Shadbolt’s new ad
December 30th, 2007 at 4:34 pm by David FarrarThere was a variety of views on whether the ads run earlier in December by Tim Shadbolt would be caught by the Electoral Finance Act if run in 2008.
Well Tim has on his website an ad he is running tomorrow. There can be no debate at all that such an ad would be illegal under the Electoral Finance Act once the cost of them has exceeded $12,000. An extract:
Invercargill’s Southern Institute of Technology (SIT) is facing devastating, destructive, funding cuts of between $6.2 and 8 million.
This Government has ignored our pleas for mercy and therefore I believe I should have the right to advocate a change of Government.
I honestly believe that the National Party would be far more sensitive and encouraging towards successful, trade-based technical institutions that are providing quality education in this country.
Ironically, I have always been pro-Labour and won two elections as a Labour Party candidate for the Auckland Regional Authority.
However, in these elections I would urge my fellow New Zealanders not
to vote for the Labour Party.
Now Tim is running them on 31 December, not 1 January. It will be interesting to see what he does run next year. He says on the ad he refuses to register as a third party, so either he can only spend $12,000, has to run ads which don’t get caught by the law, or he has to shut up. I’m not picking the third option.
No tag for this post.
December 30th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
What does Tim expect? Labour needs the money to pay it’s army of departmental media hacks who will deluge us with feel good crap about ‘sustainability.’
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Fascinating; the EFL is all about the ability to choose who will be prosecuted.
“Not in the public interest” will be used so often they’ll need a stamp.
And it’s going to be no good trying to silence the EB’s via the law and ignore good ‘ol harmless Shadbolt.
Hulun must have thought this out…..? Maybe that’s the problem.
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
“I am not willing to register with the Government just for the right to free speech”
Tim’s comment sums it up…It is unacceptable in a “free” society to have to register to voice an opinion that may be critical of the Government.
Freedom to express an opinion up to a dollar value is not freedom it’s tyranny.
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Yes just imagine it, the veto power of government to silence critics? Oh well,they do it with Charities that work contrary to what the govt thinks is not in the child’s best interest . Control the people, they will learn too shut up? Will the enemy of state concept be employed as a tactic for power control ? Thats what the EFB was all about, wasn’t it ?
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Of course, it’s largely a charade because he could have continued his “campaign” for SIT without registering; he only needs to register when his campaign turns from issue advertising into campaigning for or against a party…
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
so as of tuesday, we live in a country where you can be arrested, fined and/or imprisoned for being overly critical of the government.
Happy New Year!!
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Where are political prisoners to be incarcerated, the prisons are already full ?
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
I wonder who provided the legal advice to Tim: “I have had to publish this appeal to you today, because tomorrow this will be subject to the Electoral Finance Act.”
I suspect he wants to be a martyr, but the EFA is already the law, and even though tomorrow isn’t a part of a “regulated period” Shadbolt may be in some trouble.
Section 63 (the bit that limits you to $12,000 without registering) only applies during a regulated period, and this ad would clearly be covered by that section if it were published during a regulated period (the bit that says “in these elections I would urge my fellow New Zealanders not
to vote for the Labour Party” clearly brings it within that section.
However, section 65 may also apply to this advertisement. And section 65 applies all the time – not just during a regulated period. That section requires advertisements promoting/encouraging votes for parties or candidates (as distinct from ads opposing parties etc.) to be approved in writing by that party and have a valid residential address (which Shadbolt’s advertisement lacks). It’s not as clear cut as “vote national” would be, but the combined effect of these sentences:
“I believe I should have the right to advocate a change of Government.
I honestly believe that the National Party would be far more sensitive and encouraging towards successful, trade-based technical institutions that are providing quality education in this country.”
must come awfully to advocating a vote for National (and if “I should have a right to advocate a change of Government, and I believe National would do a better job at XYZ” doesn’t fall within that you have to ask what short of explicitly asking for votes for National would be covered).
It’s obviously not 100%, but this particular provision is very similar to the provision in the Electoral Act 1993 that the Chief Electoral Officer believed members of the Exclusive Brethren church breached. They didn’t explicitly say “Vote National” either.
Perhaps he doesn’t want to be careful, but, as ever, I’m interested in just what his lawyer, or the EC has told him.
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
So TS wants to use public money to advocate for one political party over another? I’m not sure I’m even comfortable with that being allowed at all, and I certainly think it should be covered by regulations.
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Forget the semantics chaps. What you’ve got is one of new Zealands best known Lefties having a go at Clark and Co who actually have let the Left down with their foolish and lustful grasp for power at any price.
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Adolf
Words of wisdom
Thank you
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
I never thought I’d see the day when Tim S would be telling voters to go with National!!
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
Why does Tim think that National would fund the SIT any differently??
I am happy to be wrong but as far as I know National have made no announcement regarding there funding policies for tertiary institutions.
This seems like a very ill advised and somewhat desperate campaign by Tim he is busy burning bridges with the current Labour government and there is no guarantee that a National government will do anything different. Also is anyone going to comment on the merit or otherwise of the governments funding strategy? From what I understand it is all about quality over quantity and that would seem to be a good thing.
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
“I am not willing to register with the Government just for the right to free speech”
I’ll second that.
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
He’s getting massive media attention by tying this to the EFB. Maybe he’s hoping for a quiet gov’t backdown during the hols?
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
Rocket Boy
What did National say a month or two ago about putting focus on trade training?
Have a look and it will answer your question
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Adversity makes strange bedfellows because the cause he is advertising for (more public spending on poor quality education) national should be philosophically opposed to.
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Raffles: Have you got a link to something worth reading? I mean National Party policy is so scarce it is no surprise that I missed it.
Pete: I very much doubt that there will be a quiet government back down, like I said it looks like a good policy and Tim is busy burning his bridges, hardly the best strategy for Invercargill.
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
“burning his bridges ” = piffle rocket toy .
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Rocket Boy
If you can’t find the National Party website then what hope have you got.
Oops forgot H2 has banned you from visiting the site.
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Raffles, have you noticed how the leftie trolls always scream for links? Too bloody lazy to do their own homework.
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
Good try Rocket Boy but the debate has nothing to do with what National would do. You trolls just love to divert attention from this corrrupt left regime. This isn’t about SIT or even TS it’s about a power mad government filling it’s pants.
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
Actually side show the debate is about whatever we want to make it.
Has anyone asked where Tim is getting the money for his campaign? And if it is council money then why is it OK for him to be spending rate payers money on a political campaign?
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
It’s not rate payers money. Its not public money. Its been publicly stated this is being funded by businesses down south.
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Rocket Boy, will we hear you waxing indignant when Clark spends tens of millions of tax payers funds on political advertising? Why don’t you fuck off, dear boy?
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
Adolf, if DPF posts about it then I may comment but I doubt that my voice will be needed as you will all be falling over yourselves to heap scorn on Ms Clark.
And thank you, I’ll f&*k off when I am good and ready, this blog would be pretty boring if there weren’t a few people who didn’t think DPF walked on water.
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
“more public spending on poor quality education”
don’t believe everything you read in the papers, Kev.
Vote:December 31st, 2007 at 12:01 am
I was in the House for John Key’s speech on the bill. It got a standing ovation from many in the gallery, and first to his feet was Mayor Tim.
If Labour don’t cave in on the funding, he’ll be their worst nightmayor. Sorry.
Vote:December 31st, 2007 at 12:08 am
Who ever would have thought that the National Party favours fully-funded study places at a tertiary institution?
Tim (and SIT) are fighting the wrong fight. SIT still has an opportunity to remain fees-free, it just needs to use the money it is spending on an irrelevant political campaign to fund the remaining places. Perhaps some of SIT’s fair weather friends such as Peter Talley can help out there.
Bums on seats is a failed model, there is no political argument here. I still don’t understand why SIT needs to have a Christchurch campus, which essentially results in unnecessary duplication of taxpayer provided services. P
Vote:December 31st, 2007 at 7:03 am
The whole SIT issue is of interest to me as I am involved in this sector. The guts of it is Cullen has told all Poly’s/Institutes to get back to their own area. SIT has a heap of staff dotted around e.g. approx 50 in CHCH. It is likely that they have needed the out of town business to provide the extra revenue to survive.
Vote:This is seen as unbalanced as the same rules do not apply to the Universities.
Stand at top of Queen St Jaffalandlook to water: Auckland Uni to left, visible is/was signage of Canterbury & Otago. Also in area is AUT, Unitec, Massey, Waikato, MIT plus approx 25 other tertiary providers.
A country of 4million with seven uni’s plus others; does the competitive model work?
Shadbolt, the lefty, appears to want to protect SIT’s ability to be competitive backed by the funds from a licensing trust.
December 31st, 2007 at 7:35 am
Rocket Boy, what a strange creature you are. You appear to come along here with the express purpose of disagreeing with your blog host. For what it’s worth I don’t think DPF walks on water (he is of the wrong build) but he did a pretty Moses-like job of relling the EFB tide back, don’t you think? No wonder you come here to throw rocks.
If only you had a tenth of his ability to use careful analysis and reasoned argument then you might find yourself welcome.
I ask you again, will you be quite so vociferous in your condemnation when the Bilious Bitch rolls out her $40 million dollar electionadvertising campaign via IRD, WINZ and Environment, with all copy pre-approved by Heather Simpson?
Until you start answering these questions my polite invitation for to ‘fuck off’ remains.
BTW, do they give knighthoods to persistent Labour trolls as well as rich overseas party donors?
Vote:December 31st, 2007 at 7:59 am
Bums on seats is a failed model, there is no political argument here. I still don’t understand why SIT needs to have a Christchurch campus, which essentially results in unnecessary duplication of taxpayer provided services.
Policy Parrot – whether Tim is right or wrong in what he wants to achieve is actually irrelevant; it is whether he has the right to bring it up as an issue for the public to decide upon…
Vote:December 31st, 2007 at 8:00 am
Southtop -
SIT has a Chch campus because CPIT’s service was so shithouse the Building and Construction ITO and other industry bodies said “help!” about 10 years ago.
I’m sure it does provide revenue to SIT, but is more a case of providing a much needed service to meet demand, which is kind of how competition works…
Vote:December 31st, 2007 at 8:16 am
Why doesn’t Tim just do what Vicky Buck ( former mayor ) did and invent a ” cool cd ” so he can rip everybody off and make lots of money !!
Gary Moore ( former mayor )says Christchurch is in “good nick.” The city is the most violent in the Southern Hemisphere . Enough of the lies liarbore !!
Thieves and scoundrels the whole bloody lot em !!
Vote:December 31st, 2007 at 8:50 am
“I am not willing to register with the Government just for the right to free speech”
I thought Article 2 of the Treaty entitled Maori to full and unfettered access to all taonga, one of which I’d assume to be the taonga of oratory or speech.
Vote:So does not the EFB break the Treaty?
Is an Election legal, if held under rules which contravene the Treaty?
December 31st, 2007 at 8:58 am
iiq374:
And he can. Without registering. Without a spending cap.
It’s only election advertising, not issue advertising, which is caught.
[DPF: A silly truism which ignores the issue of the much wider definition of election advertising than in the past.]
Vote:December 31st, 2007 at 9:24 am
Off topic I know and I am probably being conned by Rocket Boy who first mentioned that DPF might be able to walk on water.
Those of you who are older will remember the joke when Muldoon was in power.
He was slipping in the polls (ah la Clark and Labour) and asked his advisers what he could do to restore his popularity.
One of them suggested he walk the length of Lake Taupo – on the water.
Of course he failed and had to be pulled out.
Newspaper Headlines the next day were
MULDOON FAILS TO SWIM LAKE TAUPO!!!
Vote:December 31st, 2007 at 9:26 am
Can witches walk on sewer ponds ?
Vote:December 31st, 2007 at 10:00 am
buggerlugs: no problem with competition but at present we have some strange bastasdised model where rules vary for some… basically lacking equity.
Vote:Add to this inequity the behemoth of the TEC and Shadbolt has something to shout about. I hope he tests this shitty legislation to the limit!
December 31st, 2007 at 10:04 am
So on issue advertising vs election advertising:
Does the law mean that someone who wants to post to an anonymous internet forum need to provide their name & address to their post if they want to explicitly say “vote labour” or “vote national”, but their name & address is not required if they want to post “vote for parties that support reducing carbon emissions”?
[DPF: Their name and address is required for both]
Vote:December 31st, 2007 at 10:08 am
Dean – except that for one to effectively communicate on an issue like that it is far more effective if you can identify which parties do / do not agree with your views in terms of policies.
Ala the Sensible Sentencing Trust each election, Greenpeace etc – at which point it is caught. Does it need to be as bad as Tim’s statements and should it involve a bit more research – probably, but again not really the point
Vote:December 31st, 2007 at 10:30 am
pdm: MULDOON FAILS TO SWIM LAKE TAUPO!!!
The other version was that Muldoon, annoyed that the media seemed biased against him, took a bunch of journalists out to Pukerua Bay and in front of them walked out across the water to the second line of breakers and back again.
Vote:Next morning headlines said MULDOON CAN’T SWIM!
December 31st, 2007 at 10:38 am
Yvette ; Sir Rob might have spotted a starving liarbore tiger shark lurking outside the second line of breakers ?
hehehehe from piggy above .
Vote:December 31st, 2007 at 12:10 pm
[DPF: Their name and address is required for both]
And the prior written permission of the political party’s financial agent is required for the former.
Vote:December 31st, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Thanks, DPF, Graeme….
I presume with the bill post-select committee that I can at least post my views on tax-cuts etc in general debate without any disclosure of name & address (provided I don’t mention any party, or suggest that I or anyone else should vote in any way on such an issue?)
However, I presume that without disclosing name & address that I’m not allowed to comment on specific policies by parties? (eg. Posting that I don’t think Labour tax-cuts will be implemented, or I guess even mentioning that Cullen reneged on the chewing-gum tax-cuts?)
Vote:December 31st, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Spam – if it’s on a blog, and you’re not being paid, you needn’t do anything.
Vote:December 31st, 2007 at 4:21 pm
No, not on a blog, unfortunately. I understand that there is a specific exemption for blogs. I’m just wondering what the details are for discussion forums, usenet etc.
Vote:December 31st, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Spam – if you stick to the issues, you’ll be fine. ‘Though I’m not sure that will be much comfort.
Vote: