“(a) means a person on whose initiative an election advertisement is
published; and

(b) includes, without limitation, a person— ”
………..
This defines it, in terms of an election advertisement,which is effectively anything remotely associated with taking a position about anything that may interest the pollys. cl. 16 ["An application by a promoter to be listed as a third party may be made to the Chief Electoral Officer---"]. So all promoters are caught. “8 Appointment of financial agent for third party

(1) A third party must appoint a financial agent”

53 Election advertisements not to be published in regulated period unless
certain conditions met
(1) No person may, during a regulated period, publish or cause or permit to
be published any election advertisement unless-
…………
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b), a promoter is entitled to promote
an election advertisement if the promoter is—
………….
(c) a third party; or

S. 221 is meant to catch those would place fake advertisements on behalf of a party so only what is expressly authorised for advertising by the party is included in the limited expenditure. I think there is a similar provision regarding candidates. These election tricks were being carried out to my knowledge in the 1975 election. The section is very limited as to what it applies to, in contrast to cl. 55 of the EFB.

What has NZ come to?

“[221Advertisements for candidates and political parties

(1)Subject to subsections (2) and (3) of this section, no person shall publish or cause or permit to be published in any newspaper, periodical, poster, or handbill, or broadcast or cause or permit to be broadcast over any radio or television station, any advertisement which—

(a)Is used or appears to be used to promote or procure the election of a constituency candidate; or

(b)Encourages or persuades or appears to encourage or persuade voters to vote for a party registered under Part 4 of this Act.

(2)A person may publish or cause or permit to be published an advertisement of the kind described in subsection (1)(a) of this section if—

(a)The publication of that advertisement is authorised in writing by the candidate or the candidate’s agent or, in the case of an advertisement relating to more than one candidate, the candidates or the party to which they belong; and

(b)The advertisement contains a statement setting out the true name of the person for whom or at whose direction it is published and the address of his or her place of residence or business.

(3)A person may publish or cause or permit to be published an advertisement of the kind described in subsection (1)(b) of this section if—

(a)The publication of that advertisement is authorised in writing by the Secretary of the party or his or her delegate; and

(b)The advertisement contains a statement setting out the true name of the person for whom or at whose direction it is published and the address of his or her place of residence or business.”

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/libraries/contents/om_isapi.dll?clientID=1688761356&hitsperheading=on&infobase=pal_statutes.nfo&jd=a1993-087%2fs.221&record={2514C}&softpage=DOC#JUMPDEST_a1993-087/s.221

The problem with cl. 55.is the definition of “promote”.

This is the explanatory note -

“Clause 55 provides that an election advertisement that encourages or persuades,
or appears to encourage or persuade, voters to vote for a party or candidate
must be authorised in writing by the financial agent of the party or the
candidate, as the case may be. An election advertisement that encourages or
persuades, or appears to encourage or persuade, voters to vote for 2 or more
candidates must be authorised in writing by the financial agent of each of the
candidates or by the financial agent of the party to which the candidates
belong. The election advertisement must state the name and address of the
promoter who has promoted the advertisement.”

There is no mention here of cl. 55 being limited to election advertisements placed directly by or on behalf of a party or candidate. The generality appears in cl. 55 in the word ‘promote’ which
“means a person on whose initiative an election advertisement is published…”. The definition of electoral advertisement even includes “taking a position on a proposition with which 1 or more
parties or 1 or more candidates is associated” Publication does not help either to narrow the definition. It would seem in any case that cl. 55 (1) (a) applies so that 3rd parties require written authorisation by a promoted political party. Whether it is included in the party election expenses is doubtful but it may be that any printed advertisement of a 3rd party that has been duly authorised by a political party has to be included in the political party expenses. Isn’t that what Klark & Co wanted in regard to the EB? I do not trust these provisions. Any amibguity now may be removed later when the electoral officers interpret it restrictively.

Relevant clauses follow–
——————————————————————–
55 Requirements for election advertisements that promote parties or
candidates

(1) No person may publish, or cause or permit to be published, an election
advertisement that encourages or persuades, or appears to encourage or
persuade, voters to vote for a party unless the advertisement—

(a) is authorised in writing by the financial agent of the party; and

(b) contains a statement that sets out the name and address of the
promoter of the advertisement.

(2) No person may publish, or cause or permit to be published, an election
advertisement that encourages or persuades, or appears to encourage or
persuade, voters to vote for a candidate unless the advertisement—

(a) is authorised in writing by the financial agent of that candidate;
and

(b) contains a statement that sets out the name and address of the
promoter of the advertisement.

(3) No person may publish, or cause or permit to be published, an election
advertisement that encourages or persuades, or appears to encourage or
persuade, voters to vote for 2 or more candidates unless the advertisement—

(a) is authorised in writing either by the financial agent of each of
those candidates or by the financial agent of the party to which those
candidates belong; and

(b) contains a statement that sets out the name and address of the
promoter of the advertisement.

(4) Every person is guilty of an illegal practice who wilfully contravenes
any provision of this section.

———————————————————
5 Meaning of election advertisement

(1) In this Act, election advertisement—

(a) means any form of words or graphics, or both, that can reasonably be
regarded as doing 1 or more of the following:

(i) encouraging or persuading voters to vote, or not to vote, for
1 or more specified parties or for 1 or more candidates or for any combination
of such parties and candidates:

(ii) encouraging or persuading voters to vote, or not to vote, for
a type of party or for a type of candidate that is described or indicated by
reference to views, positions, or policies that are or are not held, taken, or
pursued (whether or not the name of a party or the name of a candidate is
stated):

(iii) taking a position on a proposition with which 1 or more
parties or 1 or more candidates is associated; and

(b) includes—

(i) a candidate advertisement; and

(ii) a party advertisement.

(2) The following publications are not election advertisements:

(a) an advertisement that is published by the Chief Electoral Officer,
the Chief Registrar of Electors,…………

(b) an advertisement within the meaning of section 43(1) of the Citizens
Initiated Referenda Act 1993:

(c) any content of a newspaper or periodical that has been selected by,
or with the authority of, the editor of the newspaper or periodical solely for
the purpose of informing or entertaining its readership:

(d) any content of a radio or television programme that has been
selected by, or with the authority of, a broadcaster (within the meaning of the
Broadcasting Act 1989) solely for the purpose of informing or entertaining its
audience:

(e) a book that is sold for no less than its commercial value, if the
book was planned to be made available to the public regardless of any election:

(f) a document published directly by a body corporate or unincorporated
to its members:

(g) the publication by an individual, on a non-commercial basis, on the
Internet of his or her personal political views (being the kind of publication
commonly known as a blog).
————————————–
promoter—

(a) means a person on whose initiative an election advertisement is
published; and

(b) includes, without limitation, a person—

(i) who enters into a contract, arrangement, or understanding
with another person to the effect that the other person publish an election
advertisement; or

(ii) who publishes an election advertisement in the absence of
such a contract, arrangement, or understanding
———————————————–

publication, in relation to an advertisement, means to—

(a) insert in a newspaper or other periodical published or distributed
in New Zealand; or

(b) issue, hand out, or display; or

(c) send to any member of the public by any means; or

(d) deliver to any member of the public, or leave at a place owned or
occupied by a member of the public; or

(e) broadcast; or

(f) include in a film or video; or

(g) disseminate by means of the Internet or any other electronic medium;
or

(h) store electronically in a way that is accessible to the public
————————————
party advertisement means any form of words or graphics that can reasonably
be regarded as encouraging or persuading voters to do either or both of the
following:

(a) to vote for the party (whether or not the name of the party is
stated):

(b) not to vote for another party (whether or not the name of the party
is stated)
——————————————–
candidate advertisement means any form of words or graphics that can
reasonably be regarded as encouraging or persuading voters to do either or both
of the following:

(a) to vote for a candidate in the candidate’s capacity as a candidate
for an electoral district (whether or not the name of the candidate is stated):

(b) not to vote for another candidate (whether or not the name of the
candidate is stated)
————————————-
party advertisement means any form of words or graphics that can reasonably
be regarded as encouraging or persuading voters to do either or both of the
following:

(a) to vote for the party (whether or not the name of the party is
stated):

(b) not to vote for another party (whether or not the name of the party
is stated)
——————————————
81 Meaning of election expense

(1) In this subpart, election expense means an expense that—

(a) is incurred in undertaking a party activity; and

(b) is incurred in respect of any of the following costs:

(i) the cost of the preparation, design, composition, printing,
distribution, postage, and publication of a party advertisement:

(ii) the cost of any material used or applied for a party
advertisement:

(iii) the cost of displaying a party advertisement on any
advertising space on any land or building that is used solely or principally
for commercial or industrial purposes.

(2) Despite subsection (1)(b), election expense does not include the cost
of—

(a) travel:

(b) the conduct of any survey or public opinion poll:

(c) the labour of any person that is provided free of charge by that
person:

(d) the replacement of any material used in respect of a party
advertisement which has been destroyed or rendered unusable by 1 or more
persons (other than a person acting on behalf of the party) or by the
occurrence of an event beyond the control of any person acting on behalf of the
party:

(e) the election expense of any of the party’s candidates:

(f) allocations of time and money made to the party by the body
responsible for such allocations under the Broadcasting Act 1989:

(g) any publications that relate to a member of Parliament in his or her
capacity as a member of Parliament.

(3) Where any material referred to in subsection (1)(b)(ii) or any
advertising space referred to in subsection (1)(b)(iii) is provided free of
charge, the commercial value of that material or advertising space must be
included as an election expense.

(4) Where any material referred to in subsection (1)(b)(ii) or any
advertising space referred to in subsection (1)(b)(iii) is provided at less
than its commercial value, the amount of the difference between the contract
price of the material or advertising space and the commercial value of that
material or advertising space must be included as an election expense.

(5) However, subsections (3) and (4) do not apply where the commercial value
of the material or advertising space is less than $1,000.

(6) For the purposes of subsections (3) to (5), commercial value, in
relation to any material referred to in subsection (1)(b)(ii) or any
advertising space referred to in subsection (1)(b)(iii), means the lowest
amount charged at the time the material or advertising space was provided, for
the same kind and quantity, by—

(a) the person who provided it, if that person is in the business of
providing that material or advertising space; or

(b) another person who provides that material or advertising space on a
commercial basis in the area where it was provided, if the person who provided
the material or advertising space is not in that business.
————————————————-
80 Interpretation

In this subpart, unless the context otherwise requires,—

election expense has the meaning given to it by section 81

party activity, in relation to a party, means an activity—

(a) that is undertaken by, or with the authority of,—

(i) the party; or

(ii) the party’s financial agent; and

(b) that comprises the publication of a party advertisement in any form
(for example, in the form of a radio or television broadcast, notice, poster,
pamphlet, billboard, or electronic message); and

(c) that is undertaken, or deemed by section 85 to have been undertaken,
during the regulated period; and

(d) does not include anything done in relation to a member of Parliament
in his or her capacity as a member of Parliament

There is a clever hidden fishhook: cl. 55. requires all promoters (i.e. anyone initiating) an electoral advertisement (doing anything during the regulated [muzzled] period) to have it agreed to in writing by the political party it promotes (encourages). The ambiguity lets this one slip under the radar. The effect is that all third party spending or activity is required to be approved by the relevant party it promotes and included in its counted expenditure.

So the ‘best’ thing to do would be to produce a pamphlet saying “Support [insert party name]” and get them to approve it, make it nice. It shouldn’t be that hard to convince some of the more guillible candidates to endorse them, ‘free’ publicity and all… Then hit them with a big “Oops, sorry overspent the budget of $5,000 actually spent $50,000″ so they have to take that into account on their electral spending, but have ‘logistic difficulties” and not deliver them properly/or at all. Coordinate this with several electorates early in the year and screw both the candidates electoral spend limits and the overall party spend – you’d only need to be able to get a dozen or so electorates to majorally hamper that party.

well said My thinking on this Bill is all the better for the debate.

Section 25 of Crimes Act 1962: The fact that an offender is ignorant of the law is not an excuse for any offence committed by him.

But in this man’s world, it appears that ‘plausible deniability’ is not only an acceptable defence for Helen Clark and her cronies, it has become part of their political currency.

Section 25 of Crimes Act 1962: The fact that an offender is ignorant of the law is not an excuse for any offence committed by him.

This was quoted by Police commissioner Rob Robinson when he publicly reported on the 260 A4 page report on Helen’s Paintergate fraud.

Members of Parliament and all State Servants are really susceptible to the Special Sections of the Crimes Act 1961.

Taito Philip Field comes well and truly into this category. If he had not been a MP and a Minister he would never have had the opportunity of advantaging himself to the disadvantage of others.

My allegation against him, which was buried by the Police Commissioner took into account S. 25 Ignorance. I’m not entirely sure of the charges against Field. But, if they relate to his abusing his position as a MP and Minister, it would be similar to my complaint.

It would be a first and would set the cat among the pigeons. Other Allegations in which I have been involved, under Sections 100 to 116 have been laid with the police, but they have all been buried.

The Taito Field case has dragged on now for 14 months? Like Rickard’s case? Did you see Police Association O’Connors on TV last night? “Methinks he protesteth too much – tongue in cheek?

Furthermore, does Labour want ideas suppressed by this Bill. The answer is pretty clear: Yes. If so why? Why are they so worried about people being exposed to new ideas? Are they the font of all knowledge now via their massive budget available by promoting government policies? Why don’t we all treat ourselves equal before the law: everyone has a large budget (i.e. if ‘big business’ has a lot of money, then I’m pretty certain this socialist government has enough money to promote its own ideas) or everyone has a limited budget. One or the other, but note that whil eoy uneed mponey to promote your ideas, acceptance of the idea is based on the idea itself. Plenty of people rejected both the ideas from the businessmen from the EB as well as Labour’s own policies. Nothing wrong with that; in fact, it indicates a healthy democracy.

If it promotes a party e.g. “vote for National” then you do need permission from National.

This does not change.

They are. The philosophy/ ideology is commonly referred to as communist, but goes under many pseudonyms, such as “progressive, liberal, socialist, etc”. Where one professes to care for some ideal, and speaks in humanistic terms of preserving that ideal, whilst all the while working furtively and gradually to destroy it.

The strategy could be called Mugabean, or Chavezian, or (now) Klarkovian..

I’m puzzled by this. How can that be an enforceable law. A person may publish a pamphlet advocating a political stance but not endorsing any party. (no particular party may be attractive) What’s the deal then??

There is a clever hidden fishhook: cl. 55. requires all promoters (i.e. anyone initiating) an electoral advertisement (doing anything during the regulated [muzzled] period) to have it agreed to in writing by the political party it promotes (encourages). The ambiguity lets this one slip under the radar. The effect is that all third party spending or activity is required to be approved by the relevant party it promotes and included in its counted expenditure. So no speaking out of place. I don’t know if this was intentional and I told the SC that it might have been. I have seen obscurity used to hide provisions in a NZ tax Bill that the Government wanted, but did want it freely revealed for political reasons (it was a small tax perk to a very small group). I know the drafting tricks that are possible and law draftsmen or any other class or species of genus human charged with the textual construction of such a Bill as may be enacted for the benefit, personal or otherwise of Dear Leader Klark, whether it be solely for her personal benefit or for the benefit of her and any other person including her remote and peculiar husband or any other person or organisation she is associated with or may aid or assist in the constraint, reduction, or dimminuition of the works or personage of any person or body corporate or unincorporate wherever they may be situated and without limiting the generallity of these provisons in particular Hellensville and Parnell. Read the small print too!