Disclosure Requirements
Several people have tried to claim that you do not need to include your name and address on a placard etc unless you spend $12,000 and register as a third party. They are wrong, and I shall quote the clause in full:
53 Election advertisements not to be published in regulated period unless certain conditions met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—
(a) the advertisement contains a statement that sets out the name and address of the promoter of the advertisement; and
(b) the promoter is entitled to promote the advertisement.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b), a promoter is entitled to promote an election advertisement if the promoter is—
(a) the financial agent of a party, but only if the advertisement is a party advertisement promoted by, or on behalf of, that party; or
(b) the financial agent of a candidate, but only if the advertisement is a candidate advertisement promoted by, or on behalf of, 1 or more candidates; or
(c) the financial agent of a third party; or
(d) a promoter who promotes election advertisements during the regulated period in respect of which expenses are incurred that—
(i) in total do not exceed $12,000 (inclusive of goods 20 and services tax); and
(ii) in the case of advertisements that relate to a candidate in the candidate’s capacity as a candidate for an electoral district (whether or not the name of the candidate is stated), do not exceed $1,000 (inclusive of goods and services tax).
So 53(1) makes it crystal clear that any person who publishes an election advertisement must include their name and address.
And 53(2)(d) makes it even clearer by defining an eligible promoter as one who is not a third party but spends under $12,000 nationally or $1,000 in an electorate.
So make no mistake, any election advertisement published next year must have your name and address on it – even if they cost $1. In my next post we’ll look at what is defined as an advertisement and then what is defined as published. They are incredibly wide. An election advertisement is now a post in Usenet, a chant on a protest march, a placard, a speech to a group of people, a chalk slogan on a pavement.
November 19th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
David, I’m concerned you are applying the scare tactics a little too thickly here. Under current election law any election advertisement (even if it costs only $1) requires an authorisation. I totally disagree with this bill but we must beat it on the facts David – if we resort to hysterical spin it makes it that much easier for our opponents to marginalise us.
November 19th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
So does this mean that come January 1 2008 would I be allowed to paint a sign say 1500mm by 1000mm, put it on a stake, stick it the front lawn in view of 20,000 cars per day that says the following:
DOWN WITH SOCIALISM- VOTE FOR FREEDOM.
November 19th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Ahh! But! But! ummm…. Graeme said that…. ummmm.
No – the bill must be lying.
November 19th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
I can’t see what the big deal is in having to publish your name and address. It’s already basically a requirement is it not.
A quick glance at the Your Views section of the NZ Herald online and I would say 60-70% support the general intent of the bill. The biggest criticism from public commentators like Geddis is not the content of the bill but the process by which it is being put through. It is generally thought that electoral law should have greater cross party discussion and involvement.
It is hard to see the molehill through all the smoke that you are creating here DPF.
November 19th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
pseudonymous – you could. And I think you should. I know I’ll be doing so because even if this bill passes I’ll be legally entitled to.
November 19th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Santa – sorry but I am not. You have to look at how this ties into the definition of an advertisement. Under current law only a political party’s expenditure on party vote ads in the last 90 days had such an authorisation. And an ad was not any form of words or graphics.
The extension of the advertising definition to any third party activity that advocates in any manner for or against a party or candidate is what makes this unworkable.
Do not be fooled by the term “election advertisement” as if this is comparable to what we have had in the past. Think of an election advert as any person communicating in any public way their view for or against a party or candidate.
November 19th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
Santa – the problem I think is that the definitions of election ad combined with publish have radically expanded the coverage beyond what one would normally think of as electioneering and then the Bill has expanded the time period within which that limitation on free speech is imposed.
November 19th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Are you for real, Kent? Reading the same section, I was expecting mass suicides after we got knocked out of the RWC… If you’re going to engage in the logical fallacy of appeal to authority, at least try and come up with one I can take slightly seriously.
November 19th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
David, I think you’ll find under current law that any election advertising in the campaign period requires authorisation. And the total election period is the “last 90 days” prior to polling day. Which means currently any election advertising in the campaign period needs authorisation. I believe it was this fact that meant the Brethren were required to put a name on their infamous fliers and were thus tracked down.
I am yet to be convinced that the definition of advertising will cover people soapboxing etc but if it does I would imagine there will be massive civil disobedience. I guess I just don’t expect this government to be so naive as to allow this to happen, they are after all renowned for their cunning.
November 19th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Oops, Craig, did you just put your foot in it, or did I read you saying that most people were upset with the ABs getting knocked out of the RWC, in which case Your Views might be a reasonably unscientifically reliable indication of national sentiment.
While I don’t support the EFB, nor will I get swept away by some DPF/Boscawen sponsored extreme reaction to it. Have some balance. Chill. Get a life. etc. As reported on TV1 news tonight, National alone stands to lose 90% of its anonymous donations with these new regulations, which sheds some light on DPF’s reaction, given his close assocation as an employee of National. I would fight for my pay packet too.
Can’t wait to see DPF’s definition of ‘election advertisement’.
November 19th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
“I am yet to be convinced that the definition of advertising will cover people soapboxing”
Thats easy, try and find a way that it isnt.
November 19th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Kent
‘As reported on TV1 news tonight, National alone stands to lose 90% of its anonymous donations with these new regulations,’
And that is compared to how much of its anonymous donations that Labour stand to lose under the same Bill?
November 19th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
Lee, I heard 50%. Only repeating what I heard.
November 19th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Where is DPF’s definition of ‘election advertising’?
[DPF: Kent - demanding constantly I post something is rude and annoying. I do not live next to the keyboard. In fact I have been out at TVNZ filming for tonight's news]
November 19th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Lee C, Labour wont need them, they have the advertising budgets of every government department to work with.
November 19th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Kent, why do you need to see it?
The bill definition of election advertising is what counts, and its definition is very wide.
November 19th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Kimble, have you got a link to the definition?
November 19th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Hmmm… OK with name and address. I’ll put it in an unusual font, size 4, not sure what language I will use yet.
November 19th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Kent Parker,
haveyou ever thought of reading the bill? Specifically clause 5. Its very easy to do. You should try it.
November 19th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
And then read Clause 53. And then read the definition of “publish”. And then kiss your right to free speech goodbye.
November 19th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Clause 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);
and
(b) includes—
(i) a candidate advertisement; and
(ii) a party advertisement.
Ends
November 19th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
Lindsay, you forgot:
(2) The following publications are not election advertisements:
(a) an advertisement that is published by the Chief Electo-
ral Officer, the Chief Registrar of Electors, the Electoral
Commission, or any other agency charged with respon-
sibilities in relation to the conduct of any official public-
ity or information campaign to be conducted on behalf
of the Government of New Zealand and relating to
electoral matters or the conduct of any general election
or by-election and which either contains a statement
indicating that the advertisement has been authorised by
that officer or agency, or contains a symbol indicating
that the advertisement has been authorised by that
officer or agency:
(c) any editorial material, other than advertising material,
in a periodical that is written by, or is selected by or
with the authority of, the editor solely for the purpose of
informing, enlightening, or entertaining readers:
(d) any broadcast, in relation to an election, of news or of
comments or of current affairs programmes:
(da) 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:
(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—
(i) an incorporated body to its shareholders or
members:
(ii) an unincorporated body 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).
November 19th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
(2) The following publications are not election
advertisements:
(a) an advertisement that is published by the Chief Electoral
Officer, the Chief Registrar of Electors, the Electoral
Commission, or any other agency charged with responsibilities
in relation to the conduct of any official publicity
or information campaign to be conducted on behalf
of the Government of New Zealand and relating to
electoral matters or the conduct of any general election
or by-election and which either contains a statement
indicating that the advertisement has been authorised by
that officer or agency, or contains a symbol indicating
that the advertisement has been authorised by that
officer or agency:
(c) any editorial material, other than advertising material,
in a periodical that is written by, or is selected by or
with the authority of, the editor solely for the purpose of
informing, enlightening, or entertaining readers:
(d) any broadcast, in relation to an election, of news or of
comments or of current affairs programmes:
(da) 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:
(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—
(i) an incorporated body to its shareholders or
members:
(ii) an unincorporated body to its members:
(g) the publication by an individual, on a non-commercial 10
basis, on the Internet of his or her personal political
views (being the kind of publication commonly known
as a blog).
Ends
———————————————————-
November 19th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
So this is the ‘improved version after the Select Committee’ many on the pro-Bill side were promising us? It will be interesting to see the reposonses of the HRC and The Law Society (for two) on this newer, better version.
i think that the end-game hre is to get as much loading of the dice onto the statue books as possible. This is only possible by keeping the terms of referece so vague and debatable that credible oppositon is ‘stupified’ into submission.
And do not forget, the validation of the original Bill’s Human Rights credentials by Val Sim are still under the scrutiny of a court of Law.
Not that that appears to matter one iota to the encumbents
One last push for labour?
November 19th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
“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);”
This is the most important part, I reckon.
November 19th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
I can’t see what the problem is. It is clear that an advertisement in this definition either seeks to persuade to vote for a party, a candidate for a party, or a type of party or candidate (by referring to specific policies). There are plenty of political statements that do not fit within this definition.
So what does clause 53 say?
November 19th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Clause 53
Election advertisements not to be published in regulated
period unless certain conditions met
(1AA) Despite references in this section to a regulated period, this
section does not apply to polling day. Section 197 of the
Electoral Act 1993 applies to polling day.
(1) No person may, during a regulated period, publish or cause or
permit to be published any election advertisement unless—
(a) the advertisement contains a statement that sets out the
name and address of the promoter of the advertisement;
and 5
(b) the promoter is entitled to promote the advertisement.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b), a promoter is entitled to
promote an election advertisement if the promoter is—
(a) the financial agent of a party, but only if the advertise-
ment is a party advertisement promoted by, or on behalf
of, that party; or
(b) the financial agent of a candidate, but only if the advertisement
is a candidate advertisement promoted by, or
on behalf of, 1 or more candidates; or
(c) áthe financial agent ofñ a third party; or
(d) a promoter who promotes election advertisements during
the regulated period in respect of which expenses
are incurred that—
(i) in total do not exceed $12,000 (inclusive of goods
and services tax); and
(ii) in the case of advertisements that relate to a candidate
in the candidate’s capacity as a candidate
for an electoral district (whether or not the name
of the candidate is stated), do not exceed $1,000
(inclusive of goods and services tax).
(5) Every person is guilty of an illegal practice who wilfully
contravenes any provision of subsection (1) (2).
ENDS
November 19th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Kimble, the phrase that you quote was inserted to regulate the kind of campaign that the EB carried out at the last election, which did not specify a party that it supported, but which clearly was political and aimed at a party, not to mention hugely expensive. Personally I find this a bit of a Yawn, since natural justice took care of the EB and Nat association and they both ended up the worse for it.
November 19th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
Clause 123 Persons charged with corrupt practice may be found
guilty of illegal practice
Any person charged with a corrupt practice may, if the circumstances
warrant that finding, be found guilty of an illegal
practice; and any person charged with an illegal practice may
be found guilty of that offence even if the act constituting the
offence amounted to a corrupt practice.
Clause 124 Punishment for corrupt practice
Every person who is guilty of any corrupt practice is liable on
conviction on indictment to either or both of the following:
(a) a term of imprisonment not exceeding year
years:
(b) a fine not exceeding—
(i) $40,000 $100,000 in the case of a person
who is—
(A) a financial agent; or
(B) a party secretary; or
(ii) $15,000 $40,000 in the case of any other
person.
Clause 125 Punishment for illegal practice
Every person who is guilty of any illegal practice is liable on
conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding—
(a) $40,000 in the case of a person who is—
(i) a financial agent; or
(ii) a party secretary; or
(b) $10,000 in the case of any other person
ENDS
—————————————————–
The parts of the bill I’ve quoted are minus the old parts the select committee removed. These are included in the original pdf file.
November 19th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Kent, no shit.
You cannot advocate a position, Kent, you cannot put forward an argument, Kent, if either of them can be attributed to a certain party.
You cannot argue FOR a new tuatara sanctuary if it is Green Party policy. You cannot argue AGAINST welfare cuts, if it is NZ Firsts policy. You cant argue against legalisation of dope, if it is ACT party policy.
It doesnt matter WHY Labour brought in this bill, what matters is what it says right now and what it will mean for the future.
November 19th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
Errata:
Clause 124 (a) should say:
“(a) a term of imprisonment not exceeding [1 year] [2
years]:
November 19th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
So what than means is if you are in a protest and fail to put your name and address on a placard or out of a microphone and you get convicted for an illegal practice, you are liable for $10,000 fine.
November 19th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
So if you want to publicly criticse a politician, you have to provide name and address or be subject to a fine of $10,000.
That is not free speech.
November 19th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Thanks for clause 53, Lindsay.
From my understanding ‘advertisement’ means print, internet, TV or radio paid or sponsored promotional tool. There is nothing in my reading of clause 53 that would lead me to believe that the word has been redefined to cover megaphones, conversations or anything not currently considered an advertisement. There may be some gray areas regarding some internet sites, but nothing that a precedent can’t sort out.
The only things worthy of contest are the spending limits.
November 19th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Kimble,
I think you are reading too much into it. Why not consult a lawyer, or read somewhere apart from kiwiblog and find out what IS being said about the EFB and what is NOT.
November 19th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Kent, I have read the appropriate sections. If you can show me how these things WONT be included in election advertising I would like to see where.
It may seem like I am asking you to prove a negative, but I’m not.
November 19th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
A question for anyone who cares to have a shot at it:
First these parts of clause 5:
Clause 5:
(2) The following publications are not election advertisements:
“(c) any editorial material, other than advertising material,
in a periodical that is written by, or is selected by or
with the authority of, the editor solely for the purpose of
informing, enlightening, or entertaining readers:
(da) 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:”
ENDS
Where do the many organizations stand (eg. like the AA and health groups etc) who publish there own weekly\monthly magazines and newsletters who decide to publish an article or editorial that is of an overtly political nature after January 1st 2008?
Will they still be exempt under the sections of clause 5 quoted?
November 19th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Yes, as long as it is not advertising.
November 19th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Kent, you interpretation of the meaning of Advertisement is incorrect. See Clause 5. In short, it is any form of words or graphics that can reasonably be taken to encourage or discourage voting for a particular party or candidate.
In other words, any political speeech whatsoever.
November 19th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
So, if I join a protest march in election year, and carry a placard without my name & address on it, then I can get a criminal conviction, sufficiently serious that many countries will not let me disembark in their country? Or one that I need to disclose to future potential employers?
November 19th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Spam, I’m don’t think it will be criminal conviction, but am unsure. However, you can be convicted of an illegal practice and fined $10,000. Of course, if you carry a placard supplied by an official organisation, you’ll be okay.
That is one of the messages of this bill – politics is for groups, not individuals.
November 19th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Actually, if you put someone elses name and address and put a bag over your head, they may think you are a terrorist, and they wont be able to tell whether you break the law or not as they wont know who you are..
Does that help?
What if you share placards with three other people – do you all have to have your names and addresses on it if you are all goingto hold it – and what if a friend wants to assist – will you have to say – ” I cant give this placard to you because I`ll be encouraging lawbreaking?
November 19th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Perhaps all of us who oppose this stupid bill could play up and get ourselves arrested, that will overload the already clogged up courts thus bringing the justice system to a complete standstill!!
November 19th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Good idea, but as I have written there won’t be many arrests
November 19th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
Kent – you are partly correct.
Currently if you wish to erect a billboard in Mt Albert, for example, during the 3 month period prior to an election that says “vote Helen Clark”, because that billboard asks for a vote for a candidate it has to be included as an election expense and the cost declared in the candidates return. Moreover, the billboard must carry an authorisation of a name and address, as you say.
Clause 5 of the Bill redefines election advertisement (the vote part described above) and now includes in that definition “…words or graphics, or both, that can reasonably be regarded as doing 1 or more of the following:” – it then lists the items.
Subclause (i) is not so scary – “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”.
So words encouraging a vote for Clark would be prima facie an election advertisment. What Pete has argued here earlier is that walking down Mt Albert Rd shouting “VOTE HELEN CLARK” on a megaphone is not an advertisement as it is ordinarily thought of (in fact, some may think you’re a raving nutter if you did that!).
It is always useful to see what the purpose of the Bill is in order to ascertain what the words in the Bill might mean and I don’t have a copy of the Bill so don’t know what the Bill’s stated purpose is.
But if you assume the purpose of the EFB is to restrict *money* speech then unless the nutter mentioned above is paid by the National Party to walk down Mt Albert doing what he is doing I doubt the definition would cover that circumstance. However, don’t be fooled by the words “reasonably regarded”. From the definition above it is only the *words or graphics* themselves that can be reasonably regarded as advertising (by encouraging people to vote Helen Clark), and *not* the way in which they are spoken or indeed in what manner they are delivered. I think it’s 50/50 whether this needs to be declared as an election expense and whether the nutter is captured by s 53.
But, subclause (ii) is very scary: “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)…”.
This captures the issue position that the previous version of the Bill adopted. Now, let’s say our resident nutter above then went and stood outside Sue Bradford’s electorate office chanting “bring back section 59, smacking is not a crime”. I still think that is 50/50 and much would depend on either a liberal or strict interpretation of the Bill. Again, without seeing the purpose I can’t judge but the *whole* point is that this should never even be debated. Our poor soul above should never be in the position during an election year where he may have broken the law for expressing his views on section 59, for example.
What is interesting about Clause 53 is that it starts with a negative “Election advertisements not to be published in regulated period unless certain conditions met”.
By casting off this way, by importing a negative and prohibitive statement on election advertising, it is basically saying that ranting and raving about s 59 is illegal unless you follow the procedures.
My view is that this should be the opposite: it should positively encourage it rather than actively discourage it.
So Kent, after all that I think you are wrong and that it takes the billboard or pamphlet published by a candidate much further than you think.
November 19th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Dave – you may think there may not be many arrests (no, we’ll all be herded into ‘re-education facilities’) but I think Lindsay has a valid point from the POV that any enforcement of this ridiculous piece of shite brings a potentially huge public relations disaster for the Government.
And they won’t be able to spin their way out of it.
November 19th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
A-ha. I think I have found a curious thing.
If we assume the nutter above has published an election advertisement then he cannot do that unless the name and address of the promoter is mentioned *and* the promoter is entitled to promote the advertisement.
The promoter is entitled to promote in the usual ways (secretary of political party/candidate) but now also includes the financial agent of a third party – let’s say the Exclusive Brethren.
But our resident nutter is none of these: he is just an individual with a bee in his bonnet – much like D4J! So how is he captured then?
To do so he has to be a “promoter who promotes election advertisements during the regulated period…”.
Now put to the side for one moment the $12,000.00 limit, if our nutter is not a “promoter who promotes election advertisements” but is merely Joe Citizen (i.e. not a political operative at all and never has been) then he isn’t captured! He is simply not a promoter. He is just a guy with a loud voice!
I think it’s that easy. I think (pray) the Bill’s intent is geared around the professional political operatives and associates. My feeling then is that the guy in the street has nothing to fear.
November 19th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
Where do newspaper cartoonists stand under the EFB? Remember the dozens of cartoons depicting bribery by the Labour Party? One cartoon worth a thousand words. Do they become graphic artists and so offend? How about the hilarious cartoons lampooning labour policy? Is all the fun removed from an election under this bill? Anyone know? Its going to be very dull after 1 Jan 2008?
November 19th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
Frank,
I think cartoons would be untouchable.
November 19th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
C
November 19th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Cartoons would fall under the exemption provisions of Clause 53 – that seems pretty clear.
November 19th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Gooner, thanks for your response. While I see the potential for abuse of clause 5(a), there are two points:
1. it is open to interpretation and any judiciary in laying down the law will look to the spirit of the legislation which is clear to any half baked lawyer. Most of this clause is a clumsy definition of election advertising as ADVERTISING, not as Joe Bloggs voicing his political opinion.
2. even so, as I said before, what is the big deal with everyone knowing your name and address? Partaking in politics is a public activity and you have to be prepared to be open about who you are and where you come from.
While everyone is concerned about clause 5(a) the real cramp on democracy are the spending limits for pressure groups vs those for political parties. Clause 5(a) can be tidied up with a few words, clause 53, however, needs a few more zeros. The debate as I see it is over the unfair advantage given to incumbents over the rest.
November 19th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
“I think cartoons would be untouchable.”
Don’t forget Helen started on satire before the EFB came up.
The Herald will be a great void without the trade mark political cartoon
How Aunty hates them.
Then Garth George will have an appointment with the axeman.
Think Tapu will be safe. She supported repealing section 59 and also Goff’s trying to make consenting teen sex legal (under 16′s wif each other, which I also saw the common sense of.)
The Harolds bard Jim will be borderline I should think and will probably have opportunity to weaken his stand. He will also be expected to spell Outer Roa the correct way.
Hows Roto vegas going Garth?
November 19th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
Thanks for the news about cartoons. Newspapers will need to be wider as Helen’s nose grows and grows – and GROWS!
November 19th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
Buggerlugs,
Thanks for picking up the point I was trying to make. My view is with such a stupid law with so many clauses inserted for all the wrong reasons serious loopholes will be found and made use of. There will be court cases where this patently idiotic POS legislation will be exposed for what it is.
November 19th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
“There will be court cases where this patently idiotic POS legislation will be exposed for what it is.”
Maybe that is the whole govt case. Have people wasting time and finances battling in court while it continues its takeover of the country and treasury. No wonder they’ve been so hard out about taxes for so long.
they’re going to privatise them.
November 19th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
hinamanu,
You’re on the money with your comments, Labour and friends are banking on enough Kiwi’s behaving like a bunch of sheep and blindly going along with this shit.
November 19th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
You know, there aren’t enough police in New Zealand to stop random nutters from shouting on rooftops and I think it’s a serious mistake to look at this as a threat to what any individual can do as an individual. Where it will make its greatest impact is in suppressing any organised, national campaign to unseat Labour. You may think the EB is a legitimate target but it was just happenstance that the EB was a group everyone is so prepared to hate. It could have been any group, with any set of anti-Labour values to promote. Like the KtB group. Most specifically, it is an attempt to cripple EFFECTIVE, NATION-WIDE campaigns against Labour. Like the billboards and guerilla versions of them. Things that take real resources to create and implement. Like the Government’s advertising campaigns, for which there will be no legal rebuttals.
November 19th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
Ignore the Law … has a nice ring to it.
November 19th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
To paraphrase Clark Gable as Jack Thornton in the Call of the Wild: “It’s owning something that counts and taking it when you can’t get it any other way… that’s all right too. It’s the law up here… the law of the Ninth Floor. If there is something you need, grab it! Take it away from the other guy. It’s a good law. It works.”
November 20th, 2007 at 6:42 am
Oh, that’s interesting… so anyone who vocally opposes the EFB isn’t doing so in good faith, but to protect their financial self-interest? Pretty slimy drive-by, Kent. Perhaps someone needs to take his own advice and get a life.
November 20th, 2007 at 7:25 am
Kent Parker: Kimble, the phrase that you quote was inserted to regulate the kind of campaign that the EB carried out at the last election, which did not specify a party that it supported
Kent, are you suggesting that people who wish to expose flawed policies are not allowed to do so?
If, and entirely hypothetically, I had obtained secret emails from the National Party and converted them into a book attacking the National Party, I should not be allowed to publish that as it is a campaign that does not specify a party it supports?
Even though it is fairly clear that it is supportive of one party and attacking their opposition, might I add.
Do you honestly think people should not be allowed to comment against policies they disagree with?
November 20th, 2007 at 7:47 am
Pascal:
I agree. The law is flawed. However, if enacted as is, it would not result in widespread and draconian loss of free speech, which is DPFs main platform and which he is getting you guys all worked up over. Instead it would result in confusion and the need to set solid legal precedents. The more confusing the law is, the more that judges have to refer to “the spirit of the legislation”, which in this case is clearly to limit third party spending on election advertising and not to prevent free speech.
Craig, financial connections cannot be ignored, and in politics we demand to know what the financial connections of our public political figures are. It is up to the figures themselves to decide whether good faith or financial self-interest is the leading factor in their thinking. Yeah, and personal innuendo is a great way to seal an argument.
November 20th, 2007 at 7:50 am
Sorry, DPF, that I got impatient for a definition of election advertising, but in this post you did say:
<blockquote>In my next post we’ll look at what is defined as an advertisement and then what is defined as published. </blockquote>
Which as yet is still to happen.
[Jesus Kent - you are cruising for a bruising. Strangely after I finished work at midnight last night I didn't feel like blogging at 1 am. And hey as I had to be at Radio NZ before 7 am I didn't have time to get up and blog at 5 am. And how inconsiderate of me to have had meetings non stop until 10.30 just so I could blog for your benefit. Tell you what Kent - give me a cheque for $150,000 and I'll give up my jobs so I can blog on demand for you. If you are not prepared to do that, then shut the fuck up]
November 20th, 2007 at 8:10 am
I prefer to assume people are putting arguments forward in good faith, unless I have a very good reason to believe otherwise. Apparently you don’t, but I guess if you don’t want to (or can’t) seriously engage with the arguments DPF has put up, then the next best option is to float the innuendo that he’s only taking the position he does to line his own pocket.
November 20th, 2007 at 8:11 am
But to be entirely fair to Kent, he does pull the smear a wee bit more subtly than Tane, TomS et. al. …
November 20th, 2007 at 8:13 am
Kent Parker: I agree. The law is flawed. However, if enacted as is, it would not result in widespread and draconian loss of free speech, which is DPFs main platform and which he is getting you guys all worked up over.
You have not answered the assertions yet. You have indicated the EB was wrong for daring to oppose Green Party policy. I am asking you, do you, Kent Parker and representative of the E-Party believe that people should not be allowed to speak their peace in freedom come election year?
November 20th, 2007 at 8:22 am
Get real, Craig. Politicians, like the rest of us, often support policies that are more likely to line their own pockets, such as tax cuts. You seem to be taking the position that we don’t need to know what conflicts of interest or financial connections political figures have.
I don’t think the term ‘good faith’ really applies to policy making. An argument is an argument and can be driven by any number of motivations. Depending on your style you may wage an argument through good logic, straight out abuse, evasion or subtle manoevring. You may argue from personal need, principle or morals and so on.
I am still waiting for DPF to put up his arguments regarding election advertising and publishing. See previous comment.
November 20th, 2007 at 8:25 am
No Kent, your assertion was that DPF is posting opposition to this bill because not to do so would lose him income. That is a foul accusation to make. And now you are contending that Craig supports backroom politics?
Get a grip man.
November 20th, 2007 at 8:51 am
<blockquote>your assertion was that DPF is posting opposition to this bill because not to do so would lose him income</blockquote>
I didn’t assert it, I inferred it, and there is a definite connection between funding of political parties and DPF’s previous employment. I am making what I consider is an objective observation, not a defamation or foul accusation. You can draw what you like from the observation and my motivation behind doing it.
[DPF: It is highly defamatory and most of all completely wrong. Have you read the bill Kent? Do you know what sort of company I own? Are you aware that my joke name for the Bill is the "Permanent enrichment of polling companies" Bill because it restricts greatly what a party can spend money on in election year, but exempts polling from that (as the current law does) which means that any surplus money is highly incentivised to go polling's way. Also with blogging being the only exempt form of online communication, I personally stand to do bloody well financially if this bill passes. I have acted very much against my financial interest with my opposition to the regulated period. It means an extra 8 months a year where a party can't spend money on anything but polling. Praise be to Mark Burton.]
November 20th, 2007 at 8:58 am
Kent: given his close assocation as an employee of National. I would fight for my pay packet too
An objective observation? Yes, dear.
November 20th, 2007 at 9:33 am
One of the biggest issues associated with this legislation is how much National would lose in anonymous donations:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/feature/story.cfm?c_id=1501118&objectid=10477167
DPF’s outspoken-ness on this issue has landed him more publicity than ever before:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/feature/story.cfm?c_id=1501118&objectid=10477154
Maybe he is doing it in ‘good faith’. Maybe he has other motivations. It is really not mine to say, but I can point out some connections. And, yes, I would fight for my pay packet. Wouldn’t you?
November 20th, 2007 at 10:16 am
A donation by a Trust eg the Waitemata Trust’s $1.2mil to the National Party in 2005 is called an “anonymous” donation. But if a donation by a company is not an anonymous donation could someone incorporate a company called “Get Rid of Labour 2008 Ltd” (or similar) & use it to funnel donations to appropriate places? Would this be deemed to be donations by the directors of that company?
Can anyone give me a quasi-legal opinion on this?
November 20th, 2007 at 10:44 am
A trust donation is not an anon donation. However if the trust receives money solely to pass it onto a party, they will now be required to disclose who gave it to them. I have little problem with this.
November 20th, 2007 at 11:04 am
And, yes, I would fight for my pay packet. Wouldn’t you?
Not to the extent that I’d act as covert sock puppet, Kent. Anyone who wants to hire me as a spin doctor is quite welcome to make their best offer, but we’re going to be hammering out a very generous pay package and a clear disclosure policy.
And when I call someone a liar and a hypocritical sock puppet, I own what I say rather than hiding behind convoluted semnatic hair-splitting. If DPF is trying to hide his employment history and partisan affiliations, he really sucks at it – despite the vapourings of folks like you and Tane.
November 20th, 2007 at 11:05 am
Whoah!! The Vicar of Dibley would give you a $1000 fine for that use of biblical language. I was just saying sorry. I do understand you are a busy person, but, hey, this is taking it a bit far, but wait, you are probably taking your interpretation of the EFB too far anyway.
November 20th, 2007 at 11:10 am
Stick to facts rather than innuendos.
November 20th, 2007 at 11:35 am
DPF,
I am sorry if you consider my inference to be defamatory. I do not believe that I am saying anything incorrect in pointing out that you were once employed by the National Party (working as a consultant or somesuch) and that one of the biggest issues surrounding the EFB is how much National loses in donations. There is nothing defamatory or slanderous about that whatsoever and there is definitely a connection. (The inference is that there is a connection, not that you stand to gain, because you may never work for the Nats again.)
You are promoting yourself as a public political figure supposedly with views that we should listen to. I think you should read your response to my comment in light of that.
I commend you for opposing the EFB even if it means it puts you out of pocket regarding your business.
I am reasonably familiar with the bill at this stage from first hand read and public commentary. I am not an expert.
November 20th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Kent:
Who do you think you’re kidding:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/11/oh_for_all_those_claiming_i_am_wrong.html#comment-369410