No Right Turn wrong on the law

Normally I would just leave a comment, but as you can’t comment any more on No Right Turn I should point out that he has it quite wrong when he says about the Don’t vote Labour website:

Where the site does violate the law is in not carrying a statement setting out the name and address of its promoter (s53 (1) (a) EFA). But that would have been true under the old law as well. Section 221A (1) of the Electoral Act required advertisements relating to an election to carry such a statement, not just within the regulated period as at present, but at all stages of the electoral cycle.

The old law did not require any authorisation statement because the old law did not define a personal viewpoint on a website as an election advertisement.  To quote Graeme Edgeler:

It would not have been. The provisions of the Electoral Act relating to names and addresses only applied to advertisements (not “any form of words or graphics”), and only applied when those advertisements were published in a newspaper, periodical, poster, or handbill, or were broadcast on radio or television.

And don’t think this is a mistake.  It is deliberate.  Labour and the Greens (and poodles) voted against the following amendment to the exemptions from Chris Flinalyson:

the publication by an individual, on a non-commercial basis, on the Internet of his or her political views

If they had voted for that amendment, then this problem would not be here.  Make sure at the meet the candidates meetings you all ask the Green and Labour candidates why they voted against this amendment.

Comments (220)

Login to comment or vote