would constitute a relationship of agency between them and result in the Brethren pamphlets being attributable to National’s expenses. Evidence of ‘collusion’ to breach any spending cap would of course be highly indicative of a relationship of agency in relation to the pamphlets.
Email contact is no more conclusive than meetings face to face. It would depend on content.
Providing the Exclusive Brethren with electoral data as Pete Hodgson has alleged would be highly indicative of some sort of relationship of agency or potentially a criminal offence – which is still testable and punishable. At a stretch one could argue that the Brethren were agents for the purposes of the Electoral Act dealing with electoral roll data but not for the purposes of Electoral Act dealing with election activities and therefore expenses. Not very credible however.
A combination of meetings, emails indicating some level of control and direction and providing electoral roll data would permit someone to reasonably conclude some sort of agency particularily when considering the pamphlets themselves.
In the absence of this, the basic problem you have is that the Brethren pamphlets are consistent with their view of the various public policy issues they published about. Such pamphleteering is lawful and they spent their own money doing it. They are permitted like everyone else to participate in public policy discourse during the lead up to an election like to urge their fellow citizens to vote one way or another. You can put such weight on their ideas as you wish.
Kick away. Labour has seriously misjudged how pissed people are with them. You may find private individuals coming forward with dirt to defend National. I hear one Akld MP is more than a little nervous.
The EB pamphlet on healthcare was delivered the very morning National was to unveil its Health policy. Coincidence, or co-ordination?
Further, the content of the pamphlet was startlingly, no, exactly consistent with National’s policy. Coincidence, or co-ordination?
If any of these (or many other) ‘coincidences’ can be linked (which is what I believe is about to happen), then it is an utter disaster for Brash, especially in the light of his recent attempt to claim the moral high ground.
At the moment, it could just be all bluster, but speculation changes perception, factual or otherwise, Labour’s strategy will work, sorry.
“The only counter argument you all seem to have is that Don Brash is an idiot who cannot remember meeting people who are about to spend $1.1 million to get him elected.
I can see that slipping anyone’s mind can’t you?”
Helen Clark couldn’t remember Owen Glen’s name when he had promised her $500,000….
curious, (i think) it was around $300K, it may have been more, however none of it was ‘secret’, and none of it (appeared to be) co-ordinated with the party.
Had the Eb’s been open about their campaign, and made it appear less than a ‘coincidence’ regarding content and timing, then there could be no question, and there would have been no difference to the Union campaign.
Spam wrote:
Helen Clark couldn’t remember Owen Glen’s name when he had promised her $500,000….
I reply:
Well, when Tony Blair’s ex-spin supremo Alaistair Campbell was on the Lions tour last year, Clark had a private dinner with him and never discussed politics. Yeah right… if you believe that, you’ll believe absolutely anything.
“Well, when Tony Blair’s ex-spin supremo Alaistair Campbell was on the Lions tour last year, Clark had a private dinner with him and never discussed politics. Yeah right… if you believe that, you’ll believe absolutely anything”
Of course she talked too him… and drunk in every word. She’s handling the pledge card fiasco with exactly the same finesse that Alaistair Campbell used to make the Lions look like a right bunch of Charlies.
Craig Apologies for the late response Yes I value the secret ballot and if I could trust the pollies and the current system I would favour anonymous donations. But given the evidence I cant trust them so I want to know who gives what otherwise I will never know if a donation bought a favour that cost me and others. If and when the pollies get their shit in order so I can trust them further than I can kick them then I would be happy to see anonymous donations Until then the answer is NO.Its like dealing with your kids. Until their behaviour is up to scratch they have to bear the consequences.And I would hope would be donors would put pressure on them to do so if we changed the rules on donations.
Well, first in retrospect I’d like to apologise for being curt and over-snarky. People can have good faith differences on the question of anonymous donations to political parties in general, or election campaigns in particular.
I’ve got to go out for a couple of hours, but will respond to you in more detail later because there are some issues worth kicking around.
The EB may be an unattractive organisation but they are not an illegal organisation.
Trade unions may be unattractive organisations but they are not illegal.
Both of these groups speak to political parties and one group finances a party. No one know what was discussed behind closed doors with both EB and the Unions.
One party does not really want an arrangement with a group while another party can’t survive without it.
What is the real issue. – Spending taxpayers money and having not a fig of concern about it.
Cubit9f nails it. It is healthy that New Zealanders engage in politics. Regarding the activities of organisations without candidates of their own, so long as they are not acting on behalf of a party who is standing candidates- what is the big deal? Political pamphleteering is centuries old we attack it at our peril.
September 7th, 2006 at 9:51 am
Heh, nice.
Thought you might be interested that http://www.electoral-vote.com/ is back up with the US Senate and House races.
September 7th, 2006 at 10:15 am
Yes but come on David, you are a spinmeister as well. And so are brash et al. It is getting harder and harder to find any measured analysis from either side, or commentators on either side, of the whole thing. Lots of smoke, little light.
September 7th, 2006 at 10:32 am
I would have thought it could not be any clearer.
Labour spent taxpayers money – definitely $446,000 and allegedly over $800,000.
National were supported by members of the Exclusive Brethren who spent $1.2m of their own personal money in order to try and effect a change of Government.
What is so difficult to understand about that?
September 7th, 2006 at 10:53 am
I haven’t seen any hard facts on the cost of the EB brochures. Can anyone point me to the truth, or is this just a Labourites “ballpark” estimate? There is a good chance the printing costs for the brochures have been overestimated.
Secondly, National has “inherited” EB by default. They were not so much supporting National as attacking the Greens and Labour for specific policies they do not agree with.
It would be a laugh if some ultra left-wing nutjob group met with the Greens to discuss supporting the Greens directly, got told no, and then went off and printed a whole bunch of leaflets explaining that Labour are ruining the environment and are to be burned at the stake.
Given they “had a meeting” with the Greens, does that pump the Green expenditure up a few hundred grand by such tenuous association?
Whatever electoral rules the EB have broken by attacking Green policy, its only the left wing spin that has tied it so strongly to National. However, my opinion is that they have very little to do with National. They were motivated more by antipathy to left wing policy than anything particular about National.
September 7th, 2006 at 10:53 am
What is difficult to understand about this is the consequences – NONE – WHY ?
September 7th, 2006 at 10:53 am
pdm
What really rankles is that anyone should be allowed to accumulate $1.2m in order to be able to make a decision about its disposal.
You won’t have to go far to find a group of regular commenters (usually anonymous strangeley enough) who will argue that only the state (ie the Labour Party in power) should be able to spend that amount of dosh.
We will probably see a special EB levy next budget
September 7th, 2006 at 11:06 am
At least we know the EBs actions What we dont know is who give funds to which party anonymously and what favours were attached to those funds. And before anyone gets on their high horse how can we trust any party given the behaviour we have witnessed Only a naive fool woulds say It couldnt happen.
September 7th, 2006 at 11:10 am
“we dont know is who give funds to which party anonymously and what favours were attached to those funds”
Perhaps national could start the ball rolling and tell us where 92% of their funds came from?
September 7th, 2006 at 11:20 am
Sonic, are you stupid or something ? If 92% came from anonymous donations, then what anonymous means is that the donors are unknown to the recipient. I am sure you can find an on-line dictionary if you need one.
The rules are quite clear on this, if you know who they are then you have to declare it. So, are you suggesting that National broke the law by witholding information about donors, or are you simply blowing smoke ?
September 7th, 2006 at 11:25 am
“the donors are unknown to the recipient”
So, just for clarification, you are saying that not a single person in the National party has the slightest idea who any of the donors are?
September 7th, 2006 at 11:26 am
Plucking stats out of your ass again sonic.
The amount donated and by who or anonymously is public. Labour is the one who gets the big number from unkown sources.
September 7th, 2006 at 11:27 am
“Plucking stats out of your ass again sonic”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3788832a11,00.html
“Of the $1.88 million of donations declared by National last year, $1.74 million was channelled through six trust accounts to prevent the names of the donors becoming public. About a third of Labour’s $2.2 million campaign fund came from anonymous donors”
Don’t you look silly!
September 7th, 2006 at 11:29 am
The Labur Party thinks taxpayers’ money is their money to spend as they like. Hence their difficulty and their supporters difficulty in getting around what they did. The genral public know the distiction well and everyone I have spoken too is furious at the attitude of Labour.
September 7th, 2006 at 11:30 am
Sonic
Now it is very obvious that you are on a par with Mallard when it comes to intelligence. Are you that big a nut bar that you think that different people read this thread than those who read “just when you thought they could not get any lower”? You trotted out the same stupid crap in that, got explained the facts and now you are back on the 92% nonsense.
Sonic Labour is corrupt.
Sonic Labour is threatening personal attacks.
Sonic Labour stole the money after they were told it would be illegal.
Sonic go back to school
September 7th, 2006 at 11:36 am
We only “know” about the EB’s attempt to buy the last election due to some sloothing by the Greens after pamphlet number one. Certainly wasn’t the EB’s or Don Brash who revealed that, and their participation in elections overseas was well covered-up until after the event.
By the way, anyone remember who had this to say about the EBs?
“I wish to expose the Exclusive Brethren Church for destroying families” who also described them as “sinister” and users of “extreme forms of psychological blackmail that is used to rip families apart”.
The EB’s are welcome to participate in our democracy, hell, they might even vote one day, but why they should be absolved from the scrutiny of voters is beyond me.
September 7th, 2006 at 11:37 am
Poor Old Vanzylnz, a bit out of his league I think.
“Go back to school”
Is that it?
September 7th, 2006 at 11:41 am
Noddy, they shouldn’t. They’ve hardly got away scot-free. They are the basic plank in Labour’s defence of its theft (somehow). The EB’s broke the electoral law. Not sure how it’s Nationa;’s fault.
September 7th, 2006 at 12:38 pm
Billy
Please expain how the EB broke the Electoral Law. As far as I am aware they spent their own money to try and effect a change of government and ensure there was not a Labour/Greens coalition.
I repeat – it was their own money!!!
September 7th, 2006 at 12:39 pm
Billy
Please expain how the EB broke the Electoral Law. As far as I am aware they spent their own money to try and effect a change of government and ensure there was not a Labour/Greens coalition.
I repeat – it was their own money!!!
September 7th, 2006 at 12:43 pm
pdm – one of the EB pamphlets bore a false address (and was thus an “illegal practice” under the Electoral Act).
It has also been suggested by some here (with a quote from the Chief Electoral Officer to back up the claim) that one of the pamphlets encouraged people to vote for National.
Advertising encouraging votes for a particular party (as opposed to expressing opposition to a party, or support for a policy position) must be approved by that party. If one of the EB pamphlets did encourage party votes for National and were not authorised by them then it to constitutes an “illegal practice”.
September 7th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
We had a brochure dropped in our letterbox. it was more anti Green’s than anything.
September 7th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
pdm,
I can’t remember how it was illegal, but it was. That wasn’t really my point. My point is, why is National (or Nationa;, as I like to call them) responsible for what the EB do?
September 7th, 2006 at 12:55 pm
It wasn’t the anti-green one that was the problem. There were a number of different pamphlets, the anti-green one just got the widest coverage.
A number of months before the election there was one about defence. And during the election there were also ones on healthcare and tax (and maybe others). My recollection is that the tax one was pro-National’s tax cut proposals in such a way that it might be seen to be pro-National, rather than pro-tax cuts or anti-Labour. I guess it was the problematic one.
September 7th, 2006 at 12:56 pm
Hey guys, what the country needs now is a good old fashioned revolution, complete with burning, looting and lynching of politicians and their cronies from the nearest lamp posts! Now thats what I call politics!!
September 7th, 2006 at 1:14 pm
By the way, the answer to my “who said” question is, of course, Nick Smith. You know, the man Don Brash dumped as deputy leader shortly after taking over. I do now wonder just how far back the DB/EB relationship goes…
September 7th, 2006 at 1:21 pm
Noddy, the EB’s supported National, not the other way around. What on earth is the big deal? A group who opposes the government met with (who d’ya reckon?) the opposition and said they wanted to spend their own money telling people why, in their opinion, the government is no good. The listening to the EB’s telling them what they propose to do seems to be the extent of National’s involvement in this evil “conspiracy”.
September 7th, 2006 at 1:27 pm
The problem Billy is that National were, at best, highly evasive about the EB.
First they had no idea who priduced the pamphlets, then when it was revealed that DB had met with them he suddenly admitted he did know.
Not a good look.
September 7th, 2006 at 1:27 pm
Graeme
“Does anyone know if “get out the vote” campaigns run on election day count as election spending?”
To answer from another threat – no this expense does not count – however what can be said and done is limited. No “campaigning” is permitted on election day. The expense period is up to the midnight of the day prior to election day when all campaign activity must cease.
Returning to the pamphleteering issue the problem with any lawful or unlawful non- candidate pamphleteering is that by its nature it intends to influence voters one way or another – that is the purpose of doing it and it can be quite lawful. Influencing voters isn’t the legal test – agency is. The legal question is whether the Exclusive Brethren were acting as the agents for National – all the normal common law incidences of agency apply in considering this – principally those relating to control and direction. That is why Labour is sniffing around all the interactions between the Exclusive Brethren and National. The common law on agency is well developed and directly applicable to relationships between Parties contesting elections and other groups who pamphleteer during the three months prior to an election but don’t stand candidates. David Henry gets this wrong in his dealings with the Exclusive Brethren – actually I think he as got it wrong on the pledge cards too. Whilst he was a fine civil servant and very good commissioner of Inland Revenue I don’t know why he was giving these legal opinions on what is an electoral activity and what is not. Those seeking such opinions should have been told to seek legal advise. Certainly his very expansive and purposeful view of what is an included in an electoral activity is somewhat different to the approach of the High Court in the Tauranga Electoral Petition case where the judges stress the narrowness of the electoral activity section and its many exceptions. Note too that the sections exclude advertising done in the capacity of the member of Parliament within the three month period. All Parliamentary parties have always taken an expansive view of what is within the capacity of the MP (hence the broad rules controlling the spend) and a narrow view of what is included as a electoral activity and therefore an expense under the Electoral Act 1993. DPF is correct when he says they tend to be more careful within three months of an election. What is within the capacity of an MP has expanded given the expansion of the budget to support MPs and their communication with the electorate and changes in technology.
September 7th, 2006 at 1:29 pm
Graeme
“Does anyone know if “get out the vote” campaigns run on election day count as election spending?”
To answer from another threat – no this expense does not count – however what can be said and done is limited. No “campaigning” is permitted on election day. The expense period is up to the midnight of the day prior to election day when all campaign activity must cease.
Returning to the pamphleteering issue the problem with any lawful or unlawful non- candidate pamphleteering is that by its nature it intends to influence voters one way or another – that is the purpose of doing it and it can be quite lawful. Influencing voters isn’t the legal test – agency is. The legal question is whether the Exclusive Brethren were acting as the agents for National – all the normal common law incidences of agency apply in considering this – principally those relating to control and direction. That is why Labour is sniffing around all the interactions between the Exclusive Brethren and National. The common law on agency is well developed and directly applicable to relationships between Parties contesting elections and other groups who pamphleteer during the three months prior to an election but don’t stand candidates. David Henry gets this wrong in his dealings with the Exclusive Brethren – actually I think he as got it wrong on the pledge cards too. Whilst he was a fine civil servant and very good commissioner of Inland Revenue I don’t know why he was giving these legal opinions on what is an electoral activity and what is not. Those seeking such opinions should have been told to seek legal advise. Certainly his very expansive and purposeful view of what is an included in an electoral activity is somewhat different to the approach of the High Court in the Tauranga Electoral Petition case where the judges stress the narrowness of the electoral activity section and its many exceptions. Note too that the sections exclude advertising done in the capacity of the member of Parliament within the three month period. All Parliamentary parties have always taken an expansive view of what is within the capacity of the MP (hence the broad rules controlling the spend) and a narrow view of what is included as a electoral activity and therefore an expense under the Electoral Act 1993. DPF is correct when he says they tend to be more careful within three months of an election. What is within the capacity of an MP has expanded given the expansion of the budget to support MPs and their communication with the electorate and changes in technology.
September 7th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
The problem Billy is that National were, at best, highly evasive about the EB.
First they had no idea who priduced the pamphlets, then when it was revealed that DB had met with them he suddenly admitted he did know.
Not a good look.
September 7th, 2006 at 1:35 pm
Sorry about the double post.
Given the down and dirty stuff “To answer from another threat” seems quite appropriate even though it is supposed to be “thread.”
September 7th, 2006 at 1:48 pm
Sonic, Don Bash denied meetng EB, then I saw an interview where it was put to him again, and you see his memory of a meeting coming back to him… you could actually see it happening on his face, so he honestly admitted that, yes he did now recall a brief meeting with the EB and yes, they did say something about putting out some brochures. He had no idea how many or what would be in them. It was quite obviously the TRUTH.
I’m sure in similar circumstances, other politicians would have lied – but Don told the truth. And go figure – he’s still being hung for it.
September 7th, 2006 at 1:52 pm
Still not the conspiracy its cracked up to be. And I don’t think he ever admitted he knew. I think he conceded he might have suspected it came from the EBs.
September 7th, 2006 at 1:58 pm
Come on , Anyone.
Prove that Don Brash lied.
Zilch so far.
September 7th, 2006 at 2:27 pm
He denied meeting them until there was some evidence and then admitted it.
The only counter argument you all seem to have is that Don Brash is an idiot who cannot remember meeting people who are about to spend $1.1 million to get him elected.
I can see that slipping anyone’s mind can’t you?
September 7th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
You know, sonic, you finally said something right. No-one would forget hearing someone was going to spend over $1m to help them get elected. So guess what – IT NEVER HAPPENED! They never said to him “Don, We’re going to spend over $1M on getting you elected”. NEVER HAPPENED.
September 7th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
You’ll have to try harder Sonic
September 7th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
I can’t remember the Policeman not saying that Mr. Doone said “that won’t be necessary.”
I can’t remember tapeing a student in his chair & shoving a tennis ball in his mouth.
I can’t remember seeing any schoolgirls in the shower.
I certainly can’t remember the parents complaining about the incidents that I can’t remember.
One standard of accountability for all.
If you want to call Don a liar, fine with me. Just as long as you call Helen and Benson liars too.
September 7th, 2006 at 2:48 pm
Sorry Sonic
Meetings recalled or forgotten doesn’t make the Exclusive Brethren agents of National.
Seeing some mock up pamphlets doesn’t make the Exclusive Brethren agents of National.
Wishing the Exclusive Brethren well doesn’t mean the Exclusive Brethren are agents of National.
The Exclusive Brethren checking the legality of their activities with the Chief Electoral Officer and in particular checking to make sure their activities don’t impact on Nationals obligations doesn’t mean the Exclusive Brethren are agents of National.
September 7th, 2006 at 2:49 pm
So Linda, if they were not discussing how they were going to help National at the election what were they discussing?
The price of fish?
Parking?
The chances of the All Blacks in the world cup?
Don’t forget he had “a number’ of meetings with them, is it seriously your contention that he forgot about all of them?
“Oh you mean that super-rich religious cult? sorry slipped my mind, I meet so many super-rich cults every day it is hard to keep up.”
Nice try Linda, and your loyalty is admirable but it doesn’t wash.
I’ve not used the word “liar” anywhere, but Brash’s story so far would be laughed out of any court in the country.
September 7th, 2006 at 2:57 pm
The new allegation by Pete Hodgson in Parliament this afternoon regarding passing of electoral roll information would make the Exclusive Brethren either agents of National or if National did pass the information to the Exclusive Brethren as non candidates/Political Party/Agent thereof, could mean it was involved in a criminal act which isn’t time limited either.
September 7th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
Also this
“Labour strategist and Cabinet Minister Pete Hodgson released copies of an Exclusive Brethren pamphlet featuring Brash’s picture against a New Zealand flag, with the catchline: “You can trust Brash to make the right decision in a time of crisis.” “
I look forward to Linda et al getting out of that one.
September 7th, 2006 at 3:07 pm
Sorry Sonic it is lawful for non candidate organisations to try and influence voters – the question is in doing so, whether they are acting as agents for a party or candidate standing.
September 7th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
And I could produce a brochure with a pic of Don Brash that I downloaded from the internet in front of a Labour party logo – and he would not know anything about that either.
September 7th, 2006 at 3:14 pm
Another interesting idea that was raised in the house, if I may
“Labour strategist and Cabinet Minister Pete Hodgson released copies of an Exclusive Brethren pamphlet featuring Brash’s picture against a New Zealand flag, with the catchline: “You can trust Brash to make the right decision in a time of crisis.”
The pamphlet was never published after the Electoral Office advised in an email to the Brethren, also released by Hodgson, that the pamphlet would have to be authorised by National and would be counted against its election spending limit.
Hodgson said this raised the question of whether Brash or anyone in National told the Brethren that National had already spent its legal limit. “If they did, and then encouraged the Brethren to find a way around the rules, then National has very serious questions to answer.”
Oh dear.
September 7th, 2006 at 3:17 pm
Linda, it’s becoming clearer that National were working closely with the EB. If that can be proved it is game over for Mr B.
September 7th, 2006 at 3:18 pm
Leaving aside our partisan leanings why shouldnt we the punters know who is supporting which party and by how much That is the only way we can determine if favours are being bought.Its called transperancy and its a principle of good governance. The pollies have bought the problem on themselves by proving unable to gain the voters trust.You earn trust It doesnt just come with the job.I know its sad for the people who want to donate anonymously and dont want any special favours but sometimes life is tough and this is one case.those who want to support the democratis process anonympusly could pay into a fund that would be distributed on a pro rata basis according to voter support.
Until we have a full accounting of all donations then we cant know whether or not there was a problem.A secret Trust account aint a full accounting.
September 7th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
If I had the money to publish in support of National as you claim EB to have done, then I would naturally assume that the National Party would have allocated all the legally available money and if I did anything that would count against their total it would mess up their budget. I would want to avoid that.
You know, I’m sure the EB’s are just as smart as me and worked that out by themselves.
September 7th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
“The pamphlet was never published after the Electoral Office advised in an email to the Brethren, also released by Hodgson, that the pamphlet would have to be authorised by National and would be counted against its election spending limit”
David Henry is probably wrong on this unless the Exclusive Brethren are acting as the agent of National. Attempting to Influence voters to vote in a certain way isn’t the test.
September 7th, 2006 at 3:30 pm
gd wrote:
Leaving aside our partisan leanings why shouldnt we the punters know who is supporting which party and by how much That is the only way we can determine if favours are being bought.
I reply:
No, I guess we could also abolish the secret ballot and let “the punters” decide whether their fellow citizens voted in good faith, or because they expect some favour to come down the pipe in the fulness of time.
September 7th, 2006 at 3:31 pm
Colluding with an outside body to beat the spending cap in elections is the test innocent.
If someone has one email from the National party giving EB advice, or appearing to direct it’s operations, it’s curtains for Brash.
September 7th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
“If someone has one email from the National party giving EB advice, or appearing to direct it’s operations, it’s curtains for Brash”
Oh I don’t know… they could brazen it out surely? That seems to be the tactic these days.
besides… I reckon it wouldn’t be in Labour’s best interest to roll Brash right now.
September 7th, 2006 at 3:42 pm
sonic,
Let’s get the provable issues out of the way first and see the extent to which Labour took public funds for electoral purposes.
Seems to me quite reasonable to pursue matters where there is some evidence to suggest wrongdoing over matters which are pure conjecture.
I for one would be happy to open the discussion into matters that have supporting evidence but am getting a bit sick of wild and (so-far) baseless accusations are being flung around like confetti at a wedding.
sound reasonable to you?
September 7th, 2006 at 3:42 pm
That true Llew, I think the strategy is to get people saying “Oh they are all at at” and hence defuse the pledge card issue.
September 7th, 2006 at 3:45 pm
Sonic:
And what test applies to allegations that any MP or party is “selling policy for cash” – presumably with legislation thrown in? I guess Helen Clark producing any evidence to back up her extraordinary allegations, or repeating it outside the bounds of Parliamentary privilege, is out of the question.
September 7th, 2006 at 3:49 pm
Well I think the EB issue is relevent as it is obviously going to be at the core of Labour’s counter-attack.
September 7th, 2006 at 3:55 pm
why do you need a counter-attack when you sre accused of breaking the law. Perhaps you only need to when you are guilty. Or do you support justifiable corruption.
Try telling the next traffic cop that pings you for speeding that his sister is a whore and he has been flogging the OT so you should be let off. LOL Thgink we need some perspective here on respect for the law.
September 7th, 2006 at 3:55 pm
sonic, it will backfire. It seems pretty clear that people have had enough of labours finger pointing at others. Also, the EBs are a minority group and eventually it will be turned around on labour for “victimising” them.Labour will be shown to be even more hypocritical.Go for it I say.
September 7th, 2006 at 4:03 pm
If National controlled or directed the actions of the Brethren that would constitute a relationship of agency between them and result in the Brethren pamphlets being attributable to National’s expenses. Evidence of ‘collusion’ to breach any spending cap would of course be highly indicative of a relationship of agency in relation to the pamphlets.
Email contact is no more conclusive than meetings face to face. It would depend on content.
Providing the Exclusive Brethren with electoral data as Pete Hodgson has alleged would be highly indicative of some sort of relationship of agency or potentially a criminal offence – which is still testable and punishable. At a stretch one could argue that the Brethren were agents for the purposes of the Electoral Act dealing with electoral roll data but not for the purposes of Electoral Act dealing with election activities and therefore expenses. Not very credible however.
A combination of meetings, emails indicating some level of control and direction and providing electoral roll data would permit someone to reasonably conclude some sort of agency particularily when considering the pamphlets themselves.
In the absence of this, the basic problem you have is that the Brethren pamphlets are consistent with their view of the various public policy issues they published about. Such pamphleteering is lawful and they spent their own money doing it. They are permitted like everyone else to participate in public policy discourse during the lead up to an election like to urge their fellow citizens to vote one way or another. You can put such weight on their ideas as you wish.
September 7th, 2006 at 4:08 pm
David, this is politics. No party is going to allow itself to get trashed for week after week without retaliating.
The question is not will Labour kick back, the question is how hard.
September 7th, 2006 at 4:14 pm
Kick away. Labour has seriously misjudged how pissed people are with them. You may find private individuals coming forward with dirt to defend National. I hear one Akld MP is more than a little nervous.
September 7th, 2006 at 4:19 pm
I’m just an observer david, not in charge of the strategy.
September 7th, 2006 at 4:32 pm
Can Bridgette Saunders be persuaded to name names? I presume a few invitations to appropriate events might do the trick…
September 7th, 2006 at 5:00 pm
Come on.. 5pm and still not one piece of real dirt on Brash.
September 7th, 2006 at 5:01 pm
The EB pamphlet on healthcare was delivered the very morning National was to unveil its Health policy. Coincidence, or co-ordination?
Further, the content of the pamphlet was startlingly, no, exactly consistent with National’s policy. Coincidence, or co-ordination?
If any of these (or many other) ‘coincidences’ can be linked (which is what I believe is about to happen), then it is an utter disaster for Brash, especially in the light of his recent attempt to claim the moral high ground.
At the moment, it could just be all bluster, but speculation changes perception, factual or otherwise, Labour’s strategy will work, sorry.
Cheers,
james cairney.
September 7th, 2006 at 5:06 pm
Sonic:
Stopped beating your wife yet?
September 7th, 2006 at 5:10 pm
Does anyone know how much the teachers union/assn spent on anti-national pre-election advertising OR doesn’t that relate .
September 7th, 2006 at 5:20 pm
Sonic said:
“The only counter argument you all seem to have is that Don Brash is an idiot who cannot remember meeting people who are about to spend $1.1 million to get him elected.
I can see that slipping anyone’s mind can’t you?”
Helen Clark couldn’t remember Owen Glen’s name when he had promised her $500,000….
September 7th, 2006 at 5:25 pm
curious, (i think) it was around $300K, it may have been more, however none of it was ‘secret’, and none of it (appeared to be) co-ordinated with the party.
Had the Eb’s been open about their campaign, and made it appear less than a ‘coincidence’ regarding content and timing, then there could be no question, and there would have been no difference to the Union campaign.
james cairney
September 7th, 2006 at 5:30 pm
Sonic wrote:
“Well I think the EB issue is relevent as it is obviously going to be at the core of Labour’s counter-attack.”
So – you’re saying that its relevant, not because it really is, but because Labour say it is?
craptastic.
September 7th, 2006 at 6:01 pm
Spam wrote:
Helen Clark couldn’t remember Owen Glen’s name when he had promised her $500,000….
I reply:
Well, when Tony Blair’s ex-spin supremo Alaistair Campbell was on the Lions tour last year, Clark had a private dinner with him and never discussed politics. Yeah right… if you believe that, you’ll believe absolutely anything.
September 7th, 2006 at 10:21 pm
Those bloody exclusive brethrens…. how did Labour win the the election again??
Were in power now…and it’s all the EB’s fault err… Nationals to blame… previous 9 years… err… private lives revealed…
Oaah it’s all the those bloody brethrens fault.
don’t mention the war….
September 7th, 2006 at 11:24 pm
“Well, when Tony Blair’s ex-spin supremo Alaistair Campbell was on the Lions tour last year, Clark had a private dinner with him and never discussed politics. Yeah right… if you believe that, you’ll believe absolutely anything”
Of course she talked too him… and drunk in every word. She’s handling the pledge card fiasco with exactly the same finesse that Alaistair Campbell used to make the Lions look like a right bunch of Charlies.
September 8th, 2006 at 12:10 pm
Craig Apologies for the late response Yes I value the secret ballot and if I could trust the pollies and the current system I would favour anonymous donations. But given the evidence I cant trust them so I want to know who gives what otherwise I will never know if a donation bought a favour that cost me and others. If and when the pollies get their shit in order so I can trust them further than I can kick them then I would be happy to see anonymous donations Until then the answer is NO.Its like dealing with your kids. Until their behaviour is up to scratch they have to bear the consequences.And I would hope would be donors would put pressure on them to do so if we changed the rules on donations.
September 8th, 2006 at 12:35 pm
gd:
Well, first in retrospect I’d like to apologise for being curt and over-snarky. People can have good faith differences on the question of anonymous donations to political parties in general, or election campaigns in particular.
I’ve got to go out for a couple of hours, but will respond to you in more detail later because there are some issues worth kicking around.
September 8th, 2006 at 1:32 pm
The EB may be an unattractive organisation but they are not an illegal organisation.
Trade unions may be unattractive organisations but they are not illegal.
Both of these groups speak to political parties and one group finances a party. No one know what was discussed behind closed doors with both EB and the Unions.
One party does not really want an arrangement with a group while another party can’t survive without it.
What is the real issue. – Spending taxpayers money and having not a fig of concern about it.
September 8th, 2006 at 4:41 pm
Cubit9f nails it. It is healthy that New Zealanders engage in politics. Regarding the activities of organisations without candidates of their own, so long as they are not acting on behalf of a party who is standing candidates- what is the big deal? Political pamphleteering is centuries old we attack it at our peril.