Website warned it breaches Electoral Finance Act
I blogged last week on young Andy Moore’s Don’t Vote Labour website, and pointed out that it is now classified as an election advertisement and breaches the Electoral Finance Act, as it does not state on the site te name and residential address of the person responsible or promoter.
Labour and the Greens voted against an amendment which would have had all non commercial speech on the Internet defined as not being an election advertisement. At present it is only such speech on blogs and media sites. This is of course very silly as
the difference between a blog and the website Andy set up is what sort of technology it uses. But again this is not a drafting error – they voted down an amendment which would have solved this problem.
Now there was a vigorous discussion on the previous thread about whether the Electoral Commission would take any action against the website. Roger Gnome especially insisted there was no chance at all.
The Herald reports today that the Electoral Commission has contacted Andy Moore, and that an authorisation requirement is needed on the site.
We also have another law breaker in Internet personality Bruce Simpson. Bruce has been having his say on the Internet since before I knew there was an Internet. And he isn’t too keen about registering either.
So on his Aardvark site, Bruce has an illegal election advertisement. Not against the Government, but in fact campaigning for Helen Clark in Mt Albert. He has ascribed it a value of $100 a day, so believes he will be prosecuted in 40 days time once the value as reahed $4,000.
In fact Bruce will run into trouble before then. As it is an advertisement urging support for a candidate, he needs the permission of Helen Clark’s financial agent. Yes you can not put a banner on your own website urging support of a candidate without their permission. The old law also required permission, of course, but did not view a statement on your own website as an ad.
So Bruce is looking to breach several sections of the Act. He doesn’t have his name and address on an advertisement. He doesn’t ave the permission of the candidate’s financial agent and he will breach the spending limit for third party advertising for a candidate.
He will actually breach the limit at $1,000 not $4,000 as the latter amount only applies if you are a registered third party, which Bruce is not.
January 8th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
This all looks a bit silly. I’ve said a number of times that I think there are problems with the EFB. But bringing election law up to date by recognising the existence of the internet isn’t one of them.
[DPF: The law should include paid advertising on the Internet, but not personal opinions. Can you say what was wrong with the amendment by Chris Finlayson which would have extended the non-commercial blog exemption to all all non-commercial speech on the Internet? ]
January 8th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
DONT VOTE LIARBOUR, it could damage your rights as a NEW ZEALANDER
dont risk it.
January 8th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Now there was a vigorous discussion on the previous thread about whether the Electoral Commission would take any action against the website. Roger Gnome especially insisted there was no chance at all.
I have a little ‘Rule of Thumb’ I like to use when the egermoron ever posts anything ….. It is a throwback from when he assured us all that the EFB would be all sorted at the Select Committee stage.
January 8th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
So, Beshakey (here we go again) I take it you agree with using the EFA to regulate Websites?
January 8th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Now as I understand it, Andy Moore says “Do Not Vote Labour”, he does not say Vote National or ACT.
Therefore, what sort of authorisation does he need? What form would it take? Who grants the authorisation?
BTW where are all those who said free speech was not impeded for individuals under the EFA.
January 8th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Not the internet I know but what about the sign in Nelson that Whaleoil is presently featuring.
Where does it stand – I had thought of putting something like that on my front lawn but don’t think my wife would approve.
January 8th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
WHat is the mterial distinction between the Aardvark site and a blog?
January 8th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Can we have rogered gnomer explain his current position on this extremely serious issue relating to his future credibility on the internet ? Haha
And, beshitey is my spulling and grummer up ti tha expicted substundurd of a liarbour eggheed cretun munster ? I got ue englush whin I wunt to scheel.
January 8th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
As a point of interest will Clark have to take the cost of Aadvark’s add into account for her election expenses?
January 8th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
And who was it who said it would all blow over and by early 08 the EFB as it was then would be a big non issue Nothing to worry about.
Well it aint over and the more civil disobedience the better. Cant wait to see citizens fronting up to police stations with a copy of the EFA with the clauses highlighted that Plod have to arrest them.
TV cameras radio reporters all in attendence to show the freedom fighter citizens being dragged off to jail.
Cut to cameras and microphones and Crazy Clark being asked if this is what she intended to happen to anyone who doesnt support the Socialists in 08.
Lovely Jubbly.
January 8th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
He will actually breach the limit at $1,000 not $4,000 as the latter amount only applies if you are a registered third party, which Bruce is not.
Not true. Careful, DPF.
Someone who breaches the $1000 limit (by spending on electorate advertisements above that level without registering) commits an illegal practice – section 63.
Someone who breaches the $0 limit (by publishing any pro-candidate advertisement without their name and address, and the prior written permission of the candidate’s financial agent) commits an illegal practice – section 65.
Someone who deliberately breaches the $4000 limit (by spending on electorate advertisements above that level) after registering commits a corrupt practice if done knowingly, and illegal practice if done otherwise – section – section 122.
And someone who breaches the $4000 limit (by spending on electorate advertisements above that level) without registering commits a corrupt practice – section 66.
January 8th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Asking Plod to arrest you won’t play well with the masses, gd. It goes counter to what they’ve learned from hundreds of hours watching cop shows on the telly – no one who’s arrested ever wants to be. The idea of principle has long been erased from their minds. So anyone who did that risks being written off as “a nutter” before the channel gets flicked to cartoons or MTV.
Besides which, flaunting something illegal in the face of the Police has – thanks to decades of student protests – become immutably associated with acts of stupidity even in the minds of many of the more aware.
Indeed if I were in the government’s shoes I’d be waiting for someone to front up at the cop shop. The Plod will be under instructions to smile benignly at the “nutter” and tell them to go home and have a lie down. Then the PM can appear on telly saying “I told you so” and the issue will die overnight.
Better to do as Andy and Bruce have done – flout the law and then quietly await the consequences. Once the warrant is issued, by all means make an appointment to hand yourself in, accompanied by media.
It’s an admittedly subtle difference, but from a PR perspective an important one.
January 8th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Now as I understand it, Andy Moore says “Do Not Vote Labour”, he does not say Vote National or ACT.
Therefore, what sort of authorisation does he need? What form would it take? Who grants the authorisation?
The law requires that Andy himself authorise it – basically putting a statement on the website saying “this website was authorised by Andy Moore, of 123 XYZ Street, Christchurch”. I understand he had such a statement, but that his dad wasn’t happy to find his home address on the Internet in such a way, so the statement was removed.
A website that said “Elect National” or “Vote Helen Clark” would require the written permission of the financial agent of the party or candidate, as well as an authorisation statement carrying the name and address of the person behind the ad.
January 8th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Lee C – “So, Beshakey (here we go again)”
Indeed
.
No I don’t think the EFA (still ocassionally slipping and calling it the EFB, so if I do that you know what I mean) should be used to regulate websites per se. It’s job is to regulate part of the electoral process. Websites and the internet more generally should be included within the scope of the Act insofar as they now form part of the electoral process. This isn’t to say that everything on the net should be banned, simply that I can’t see any in principle difference between internet based and non-internet based cases(obviously there are practical differences).
January 8th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
pdm – “As a point of interest will Clark have to take the cost of Aadvark’s add into account for her election expenses?”
I’m sure Graeme will have an answer, but since he hasn’t posted anything yet. No. Not unless she authorised it in some way. So I can’t, for example, go out and spend my own money on half assed ads in favour of National and then tell them they can’t have their own ads because I breached the limit for them.
January 8th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
So much for the New Year bringing a new topic and new beginning (for Labour).
Already the editorials and op-eds are back and now this. One almost has to feel sorry for Labour. Almost.
January 8th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
BeShakey – I wouldn’t be so sure I’d have provided an answer – I missed that question.
You’re right. The expense of this ad does not need to be included by Ms Clark’s financial agent.
January 8th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Rex Fair point and yes agree best to wait until Plod comes calling
As I posted before how ironic that you have to disclose your name and address just to ask citizen to not vote for a party yet you can give thousands of dollars to a party anonymously and possibly suggest they do or dont do certain things if they become government.
Common sense (see Annette King) suggests the former action is much less obnoxious than the latter action but not of course to those who voted fro the EFA
What venal feral and twisted logic they possess
January 8th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Aardvark isn’t a blog?
January 8th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
“Now there was a vigorous discussion on the previous thread about whether the Electoral Commission would take any action against the website. Roger Gnome especially insisted there was no chance at all.”
Not true DPF. A primary concern that the right has had with this legislation has been that every day New Zealanders would be caught unawares by this “nasty” little piece of legislation, ending up wit huge fines, or worse imprisonment.
Now my contention was that an amendment was made to the EFB which gave the electoral commission discretion to not pass on breaches of the Act to the police that were deemed to be so “insignificant” that it would not be in the “public interest”. As such everyday New Zealanders are unlikely to be caught unawares by the EFA, and instead any breaches that are they make will either be ignored by the EC, or, as in this case, they will be given a warning by the EC that they are in breach of the law. They won’t face any penalties unless they choose to be bloody minded martyrs.
This is all becoming a bit reminiscent of the fake fury whipped up by the right over the Anti-Smacking Bill. Thousands of good parents were going to sent to helen kkklarkkk’s gulags for lightly smacking their children – yet none have – they have merely been warned that they should comply with the law, and those that have faced legal sanction have whacked their kids hard enough to leave bruises – and even then they have only been made to attend anger management courses. Again a kiwiblog-inspired storm in a tea cup. The embarrassingly hysterical and comical campaigns that this site continually involves itself in does nothing for its credibility. Maybe it’s time to call in your rabid pack DPF? Inject some sanity into the debate for once?
January 8th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
So what IS a blog? Is a website built on wordpress that does not allow comments a blog? Is a website built on dot net that does allow comments on periodical posts a blog?
January 8th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
BeShakey – I can’t see any in principle difference between internet based and non-internet based cases(obviously there are practical differences).
No neither can I the key difference is that your position works on the basis that some speech should be regulated for political reasons and mine is the opposite.
checkitout:
George F. Will
“There is no greater threat to liberty in [the United States] than the fourth kind of politics, the politics of speech rationing. It is commonly called campaign finance reform, but it is nothing of the sort. It is simply the assertion of the government of a new, audacious right: the right to determine the timing, content, and amount of political advocacy about the government. George F. Will http://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletter/catosletterv4n3.pdf
January 8th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
In principle, the EFA is up there with the Freedom of Information Act in my book.
January 8th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Lee – “your position works on the basis that some speech should be regulated for political reasons and mine is the opposite.”
Sort of. I don’t think speech should be regulated for political advantage. I certainly think that unrestricted free speech is a bad idea, and in fact impossible – I’m not sure if you disagree with this.
My basic position is that in terms of updating electoral law to recognise the existence of the internet, the EFA isn’t a bad thing.
Sort of on a side note – quoting from places like the Cato Institute clearly isn’t going to convince me of anything. Lots of people seem to be taking to quoting statments (not arguments) from right wing thinkers to illustrate the left is wrong. The tactic only works if you believe that the left is wrong to begin with.
January 8th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
“This is all becoming a bit reminiscent of the [] fury whipped up by the right over the Anti-Smacking Bill.”
Campaigning by this site (and others) raised public awareness and voiced opinion to such a degree that a last second admendment was passed doing to the s59 reform exactly what roger nome praises in that last second iteration of the electoral reforms. These last second ammendments, not in either original Act, were introduced after the campaigns against these bills successfully influenced wide public opinion.
Tne campaigns were wonderfully effective.
January 8th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
discretion to not pass on breaches of the Act to the police that were deemed to be so “insignificant” that it would not be in the “public interest”.
In other words, ignore the pro-government breaches and selectively crack down on those that are mounting effective criticism.
Because, in this sense, “insignificant” just means “not effective”. The moment the information is defined as “effective” then it allows the law to clamp down on even fair criticism. The law is so badly crafted it is open to abuse by our Government (whoever they may be at the time).
January 8th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Interesting point about wanting to protect his family. (From…?) Is it acceptable to use a PO Box as your address for the purposes of making that statement? Does anyone know?
January 8th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Well, I can’t speak for the entire right, but my view was not like that at all… it was that every day New Zealanders would be caught unawares by this “nasty” little piece of legislation, and end up breaking the law.
And I don’t really care if you say that I won’t be prosecuted (like you’d know anyway, but I digress) – you see, its about principle.
January 8th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Ryan – it is not allowed under the EFA to use a PO Box as an address. It was acceptable under the Electoral Act to use a physical business address, but is not the case under the EFA either.
The address must be the full address of the place where a person usually resides.
January 8th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Zen – it’s a bit paranoid to suggest that the use of the word ‘insigificant’ (which features, in the same context, in relatively uncontroversial legislation) is part of some Labour plot. If by successful criticism you mean highly publicised, then you might right that those get attention. But of course it’s not just criticism of the government that will be caught, criticism of the opposition too.
Spam – It might not have been your view, but it was certainly a view expressed fairly frequently. And in terms of your fairly spiteful sounding ‘like you’d know anyway’, he was simply stating what the law was, I’m pretty confident that in that respect he does know.
January 8th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Well im not a pussy and have registerted my support, , with MR A Moore. every journey,towards freedom, starts with a act , and my act was my support , ,my support is for the freedom to think freely and not to give support, to any party but for the freedom of my country,he has my email address, and all you scared posters have to remember , you can be charged with killing a child and just say to the plods ,(I DONT HAVE TO SAY ANYTHING) and nothing happens for months , so try civil disobediece , (it feels good sticking your finger up at the lying bitch)THINKpaintergate speedinggate etc etc etc
DONT VOTE LIARBOUR,its a freedom hazard:(
January 8th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Ryan – it is not allowed under the EFA to use a PO Box as an address. It was acceptable under the Electoral Act to use a physical business address, but is not the case under the EFA either.
The address must be the full address of the place where a person usually resides.
Interesting. Is it possible to register one’s address with the Electoral Commission and just have your full name published?
January 8th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Err… he doesn’t, in that he has no more idea of what “insignificant” means than anybody else. We had this discussion, and he helpfully gave me explanations along the lines of… “insignificant”, and side-stepped any specific examples (well, he did say spending $1000 dollars was ’significant’, but offered no view as to why it was significant, nor whether $100 was significant, or $10 etc)
But until we have some sold guidelines or benchmarks, it is absolutely not clear what “insignificant” means. Is posting on usenet, for example, insignificant?
January 8th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Beshakey I dont think that Zen is being paranoid. The police have never done anything in the past 8 years that would harm Labour. They only charged Philip Field when he was kicked out of the Labour party, they didnt charge Mallard for a punch he admitted to, they didnt charge Len Richards for assult, they didnt prosecute Labour for theft, they played along with the government on the Urawera arrests.
So like he says it would all fall down to an interpretation. Police interpretations seem to favour Labour so why would this be any different. The whole thing is a sick joke anyway.
January 8th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Roger philip john mason nome’s response?……”sniff sniff, waaaaaaah!”
January 8th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Let’s go back to the days when you could have an opinion without suspicion of being secretly funded by wealthy minority interest groups who want to pervert democracy in New Zealand.
The National Party and the Exclusive Brethren were just a once-off thing, surely. Everyone learned their lesson. It’s not likely to happen again.
January 8th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
# john Says:
January 8th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
DONT VOTE LIARBOUR, it could damage your rights as a NEW ZEALANDER
dont risk it.
Shall we vote for you then dad4justice? Republican Party candidate for Christchurch East was it? But I’m not comfortable with people who are abusive becoming MPs:
# dad4justice Says:
January 8th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Can we have rogered gnomer explain his current position on this extremely serious issue relating to his future credibility on the internet ? Haha
And, beshitey is my spulling and grummer up ti tha expicted substundurd of a liarbour eggheed cretun munster ? I got ue englush whin I wunt to scheel.
January 8th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Interesting. Is it possible to register one’s address with the Electoral Commission and just have your full name published?
No. Perhaps it could be, but it’s not.
January 8th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
# john Says:
January 8th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Well im not a pussy and have registerted my support, , with MR A Moore. every journey,towards freedom, starts with a act , and my act was my support , ,my support is for the freedom to think freely and not to give support, to any party but for the freedom of my country,he has my email address, and all you scared posters have to remember , you can be charged with killing a child and just say to the plods ,(I DONT HAVE TO SAY ANYTHING) and nothing happens for months , so try civil disobediece , (it feels good sticking your finger up at the lying bitch)THINKpaintergate speedinggate etc etc etc
DONT VOTE LIARBOUR,its a freedom hazard:(
But don’t you often threaten to call your lawyer or the police or threaten to beat people up on Ian’s blog dad4justice? Although last time I gave you my address you pussied out didn’t you?
January 8th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
fuck JC ,am i john in the north island or D4J in the south island , fuck make a decision JC ,are you lucky punk.Who do youwant to insult, D4J or me JOHN , do you feel lucky ,PUNK, ps cut down on bonking the sheep and read Mr Farrars post THAT WE ARE TWO DIFFERANT PEOPLE , JC
January 8th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
John and Dad4juctice must be conjoined twins seperated at birth! lol
Where’s the justice?
January 8th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
DPF has confirmed that D4J and John are two different people.
The difference between the two is that D4J starts, John only reacts which is why I harrassed D4J and not John.
January 8th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Surely young Andy Moore should just refer the Electorial Commision to Annette King’s “common sense” rule. That will clarify everything.
January 8th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
I could say thats CRAP hinamanu
January 8th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
REMEMBER OUR INSULTS ARE MADE POSSIBLE BY KIWIBLOGG AND MR Farrar, have a happy 2008 mate , i enjoy this blogg , BE GRATEFUL posters
January 8th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Interesting. Is it possible to register one’s address with the Electoral Commission and just have your full name published?
No. Perhaps it could be, but it’s not.
Graeme,
What is the reasoning behind the address being included?
January 8th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Tax Paying Kiwi, you made my wife laugh, Enjoy your week . GOOD POST
January 8th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
the solution is simple:
Labour (or associated scum, and let’s face it, they’re all scum) threatens Andrew Moore’s parents.
That’s already been used in Tim Shadbolt’s case.
January 8th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Spam – in terms of the ‘insignificant’ issue. Rogernome stated what the law is, you said he had no idea. I disagree. Your later comment suggested you were talking about interpretation of the law. That is always a problem, although it can be more of problem with badly drafted law. As I said in my post ‘insignificant’ (or similar) has been used in a variety of law to avoid the concern that the law will stop people doing something minor that wasn’t intended to be covered by the law (it is very rare for such a case to actually be prosecuted, but putting in a clause explicitly ruling it out obviously makes it easier to pass). If you have a problem with that it is a more general one than with the way laws are being drafted, rather than the EFA specifically.
Nick C – that wasn’t actually the point I made in response to Zen, but in response to your claims: isn’t it surprising that there isn’t any real evidence to support them. No whistleblower, no leaked documents. As is the case with conspiracy theories the absence of evidence can be claimed to be evidence of just how vast the conspiracy is, but it really doesn’t sound all that plausible.
January 8th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
goodgod do you feel that we are been to hard on scum lets work this out, tossier is a better word ie (scummy tossier leftest arseholes) i feel better allready
January 8th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
And im sure there wont be any signficant evidence of a conspiricy when National supporters are arrested and Labour supporters arent during the election campaign either BeShackey…
January 8th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Zen – it’s a bit paranoid to suggest that the use of the word ‘insignificant’ .. is part of some Labour plot.
Well, I finished my post with: The law is so badly crafted it is open to abuse by our Government (whoever they may be at the time).
My point is that badly crafted legislation opens the door to be paranoid later. Maybe later, you will be relieved if this aspect of the Act was improved.
January 8th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
I just noticed your additional point. Yes, I agree – I’m seeing signs that the laws are being increasingly poorly put together. Not only over regulated, but over regulated by incompetents.
January 8th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
If laws were easy to understand, we wouldn’t need to pay lawyers to understand them. But because laws are so hard to understand, we employ lawyers to word them. And they word them in a way that is hard to understand.
Waiiiiiit a minute!
January 8th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Nick – pity you couldn’t actually reply to the point made. If you, or anyone else, has any evidence of any plausibility that the police have been colluding with Labour why don’t you produce it. Hell, I’m sure the Herald would publish even if it had the faintest whiff of plausibility. And if it had anything more than that it would in all likelihood bring the government down. Strange then that nothing has been produced.
Zen – I actually don’t have a major problem with the use of ‘insignificant’ clauses (I don’t think they are usually necessary, but they don’t cause a problem so that isn’t a major problem). At some stage a government I really really dislike may well get in. But for this to be a major problem would require the collusion of the police (I know some people have claimed that has happened, but as I’ve stated above, I for one haven’t seen any decent evidence), and the judiciary. Of course that could happen (pretty unlikely but not impossible). But if it did happen I think the use of ‘insignificant’ would be the least of our problems, as our entire democracy would have broken down.
January 8th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
What is the reasoning behind the address being included?
The reason behind the address being included is to deter you from speaking out in the first place. Not many Kiwi’s want a rock through their window or poos in their mailbox from a disgruntled opposer of their views, so it discourages them from expressing their views. It’s called intangible suppression!
January 8th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Publishing addresses is a great tactic and very effective if you want to subtly pressurise commenters out in the world….. just as it would be in blogworld @ Dave’s.
The brick through the window may never happen but the quiet threat is there.
January 8th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Snap…should have read your post.
January 8th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
stayathomemum – the provision has essentially been carried over from the previous act. I’m not aware of any of the problems of the kind you suggested, they certainly wide spread if they ever happened.
From memory (I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong) the previous act in question is the Electoral Act. Which was passed by National.
January 8th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
“Lots of people seem to be taking to quoting statements (not arguments) from right wing thinkers to illustrate the left is wrong. The tactic only works if you believe that the left is wrong to begin with.”
From someone who took exception to the description of ‘political myopia’ I would expect a more wide-minded attitude, BeShakey.
On your logic, you would apparently endorse Stalinist purges without question simply because they were labelled as ‘left’?
I didn’t see the statement as ‘right’ in its import, more as a generic call for freedom from government interference. The reference was provided to indicate I just didn’t make it up, and for general consumption – this being a public forum.
Interesting to watch the evolution of left attitudes towards this issue. Did yo know that Helen Clarks Prime Ministerial speech contain one sentence, a fleeting reference to electoral reform? the first stage was to do it on the quiet.
The second was to refer to it as a ‘beltway issue’ and pretend it was unimportant.
The third stage was to justify it by attacking the EB.
The fourth stage was to use Nick Hager’s testimony to the the Select Committee to ‘rally the troops’.
The fifth stage was label .
The fifth stage was to ,
Still in the interests of balance I have provided you with a quote which sums up my humble attitude towards the present governemnt and the EFA.
“But, if constructing the future and settling everything for all times are not our affair, it is all the more clear what we have to accomplish at present: I am referring to ruthless criticism of all that exists, ruthless both in the sense of not being afraid of the results it arrives at and in the sense of being just as little afraid of conflict with the powers that be.”
.
For example is it not interesting that the left are trying every tactic
January 8th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Tina – as I said above the requirement to publish name and address is an old one (although the scope has obviously changed). No one seemed to have a problem with it then, despite the fact that if your claims made any sense it would be even more risky. Having a sign with my details up on a busy road vs having it at a website where less people are likely to see it, and those that do may well be more sympathetic than the general public.
January 8th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
sorry got cut off Anyway the post is too long – ends with:
“Nothing to see here, move on, and all that……………..”
seems we have come full circle…… The quote was Marx, by the way.
January 8th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
BeShakey, assuming that what other posters have to say about the EFA insisting on people having no option but to use their personal residential address when taking responsibility for political material that was most certainly not “a provision carried over from the old act”.
When I stood for Parliament I didn’t want lunatics visiting my home. I therefore used the address of my campaign headquarters as the authorising address and that was quite acceptable to the EC – a PO box, however, has never been.
As it was I still had two men burst in to my home while I was in the shower and assault my elderly parents, leading to a scene which was later to be echoed in the “Borat” movie as I tackled them naked. Funny to think of now, but definitely not at the time.
January 8th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
stayathomemum – the provision has essentially been carried over from the previous act.
Prior to 1 Jan I could walk up Queen Street with a banner, now I need to have my name and address on it.
That to me, threatens my privacy and is a discouragement to walk up Queen Street with a banner.
I see no relevance for having my address there, other than Big Brother monitoring me.
January 8th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Dear Andy Moore ; Please use my address for the website in question,as I have made all the necessary security arrangements . My army mates are on 24/7 call and the mob has moved in next door .A cop lives over the road and hates “Lairbour bastards “!! I would welcome any visitors and I do hope they enjoy the minefield around the boundary . War is war .
I hope to have my huge DON”T VOTE LABOUR SIGN ready for action by the end of the week . Stuff the corrupt bitches and pricks !!
January 8th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
What Rex says BeSh.
In Aust TV/Newspaper poltical ads have an attribution like “A.Smith Canberra”.
The media outlet holds the complete details in confidence.
You must be joking about “a website where less people are likely to see it”…..
You better avoid Dave’s where the average poster has more readers than the ChCh Press.
January 8th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Thats a good question,,
How far out from the election are political signs allowed to be publicly shown?
January 8th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
FUCK just get on with it , you lot sound like a LIARBOUR thinktank, register i did,go Andy Moore , more action less playing with oneself
January 8th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
What is the reasoning behind the address being included?
Basically, I think the rationale was so we can find out who it is, and if what they’re doing is perhaps false or misleading, or comes from a particular bias, we can use that information to call them to account, or view their statements through the lens such knowledge provides.
If there’s an attack on a party in the days preceding an election, it’s useful to know whether the person behind the attack stands to gain financially if the party they’re attacking fails, for example. The public and media will be more sceptical of anti-green advertising from a PR person employed by a big polluter. If it’s just a name, or a name and a PO Box we might not be able to find the person, or the media might not be able to investigate the person sufficiently quickly enough to give the public all the information in time to appraise the claims in such advertising to make an informed decision.
Another reason for identification is to help enforcement. If we have spending limits for parties or candidates but don’t require identification then for example National could spend a whole lot of money on anti-Labour ads, we might never find out (or not find out until after the limitation period had expired), even though the spending on those ads might push them over the limit.
That’s the theory, of course, whether the chilling effect such a requirement may have on free speech is worth it in light of such goals is a question about which there really wasn’t enough debate.
January 8th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
The other thing I have noticed about the ‘left’ as you describe yourself, perhaps, is that at this stage of the game, there is a apparent desire to ‘play down’ the whole EFA thing. You are quick to point out that there is ‘no conspiracy’ or to denigrate or mislabel critics as believing in a ‘Labour conspiracy’. Similarly we have posters who evidently favour the EFA labelling criticism of the EFA as ’silly’.
now, if i were a tin-foil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorist, my observation might be along these lines:
it is in Labour’s interests to try and put out as many fires as possible right now, in the belated hope that the EFA protests will wane. They miscalculated that it would be forgotten after Christmas, and now, frankly, they are getting a little worried.
They have tried the other tactics of disapproval, denigration, ridicule and silence, now, they will try to avert the serious risk that the EFA will ripple out into the general public’s awareness.
The next stage is already beginning, however, and this is where it is sooo important that we have people pouring oil on troubled waters – the tactic of intimidation, and threat.
You see, the problem is, a conspiracy theory can only be crushed if there is a credible alternative, and when I say credible I mean trustworthy. Labour has used up all its trust, and in the vaccuum which must follow, people will fail to accept what they say as truth. It is their own fault, pure and simple.
But I’m not a conspiracy theory type, so I’ll just put the EFA down to gross incompetence.
January 8th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Yes John, all praise and honour should go to Andy Moore for standing up against a corrupt regime of bent sisters and coward eunuchs .
David did kill Goliath with the stone cold truth .
Graeme must be well paid for the shit he writes ?
January 8th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
D4J you have the facts ,how many toady queer (that will get a reaction)arseholes has our lying(REMEMBER PAINTERGATE) prime minister helen clark nee davis employs in her press dept ,HEAPS as i understand ie building image up ,ie if her press releases smell like dog crap ,dont stand on it , DONT VOTE LIARBOUR ,health risk
January 8th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Indeed John, anybody that votes for liarbour are endorsing a political party that has restricted freedom of expression, which is a basic human right ( Stalin and Putin are classic examples) . Liarbour have eroded democracy and they are a risk to the health of every sane New Zealander .
Helen Klark is starting to resemble Robert Mugabe. Nothing can justify the intimidation of those holding different views and hindering freedom of press; bad governance; human rights abuses .
End of story; snap election please ?
January 8th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
PS LIARBOUR supporters ,if the govt pays $500k+ salaries, to the fat cat arseholes at the top of the pecking order in every govt dept why do the REALLY REAL workers at the coal face ie home help etc for the handicap IE for the disadvantaged in our (NOW VERY )fragile society ,lack a pay increase and face a blowout in the budget , ie they payed the fatcat arseholes at the top to much so the workers, the REAL HARD WORKING WORKERS, the fuckwit liarbour party thinks are their voting base starve , DONT VOTE LIARBOUR if you want to starve, and feel denigraded
January 8th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
add dont on the last line between you and want
January 8th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
As the old saying goes, “It only takes men of good will to do nothing to allow evil to prosper”
Those people in the publishing types of industry have to challenge this bill because if they dont they will be silenced. Its a cost of being in a democracy.
January 8th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
About the Don’t Vote Labour site…how did Liz Shaw end up being an Administrator on the forum there?
January 8th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Liz Shaw….oh no. That’s it I won’t be going back.
January 8th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Looks like Andy is on to a real winner with Liz Shaw on the team. And those who don’t know who this woman is, google is your friend.
January 8th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Graeme,
Thank you for yet another very informative reply.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:09 am
well what a load of wofful.
Now we all can see that the EFB isn’t a great political Act, what now?
how do we reverse this? Can we? what useful ideas do we have? I am out if ideas right now because it is still holiday silly season.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:13 am
# john Says:
January 8th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
fuck JC ,am i john in the north island or D4J in the south island , fuck make a decision JC ,are you lucky punk.Who do youwant to insult, D4J or me JOHN , do you feel lucky ,PUNK, ps cut down on bonking the sheep and read Mr Farrars post THAT WE ARE TWO DIFFERANT PEOPLE , JC
But fuck dad4justice, I’m about as undecisive as you:
# dad4justice Says:
December 4th, 2007 at 7:16 am
Don’t worry David my last post on this site as I had it !!
# dad4justice Says:
December 4th, 2007 at 7:16 am
Good bye all
So were you gonna fuck off or not? Oh and I’m into bestiality now am I? Kinda like how you’re into pedophilia?
January 9th, 2008 at 12:26 am
hinamanu Says:
January 8th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
DPF has confirmed that D4J and John are two different people.
Where can I find this post? Cheers. Also, I can’t find the naked pics of Liz Shaw anymore, does anyone have a link? I assume it’s OK to post it here because they were shown on TV a few years back for 20/20 or something.
January 9th, 2008 at 1:01 am
Stan/Jesus Crux:
Hopefully DPF will excuse this brief off-topic diversion. I’ve been catching up with some Kiwiblog threads, and it seems that the D4J=John controversy just won’t lie down. You’ll find DPF’s confirmation here.
January 9th, 2008 at 1:02 am
Hmmm… let me repost that link.
January 9th, 2008 at 1:11 am
Oh – just on the D4J multiple identity theme: could I take this opportunity to point out (particularly for the benefit of PM of NZ, who apparently knows better) that D4J and Peak Oil Conspiracy are completely unrelated. Sorry once again, DPF, for the off-topic diversion.
January 9th, 2008 at 2:31 am
Graeme Edgeler wrote (on the subject of address disclosure):
If I see some political advocacy (that I may or may not agree with) then I fail to see what benefit it is to know that “Joe Public of 12 Sunny Street” authorised that speech (unless, of course, I want to slash his tyres under cover of night).
And that’s precisely why I would not want my family residential address attached to my views. Not because I am ashamed, but because I’d worry about the fruitcake with too much time on his hands living nearby.
I think Graeme is correct in referring to this as having a chilling effect. If you think otherwise: imagine if the electoral roll and your voting records were public information? Would you like that?
Whether the requirement is a result of political cunning or blind ignorance (“not enough debate”) it is still a bad requirement.
January 9th, 2008 at 3:20 am
Ok- is the facebook group “Don’t Vote Labour” covered by the EFA? If I join it, am I joining it in the US or in New Zealand? Where does an internet activity take place- here, where I depress the keyboard, or in Palo Alto, California, where the server sits?
I’m referring to the Facebook group:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=6524634308&ref=mf
Um, yes, I joined. Hope that I don’t get deported.
January 9th, 2008 at 7:26 am
Um, for most of us the electoral roll is public information though I would not be pleased at all if the concept of a secret ballot went out the window.
Um, so what ‘lens’ does knowing your home address provide? The recent smear that Barack Obama attended a radical madrassa in Pakistan was comprehensively debunked by journalists doing their job, despite the fact that we will probably never know who released that smear into the wild in the first place.
January 9th, 2008 at 8:07 am
Considering that we ended up with a rubbish bin through our window for painting out tagging – I’m definitely not ascribing my address to political views in our area…
January 9th, 2008 at 8:43 am
“National and Maori Parties Announce Royal Commission on Electoral Reform 2008″
It is with great pleasure that I announce the fruition of many months of pressure and advocacy, and am proud to announce that the National-Lead Government, in conjunction with the Maori Party, have announced the setting up of a Royal Commission on Electoral Reform, to be headed by Hone Harawira and Bill English.
Prime Minister John Key stated today in his first speech as Prime Minister of New Zealand;
“We fought the election on the promise that we would ‘clean house’ and re-establish our parliamentary system as one to which the world would look at with envy, and the valuable first step of fumigating the abuse of the peoples’ trust which culminated in the Electoral Finance Act, 2007, is already being undertaken.”
Hone Harawira, Minister for Electoral Reform (Maori Party) added;
“The Maori Party is proud to stand as stewards for this hugely important reform of a corrupted parliamentary system and the National Party’s pledge that the Royal Commission will explore referendum options for issues which are close to the heart of Tangata Te Whenua can only add to our enthusiasm for the task.”
Former Prime Minister Helen Clark had earlier wished Prime Minister John Key every success in his new role, and only added, that she “suspects that many of the seats won by National and the Maori Party were in contradiction of the spirit, if not the letter of, the Electoral Finance Act” She promised to seek legal redress to “right this cancerous situation whereby the numbers of votes cast appear to erroneously indicate a rejection of Labour’s policies.”
http://monkeyswithtypewriter.blogspot.com/2008/01/royal-commission-on-elctoral-reform.html
“Stranger things have happened, like when they elected that horse Pope.” (Baldrick – In ‘Blackadder’)
January 9th, 2008 at 8:50 am
About the Don’t Vote Labour site…how did Liz Shaw end up being an Administrator on the forum there?
Further misunderstanding of Liz Shaw’s art will be prevented by a brief read of “New Zealand’s Answer to Borat”:
http://statehighwayone.blogspot.com/
January 9th, 2008 at 9:08 am
so what ‘lens’ does knowing your home address provide?
It helps us find a person. If an advertisement is authorised by M. Smith, PO Box 2667, Wellington, we probably won’t (very quickly anyway).
If it’s a smear – like the madrassa thing – it doesn’t matter (except for enforcement later). But if it’s not, perhaps it’s pushing a particular party for some policy reason, then knowing that if that policy is adopted that M. Smith stands to make tens of millions of dollars is useful. People will see the self-interest, and show much greater scepticism to any claims M. Smith makes about the policy or the party supported – which they couldn’t if it was published by M. Smith of some PO Box.
As I say, that’s the theory. I gave the answer because I knew the answer – not necessarily because I supported it.
January 9th, 2008 at 9:14 am
It would be a lot simpler just to have an economic system where it wasn’t possible for someone to stand to make tens of millions of dollars.
January 9th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Lee – a lot of posts between your criticism and my response, but nevermind. No I wouldn’t support ‘Stalinist purges’, my point wasn’t about what should be on the record, or exist as opinions, it was about the way debates work. If I state the views of a bunch of people that agree with me, that isn’t (or at least it probably shouldn’t) convince anyone that I’m right. I’m sure if I found a bunch of quotes from Chomsky stating his opinion on things it wouldn’t convince you. The same is true for simply stating the views of right wing people to someone left wing.
Of course this doesn’t apply to stating the reasons for someone believing something. I for one am always interested to hear the reasons someone has for believing something that I think is false (that’s why I’m here). But what has usually been happening is a quote from someone saying what they think (admittedly in a very eluqoent way), but not giving the reasons.
January 9th, 2008 at 9:37 am
“I’m sure if I found a bunch of quotes from Chomsky stating his opinion on things it wouldn’t convince you. The same is true for simply stating the views of right wing people to someone left wing.”
No, not true. I would try to examine it on its own merits.
There are any number of quotes from Nietzche I can agree with, but it doesn’t follow that I am a proto-nazi (I hope).
This is getting back to the ‘political myopia’ charge – In my opinion, the baby-boomer generation hasn’t woken up to the fact that it is now ‘the system’ and that it dominates ‘the instituions’ it still likes to imagine itself to be the left-wing radical it was in the late sixties, but actually, increasingly it is becoming as ‘right-wing’ as the old intitutions it set out to topple.
To use a couple of Clarkisms they have not ‘Moved on’ and do not realise ‘What has changed.’
To quote the NME about the band Jesus and the MaryChain “They set out to smash the icons of rock, but ended up kneeling at its altar.”
When you see a system up to its elbows in taxpayer cash to promote its policies, and as well using its ministerial power to plant sympathetic writers or supplant unsympathetic ones in government departments, then on top of that allow untrammelled union publications in its support during election years while talking about the evils of parallel campaigns for the oppostion, followed by laws which exonerate previous illegal practices, and favour encumbents, while intimidating private indiduals who want to express the opinion ‘Don’t Vote Labour’.
What else do you call it?
Left-wing? I’m sure Chomsky would have an opinion about it, and I guess I might even agree with him.
January 9th, 2008 at 9:48 am
It’s just plain naughty, BeShakey and deep down you know it.
January 9th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Ah, yep, I know the roll is public – but what I meant was what if the roll showed your votes (in other words: no secret ballot as you say).
My point being that having your residential address published along with information that allows unhinged individuals to make wild extrapolations about your ways (ie: prefers National so therefore eats babies, supports slavery, etc) can have a chilling effect.
This would particularly be the case where individual took a position on a subject where strong views are held, wanted to have their say, but felt uncomfortable attaching their family’s location to that statement.
January 9th, 2008 at 9:50 am
Graeme can you clarify the effect of the blog exemption “(g) the publication by an individual, on a non-commercial basis…”. To the layperson it appear that this would not exempt publicaddress due to multiple posters or even (as some of us I am sure dream about) the return of moderators to this site.
So does say publicaddress lack exemption and if so does it just mean that all it has to do is publish a name and street address? Or is there more?
January 9th, 2008 at 10:09 am
public address is exempt:
It is a ‘blog – the statements on there are statements of individuals; that there are also statements on there of other individuals is irrelevant. Just because the opinion of more than person appears on blogspot.com doesn’t mean that opinions on it aren’t the opinions of individuals. Just because kiwiblog includes the opinions of you, and all the other commentators here, doesn’t mean that the opinions of DPF aren’t his opinions, etc.
To the extent, if any, that public address is commercial (and thus falls outside the ‘blog exemption) it is news media which is also exempt (and Russell Brown has a Qantas Media award to prove it).
January 9th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Lee – I think we may be talking past each other. You state (in reference to Chomsky quotes) “I would try to examine it on its own merits.” My point is that there are two types of quotes I could put up. One would be Chomsky saying “America is bad”, the other would be him saying “America is bad because…”. The first type of quote isn’t really any use in a debate, the second is. I’m not usually going to be convinced of something simply because someone says it is true (I hope I’m not alone in that), whereas I can be convinced by someone stating the reasons they believe something.
January 9th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Graeme – thanks – not such a clever question then but how does dontvotelabour.org.nz not get exemption as it seems to fit the bill.
January 9th, 2008 at 11:09 am
dontvotelabour.org.nz might include the publication, on a non-commercial basis, on the Internet of Andy Moore’s personal political views, but it is not the form of publication commonly known as a blog.
It looks nothing like a blog – it is simply a website. Blogs are exempt, other websites are not.
January 9th, 2008 at 11:37 am
The forum there is good as you can post anything you like, pity there’s so many fundamentalist Christians there who are against freedom of expression though.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
BeShakey
“I’m not usually going to be convinced of something simply because someone says it is true (I hope I’m not alone in that), whereas I can be convinced by someone stating the reasons they believe something.”
the statement ‘It’s to stop people like the Exclusive Brethren and John Key rorting the electoral system.’ would qualify?
January 9th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Lee – do you mean would it qualify as a reason? If so: probably (its a bit hard to comment without the context), but of course not all reasons are good ones, but at least if there is a reason there is something to debate.
My point is that a debate that does “I think the EFA is good”, “I think the EFA is bad” and on and on, isn’t going anywhere (it isn’t even really a debate). If both sides state why then at least there can be a real debate about the merits of their reasons.
January 9th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
BeShakey people, myself included – have been stating their reasons since roughly last April why they think the EFB/EFA is a bad idea.
As I recall only yesterday you were saying that DPF’s attitude was one of ’silliness’. It appears you only want to acknowledge stuff with which you agree. That isn’t a debate either.
So now the call for a ‘proper debate’ becomes the next attempt to put out the fire? How reasonable of you!
What do you think of some of the criticism/rationales I have posted today about why I think the EFA is a bad law?
The real debate should have happened before the legislation was passed, but Labour sent to great lengths to make sure that the usual means for this were denied to the public and to Parliament.
What – suddenly after a process whereby the legislation was stitched together behind closed doors, based on legal information from Val Sims which is even now being challenged before the courts, the door closed on proper cross-party consultation, and based on a Select Committee process that used mostly the testimony of Nick Hager for its support, while refusing to acknowledge criticism from the Law Society and the Human Rights Commission – now we should be having ‘the real debate?
My point about Helen Clark’s comment is just that it is indicative of the quality of debate whe allowed over this legislation, and supports your view. But you are slectively applying your views (again) and filtering out all the other stuff because you think you are on safer ground discussing these nebulous concepts about what a real debate is, rather than debating the EFA, which in my opinion, for many reasons, some of them stated here, and above, is a bad law.
January 9th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Lee – remember what the debate was about? I have never (go back and check if you like) stated that no reasons have been stated for opposing the EFA. If you do happen to go back and check you’ll notice that I have suggested some criticisms myself. The point I made was that simply putting up a quote from someone saying what their view was, doesn’t usually help a debate, giving reasons does. My comment was in reference to one particular instance when you did this, and instances where others had.
January 9th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
I agree that the website is not what we would call a blog but this basis seems to hinge on “format”.
Does a blog need to be regularly updated to remain a blog? (or does a lazy blooger not remain a blogger after a certain period)
Does it need to accept comments? (No-Right Turn would fail this test)
To me it seems that if Andy could have EXACTLY the same content and links but shifted it to say wordpress with comments disabled (and not publish anything else for the rest of the year) then he would be seen as a blog, exempt and not have to publish his address.
If this is the case then the law is making a judgement on the format of the site which seems wrong.
January 9th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Well let us get back to the quote, and allow me to outline why I thought it was relevant to the EFA.
George F. Will
“There is no greater threat to liberty in [the United States] than the fourth kind of politics, the politics of speech rationing. It is commonly called campaign finance reform, but it is nothing of the sort. It is simply the assertion of the government of a new, audacious right: the right to determine the timing, content, and amount of political advocacy about the government. George F. Will http://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletter/catosletterv4n3.pdf
The point I was making was tht the EFA is not an isolated incident but an endemic shift of mentality by governments which is possibly a post 9-11 paradigmatic shift.
The reference to Wills was to support my idea that Electoral Reform is not merely the preserve of the left or the right, it is an new mantra which hides a number of anti-democratic initiatives as governments become keener to hold a monopoly on communications especially those which firuther their own causes, and reduce the opposition’’s.
The EFA represents some aspects of the ‘right to determine..’ mentioned in the quote.
It changes the way that legally, freedom of expression is allowed, by imposing restrictions and ‘allowing’ free speech which did not previously require the permission of the governement.
The peripheral debate about whether the EFA is a good thing because it can be applied to the internet, to my mind is a side-show, which obscures the very basic issue tht the rationale and purpose of the Act was not to improve transparency, but rather to regulate the kinds of transparency that governments see fit to allow its citizens to have.
It encapsulates what Wills referred to as ‘the fourth kind of politics’ in his statement.
If you wish to read the whole argument/essay, and comment on that, a link is provided.
January 9th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Lee – hopefully we’ve reached some kind of agreement (or at least a truce). The point I was making was that the quote doesn’t help convince me of the goodness or badness of the EFA because it didn’t give reasons, it just stated a view. By offering reasons as you did in your last post we can actually have a debate on whether those reasons are good or bad, and how likewise for the reasons I have for my beliefs. That kind of debate might lead to one or both of us changing or abandoning some of the reasons we had, and that might in turn lead to one of us changing our view.
January 9th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
no chance commie
January 9th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
I’m shortly to register the “7th State” Party
Here’s why….
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10485971
January 10th, 2008 at 8:04 am
The normal state of a Liabour voter is ignorant, arrogant and intolerant. The formal publication of names and addresses of registered third parties is an invitation for retaliation.
Having once been a National candidate, in a then Labour stronghold, my family were subjected to surprising terrible abuse, including faeces through the mail. When Trotter remembers 1951 and sees that this will be a year of a matching dirty campaign he is expressing an innate Liabour nature and imputing it arrogantly to others. They are so wrong they cannot comprehend others may be right.
To legally avoid the name and address visible disclosure I suggest following the practices of food labelling. How hard is it read what is on the can? It can be made very difficult to read by choice of background, placement, colour and size. S.64 requires a statement setting out the name and address, an address is defined in S.4 but the format has not been defined. The power to make regulations about format is limited to road safety matters.