Definition of third party election advertising
Steven Price correctly pointed out this morning that you currently need to disclose name and address for a third party electoral advertisement. But the big change is how what counts as publishing an advertisement has changed. First let us look at the current law in the Electoral Act 1993 – Clause 221A(1).
Subject to subsection (2) 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 relating to an election unless 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 that person’s place of residence or business.
So an electoral advertisement is defined pretty narrowly – an advertisement in a newspaper, periodical, poster or handbill or an advertisement on radio or TV. And it only applies for 90 days and it has to be “relating to an election”.
Now we turn to the Electoral Finance Bill 2007. First we go to Clause 4(1) for the definition of publish, as it applies to us:
publish, in relation to an advertisement, means to—
(a) print or insert in a 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 displayed to the public; 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; or
(i) bring to the notice of the public in any other manner
Now you can see the massive difference. This is why placards, and megaphones, and e-mails, and messages on Usenet, and even speaking at a public meeting is now counted as publishing an advertisement. The law is explicit. The 1993 Act very tightly defined what was an advertisement. This Bill defines basically everything as an advertisement if it brings it to the notice of the public. And this was pointed out to the Select Committee, and they made it even worse by including (i).
Also worth remembering that this now applies all of election year.
Now we turn to the companion definition of what is an election advertisement, because hey surely speaking into a megaphone or posting to Usenet is not an advertisement as we understand it. But sadly statute law trumps common usage, and the law means what the law defines something as. If a law is passed defining me as a tall person, then I would be legally a tall person able to access the benefits of the Tall Persons Act 2009. Even if common sense says I am a shortie.
So we turn to Clause 5(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);
Now look at para (a) – any form of words or graphics. yes any form. Oral, written, on a placard, in a Usenet post.
And the definition in (ii) also includes statements such as “Down with parties who are against Kyoto” or “Only support parties which support legal party pills” or “Don’t vote for the Ginga (only illegal in Otaki). Okay last one is a bit far fetched. But the key is you do not have to explicitly say “Vote for” or “Vote against” to be covered and advocating on an issue such as “People should only vote for parties that support lower taxes” is covered – even if just on a post to Usenet.
So why have they gone with a law which includes speaking at public meetings, chanting in a protest, a placard, a post to Usenet as an election advert? The problem is their fundamental approach is flawed.
The old Act starts with a narrow definition of election advertising, and has just a couple of exemptions for media and the electoral agencies. That is how it should be. Sure you may want to widen the definition a bit to include some new media, but that’s it.
This Bill has been designed the opposite way. It defines absolutely everything in election year as election advertising, if a view is expressed publicly for or against a party. The starting point is everything in election year is to be regulated, and then they have come up with a list of exceptions, which keeps growing as they realise that the original bill banned media websites for example, and this version regulates megaphones on protest marches.
Now you can keep expanding the exceptions, but as I point out above, the fundamental approach is flawed. You shouldn’t start with regulating everything and then do exceptions when it comes to our rights to speak up on political issues. You should only regulate stuff over a certain threshold.
Hence this is why the EFB will not survive for long, regardless of who is in power. It starts from the wrong premise – that all political advocacy for or against parties is to be regulated. It needs to start from a premise that we want people to voice their views as much as possible, and we only then regulate those which involve significant expenditure
November 20th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Annette King taking a hiding in the house – Nice.
Congrats on the mention DPF
November 20th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Yes, im watching it now, she is making rubbish arguemnts, like “Oh, your only saying that the EFB is bad because it restrics your ability to rig elections”, its terrific!
November 20th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
She has been totally shown up in the light of good logical argument. She has nothing to offer at all. I feel sorry for Helen if this was truly her choice to replace Dancing Pete.
November 20th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Better make sure you cross your t’s and dot your i’s on your tax return DPF.
November 20th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
And she is getting a bollocking from her own, tame speaker as well.
November 20th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Oh boy, she is not having a good time in there, time for another reshuffle?
November 20th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Nick C, if you can’t read then analyse legislation, don’t bother commenting on something you obviously don’t understand.
November 20th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Whoops, wrong thread – sry Nick. Too much powerade
November 20th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Nice job, Bill E. Less outrage – more fact.
November 20th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Thanks for this David. Just wondering, where can I find the EFB so I can see what the exemptions are?
November 20th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/B3855C0D-338F-42C8-8E8F-C82715337CA7/69335/DBSCH_SCR_3906_5586.pdf
Sorry for the long URL.
November 20th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
<blockquote>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).</blockquote>
I’m not sure about this definition. I thought a publication on the internet was commonly known as a <em>web page</em> or <em>web site</em>.
<blockquote>any editorial material, other than advertising material,
published on a news media website that is written by, or
selected by or with the authority of, the editor or person
responsible for the website solely for the purpose of
informing, enlightening, or entertaining readers:</blockquote>
I guess this means that <em>commercial blogs</em> are exempt as well?
[DPF: By referring to it as a blog, it narrows the exemption to blogs rather than all websites. Only commercial media blogs are exempt, and even then the use of the word solely causes problems]
November 20th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Hi David,
Ever thought that the term “Commercial Blog” may be aimed specifically at you? Given that the rest of the bill is tailored to remove the National Party’s advantages, perhaps this is specifically aimed at you.
Otherwise, what could it mean? Blogs that are designed to make money would be part of newspapers (e.g NZ Herald, DomPost, the Press) and so therefore would be exempt.
November 20th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
I doubt it is aimed at me. In fact I suspect the explicit listing of blogs had me in mind. But I am puzzled why they did not delete the non-commercial requirement as it does make it quite uncertain.
November 20th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
DPF … any indication how they’re proposing to define “non-commercial basis”?
Do you fancy being a high-profile test case in the courts leading up to next years election?
November 20th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
They obviously want to get rid of single issue blogs supported by third parties. Think: instead of the EB handing on fliers, they pay for a website with daily updates from ‘Eric Blair’ about Labour, NZ First and the Greens.
November 20th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
VM if they insert the term “below market price” when talking about book sales, you cant trust them to adequately define “non-commercial”.
November 20th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
And what are they saying is a blog? I find the term “blog” itself too broad, it has many definitions and many forms and formats.
November 20th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
DPF – all this is based on the premise that a candidate speaking at a meeting will be deemed to be giving an ‘advertisement’.
They won’t because in order to publish an election advertisement under Clause 59 the promoter (the candidate) needs to be entitled to promote election advertisements. The candidate might be entitled to promote an election advertisement such as a billboard but I agree with pete yesterday: what the candidate says simply won’t be an ‘advertisement’ as we all know it.
Clauses 5 & 53 need to be read together. The candidate is not a “promoter who promotes election advertisements” at a public meeting. He/she might be if giving out material but I doubt is so by stating what party he/she stands for and what the policies are.
[DPF: You need to forget about what you think an advertisement is. Under the current law they do not define advertisement so one does go by common sense on what it means. But this law defines an advertisement incredibly precisely. And if you fall within the definition, you are in breach. So yes a candidate saying "Vote ACT because " is an election advert. In theory his or her speech needs to be approved by their financial agent]
November 20th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
DPF … if, for a moment, we think Kiwiblog would be caught by the “non-commercial blog” rule surely that just means you have to register with the Electoral Commission & list your name & address on your blog?
Then you could spend up to $120,000 on Kiwiblog in 2008? (I’m assuming that’s more than enough $$$ to keep the lights on)
[DPF: Yes I could. I would need an auditor and a financial agent which would be a pain and a set of seperate accounts for the blog which would also be a pain. But I do not intend to register. I will e-mail the Electoral Commission when this bill is law and ask them to decide if I fit the exemption]
November 20th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
I understand the labour left are practising goosestepping, and watching old 1930s german govt propaganda films. about some little man who had a mo, and power like helen and peter davis, (the past always comes around)
November 20th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
The best guess is that the addition of the words non-commercial in the definition of blog are designed to force parties to count as election expenses favourable coverage they’ve bought on a ‘blog (and bloggers they’re hiring).
National might look at DPF and think, hey, here’s our telecomms package, we’ll give you $1000 to say how wonderful it is. Or Labour might get someone from the PM’s office to start a blog called Keep Left NZ which bagged the opposition. The drafters of the bill don’t want to stop this happening, but if it is then we should know who’s behind it (and the cost should count).
see: http://blog.greens.org.nz/index.php/2005/08/10/brash-video/
Something like that anyway.
[DPF: Pity they didn't define it better, such as an individual who is not paid to blog. That would clearly exclude a blog which has adverts on it]
November 20th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Gooner – it won’t be an advertisement as we know it, but it will be an election advertisement because an election advertisement is “any form of words or graphics…”
November 20th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Graeme – you’ve stopped at the most important part (funnily enough that’s what my wife says)
You have the ‘reasonably be regarded’ qualification and then either of the two subclauses to satisfy, although I accept those two subclauses are pretty clear.
I have a solution – 60 deaf candidates who sign rather than speak!
November 20th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
” as the advertisement contains a statement setting out the true name of the person for whom or at whose direction it is published”
Whats the problem with that? What have you guys got to hide?
November 20th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
“I understand the labour left are practising goosestepping, and watching old 1930s german govt propaganda films”
Thanks for that, tell us, do people often back away from you at social events?
November 20th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
David
I have to say I am 100% with you on this topic. It’s a very serious issue, and glad so many are giving it it’s due focus and scrutiny.
But when you said you could be regarded as a “tall person” and not a shortie I was shocked. I mean .. that’s just taking it too far
November 20th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
a net identity known as ’sonic’ opines – ‘what have you got to hide?’ too funny.
November 20th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
uh uh, look out fascists. sonic’s back!
November 20th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
I tell you what Krazykiwi, next time I give a million bucks to a political party I’ll be sure to reveal my real identity.
Happy with that?
November 20th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
This definition of publish means that if I was talking to an MP over the phone and he said that he thought another party’s policy was silly, that would be influencing my vote in election year. If he confirmed that phone call by email and said the same thing he would be breaking the law
And if he left his address off the email he would be breaking it twice.
thats just mad.
November 20th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
She got pawned. Sorry for being off topic, but I knew nothing of this education reform bill… seems shiat.
November 20th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
I thought we were the fascists lee?
Do try and keep up.
November 20th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
No Sonic, you’re the Stalinists. Your uniforms aren’t as pretty as the Fascists ones. And you’re more thuggish. And the music is pretty dour. And the food is way worse.
November 20th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
“they made it even worse by including (i) bring to the notice of the public in any other manner.”
(i) is not as broad is sounds – its a typical covering provision found in many lists in legislation. Basic statutory interpretation means that (i) must be defined as meaning publishing in a similar way to the previous provisions (its called ejusdem generis).
None of the other provisions involve something like mere speech, they’re all some kind of recorded message, that is distributed to the public via different media, so it would be inconsistant to interpret (i) as including mere speech (or amplified speech).
[DPF: Considering the commentary makes it clear this new clause will include megaphones and loudhailers, then your argument is somewhat lacking. ]
November 20th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Richard – “But when you said you could be regarded as a “tall person” and not a shortie I was shocked. I mean .. that’s just taking it too far ”
No, don’t be shocked when someone can absolutely deny the empirical evidence that is right in front of them – it’s just ‘normalhood’ on kiwiblog….
November 20th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Favorite sonic lines…
“Do try and keep up”
“Thought not”
“What have they got to hide?”
really mate, you need to head over to script piffle dot com to get some new closing pearlers.
November 20th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
I thought we were the fascists lee?
Do try and keep up.
sonic try as I might, I just can’t keep up with the blinding rapier-like wit of your utterances. All I can do is admire from afar, in the hope that you may one day toss me a crumb of respect.
virtual – ther’s an idea, let us classify the quality of dictatorships by the food or music they have to offer. Perhaps Chinese Food under Mao would be tops, but I cannot think of any of their music which would ‘grab me’. . And of course, under Helen Clark, coming in a very low 20th might be … I can’t think of a kiwi dish but I do quite like Carly Binding.. may need help here.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Yeah, Carly is quite nice
November 20th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Lee, I should also have reminded Sonic that at least the Fascists got the trains running on time. I’m yet to see a train or bus running to schedule here in NZ for a while – I’m sure that’s firm proof the Labour party are Stalinists.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
The old ones are the best KrazyKiwi, I have my style and that is just the way it is.
Lee, I’ve never dissed you mate, not as much as you try and diss me. save the injured innocence for those people who do not know your record.
There’s a good chap.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
“I’m yet to see a train or bus running to schedule here in NZ”
If I’ve told you once about your wild exagerations I’ve told you a million times.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
virtual actually that is an urban myth. The Nazis and the fascists both were not particularly good at getting trains to run on time. The Nazis used trains quite effectively to generate cash by transporting jews across europe, but this was a gruesome form of timetabling. Incidentally I think I read somewhere that Hewlett Packard supplied the Germans witha rudimentary pre-computer to assist the Nazis to process jewish prisoners. Nice to think about the history of the device when you switch on and marvel at the smooth efficiency of our lap-top.
In the meantime, it is overstating it to call the lefties’Stalinists’. They are not. They are in crisis as an ideology, to be sure, but not because they are reverting more because they are having problems progressing…
November 20th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
brownie – pavlova or Carly? No choice.
hmm. sonic please stop trying to wind me up you know fully well you have attempted to diss me, and I took you to the cleaners. The best you had was some remark about ‘monkeys with typewriters’, which included a mispelling of the name ‘Shakespeare’.
It was a bloodbath.
Incidentally I started my own blog called ‘Monkey with Typewriter’ recently so tickled was I by your attempted put-down.
I have immortalised you , you bard of the keyboard, you.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Sonic and other Socialists Why cant I know the names of the people behind the organisations who give large amounts of money to ANY political party.
Is it that the Partys are afraid I will connect up the dots and see whose bribing them.
If the donors anmd the Partys are not corrupt then they will tell me If not I have to make up my own mind when I percieve favours being handed out.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Give us the link Lee. Seriously we’ve had a laugh in the past, sorry if ever went over the top.
|I’ve always thought you were an ok dude, as it were.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
its mutual sonic – there are some who visit here i wouldn’t piss on if they were on fire. I hope you take it in the spirit it is intended, if I say you ain’t one of them!
November 20th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
ps i’ll link it when I get my proverbial together.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Ahhhh….. there’s nothing more soothing than bi-partisanship.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Hey sonic, It is not just my imagination, you do appear to be a nicer, more polite version of the grumpy Scot who left a while ago.
What happened? Did you have a “near death experience” and glimpse the future under the present regime?
Not pretty huh?
November 20th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
labour seems more like facists than commies ,as they dont want to be equal with real workers only far richer, with all their pay ,perks and the bum lickers that surround then , you know the sort, people like sonic
November 20th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Sam, you wrote:
“(i) is not as broad is sounds – its a typical covering provision found in many lists in legislation. Basic statutory interpretation means that (i) must be defined as meaning publishing in a similar way to the previous provisions (its called ejusdem generis).”
As much as I cringe at anyone parading Latin phrases to justify their arguments, I agree with this in principle, but you also wrote:
“None of the other provisions involve something like mere speech, they’re all some kind of recorded message, that is distributed to the public via different media, so it would be inconsistent to interpret (i) as including mere speech (or amplified speech).”
This is where I differ. Your problem is that a Court will have to give some meaning to (i). If you look at the rest of the list, everything else is covered, so what else could (i) mean but speech? While a Court may not necessarily follow Select Committee’s report, the fact that the report does indicate that this provision was intended to catch speech will also be instructive.
If you can come up with a form of “recorded message” that is not caught by the rest of the list but is caught by (i), (therefore substantiating your argument), then I’d be interested to hear it (no pun intended).
November 20th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
A big storm in a teacup.
I explained why is not that problematic on my blog and suggested some wording which would entirely remove any doubt:
> LAWS179: “Electoral Finance Bill, new media, and megaphones”
November 20th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Couldn’t agree more. The definition of publish is the definition that one would expect and is the same as found in the Oxford Dictionary.
Common sense is important and is part of the social context in which all legislation is tested. Clause 3 of the bill lays out the ’spirit’ of the legislation upon which all that follows is rested:
3 Purpose
The purpose of this Act is to strengthen the law governing
electoral financing and broadcasting, in order to— 10
(a) maintain public and political confidence in the administration
of elections; and
(b) promote participation by the public in parliamentary
democracy; and
(c) prevent the undue influence of wealth on electoral out- 15
comes; and
(d) provide greater transparency and accountability on the
part of candidates, parties, and other persons engaged in
election activities in order to minimise the perception of
corruption; and 20
(e) ensure that the controls on the conduct of election campaigns—
(i) are effective; and
(ii) are clear; and
(iii) can be efficiently administered, complied with, 25
and enforced.
The word “financing” is clearly shown in the name of the bill plus the statement of purpose in clause 3 here. This bill does not limit someone on a soapbox with a megaphone unless they have been paid by another party to speak, in which case all they have to do is to make public who they represent (provided they keep within financial limits). There may be a requirement to register as a political group, but anyone wishing to participate in the election campaign ought to have made up their minds by Jan 1 anyway.
This bill is all about money. How much the control of the money we can spend at election time affects our ability to conduct effective democracy is the issue and which is being debated in the MSM. Clause 4 and 5 need to be seen in context of clause 3.
November 20th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
L@wgeek:
A van driving around playing election ads over a megaphone would be covered by 4(1)-publish-(i).
(btw, can any lawyers tell me how to cite that one properly?)
November 20th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
A law which impacts in any way whatsoever on a fundamental right to voice a legitimate opinion, is not a storm in a teacup IMHO.
If we are going to have such laws (and I agree that they are necessary), they should be drafted in a way which makes it very clear to those who read them, what they mean. Resort to Latin maxims of statutory interpretation, “for the avoidance of doubt” exceptions or the “spirit” of the law are what we might expect in marginal cases where a new development has created unforeseen consequences – not when we are at Bill stage a little over a month out from the commencement of the limitation.
The problem with the “publish” definition is that it confuses the action of publishing with what is being published. If, as Kent Parker and others suggest, it is not intended to cover speech, then focus on recorded communications as publications and capture the activity of publishing by any means (to cater for electronic advances) – The Films, Videos and Classifications Act definitions of “publication” and “public display” seem to me to cover it.
November 20th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
law geek – Kent seems to have a good point. How would arresting a group of civilians for holding placards without names and addresses advance any of the purposes of the Bill as it stands?
If you agree that it it wouldn’t advance any of the stated goals then do you agree that it’s far from clear that such protestors would be prosecuted if this Bill was to become law?
November 20th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Lawgeek, the definition of publish is just a standard definition, and yes, it does cover speech. However, all of clause 4 and 5 must be seen in light of clause 3. DPF has taken them both completely out of context.
November 20th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Having done a fair bit of tax law drafting I could´nt have written a tighter catch all clause myself. If it not legally enforceable it´s at least intimidatory. Wot a way to run an election: half the Bill will have to be litigated.
Going to enjoy pulling it to pieces.
November 20th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Kent, Roger Nome.
How do you chaps explain the raft of recent charges for SEDITION? How do you explain nobody being charged over the rorts at the last election. How do you explain Nick Smith, Gerry Bronwlee and Shane Adern being prosecuted, while nobody from Labour every gets charged and Trevor Mallard gets a promotion?
Your assurances sound extremely hollow. The bill is broken. Its starting point on this matter is “Election advertisements not to be published in regulated
period unless certain conditions met”, where election advertisements are “any form of word or graphics” advocating for or against a candidate or party. The preamble makes it clear the only things to be exempted are issues advertisements. The definition of “publish” has been deliberately widened to include “bring to the notice of the public in any other manner”.
Your comments ignore these facts. They can be most charitably described as wishful thinking. That is not a good basis on which to support fundamental changes to our democracy.
The bill makes it very clear, that the default position is that nobody should bring their views on the suitability of candidates or parties to the public’s attention – unless they follow the regulations, and give their name and address. That is repugnant.
November 20th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
“definition of publish is the definition that one would expect and is the same as found in the Oxford Dictionary.”
Do not pass go. The definition of publish is what publish is defined as in the Act itself.
November 20th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Given how successful the recent attempted prosecutions under the Terrorism Supression Act were, I doubt if anyone will be prosecuted under this act either!
November 20th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Milo – this bill still has a little ironing out left – obviously. But nothing huge that can’t be fixed. Ultimately however it’s going to have to be tested, though i can tell you now – no government is going to want to have the media pick up on a story in which hundreds of protestors have been arrested, simply for not having the relevant names and addresses on the placards that they’re carrying – it would be electoral suicide. So this is what i think are the possibilities-
A) The Law will be slightly amended to avoid confusion (i.e. a list of activities to be exempted will be added).
B) The Law will pass but the police won’t arrest anyone for minor infringements.
C) Some people will be arrested for this type of minor infringements and they will be acquitted because a conviction would be contrary to the purposes of the law.
Any of the above options wouldn’t be disastrous, and I believe that it’s for this reason that most level headed people, and rightists who aren’t just out to score a cheap political point (i.e. Not DPF) aren’t too worried about it.
November 20th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Milo, politicians have always been a backtracking, conniving, u-turning bunch. Why do you think they rank with car salesmen as amongst the least trusted. I don’t think that reflects on the quality of people we have in power, but rather it’s a hazard of politics as a vocation.
In relation to the labour party’s antics at the last election, we need a change of government, but don’t expect the next bunch to be lily white either. Power always corrupts, without exception.
November 20th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Kimble, I said that the definition of publish in this act is more or less the same one we are familiar with in the Ox Dict.
November 20th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
…should have been using the word “charged” instead of “arrested” in the last post.
November 20th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
“the fundamental approach is flawed”
when did this ever stop a good socialist??
November 20th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
I guess there will no longer be question time at meet the candidate meetings. The person chairing the meeting and the sponsoring organisation will be a risk of prosecution for allowing a publication (the question) and the questioner had better be wearing mask so they cannot be identified.
November 20th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
And I also would like to retract options ‘B’ and ‘C’. It’s going to be option ‘A’ …
November 20th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
Umm rogernome,
You posted at 20:30. “Milo – this bill still has a little ironing out left – obviously. But nothing huge that can’t be fixed.”
Didn’t you keep assuring us a while ago in lots of prior threads that the bill would be fixed in the SC? And now you are saying, wait!, wait! we can still fix a few minor things that are still a bit shady!
Sigh…
And, why do I keep picturing you as Rick from the “young ones”, beret and all. It’s just plain weird.
November 20th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Kent – I agree with you on changes of government. We need them regularly. I don’t agree with you on publish;
Oxford Dictionary: “verb 1 prepare and issue (a book, newspaper, piece of music, etc.) for public sale. 2 print in a book, newspaper, or journal so as to make generally known. 3 announce formally. 4 Law communicate (a libel) to a third party.”
The EFB: “Bring to the notice of the public in any other manner.”
This seems like a pretty large gap, especially as the commonsense definition of publish is (1) or (2).
Roger Nome: Even if option A is taken, it perpetrates the history of this – that changes to fundamentally undemocractic provisions are only made under extreme political pressure. Meanwhile, a bunch of other rorts slip through, because nobody has the time, or airtime, to fight them all. It’s repugnant.
November 20th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
colinm:
Don’t see your point. All of the worst aspects of the bill were fixed during the SC process. There are a few small technical details to be ironed out, hardly surprising.
Milo:
Yep, that’s the democratic process at work. The admittedly that process was lacking at points, the end result looks like strengthening our democracy – thankfully. Though i realise it’s hard to let go of your anger after months building it up, maybe it’s for your own good you know? You just make yourself look a wee bit unhinged and irrational by holding on to it.
November 20th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
What, me? Angry?
So Annette King, in parliament today, basically said that newspapers would no longer be able to engage in political advocacy. Feeling free today Roger?
The Westminster system has a well developed process of checks and balances. What we are seeing here is not following that democratic process, it is eroding it. But of course you know that. You just don’t care.
November 20th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
I thought she implied that any paper explicitly recommending a vote for a particular party would be caught by the $120,000 cap? Pretty easy for them to get around (i.e. they just don’t use the word “vote”). Even so, this ideally should be dumped as it seems too restrictive. Anyway, it’s all a bit unclear at the moment, so it’ll be interesting to get the full details/legal opinions in the coming days.
November 20th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
Milo,
pretty much sums up the everyday meaning of publish, meaning ‘make public’. There are no surprises there.
I am not alarmed by the prospect of having to inform the public of who I am and where I come from should I choose to do some public politicking next year involving the expenditure of money, and to register myself in advance. It’s no big deal. There are regulations everywhere. I am certainly not being prevented from expressing my political view, except maybe by the spending caps. Similarly having to get a WOF and registration doesn’t stop me from having the freedom to use my car. As members of a ‘free society’ we are required to follow rules in order for the complex society we have produced to function well.
November 20th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
Roger, good work keeping to the party line. “We fixed all your problems in select committee, nothing to see here, move along.” But of course, the problems weren’t fixed at all, just a bit of window dressing. Simply put, you are wrong but you just keep banging out the party line. It is incredibly annoying, because it isn’t discussion at all. It is just you filling threads with bland assurances that it is all good, and random accusations aimed at National that have no basis whatsoever in fact. You are wasting all our time.