EPMU to register as third party
Labour’s biggest affiliated union, the EPMU, has applied to be registered as a third party for the election.
By pure coincidence it plans to spend $120,000 – the same amount it spent on the 2005 election. And the amazing coincidence is that is the limit for third parties.
I mean I am sure it is a total coincidence. There is no way the Government set the limit by looking at how much its largest affiliated union wanted to spend. They would not be so self seeking I am sure.
Never mind that the independent Electoral Commission advised the limit should be around $300,000, and actually produced emperical research on how much advertising one can buy, justifying their recommendation.
I am confident that the Government had excellent reasons for setting the level at $120,000, and ignoring the official advice – even though they can’t tell us what these are. And again it is just a coincidence that is how much their largest affiliated union wants to spend, and spent last time.
The EPMU’s President and proposed Financial Agent is Andrew Little. This is the same Andrew Little who is a Vice-President of the Labour Party and is currently considering standing for Labour as a candidate. But let no one suggest the EPMU advertising spend will in any way be co-ordinated to align with Labour’s. Andrew will skillfully not listen to any discussions of campaign strategy at NZ Council meetings.
It may be an interesting issue for the next review of electoral law about whether an organisation that is formally affiliated to a political party, and whose members automatically are voting members of a political party should be seen as different from the political party for electoral spending purposes. The Young Nats activities get included as part of National’s, and Rainbow Labour would be included as part of Labour’s. The difference between a constituent group and an affiliated organisation might not be hugely different. For example both Rainbow Labour and affiliated unions have a representative on the Labour Party Ruling Council, and both have automatic membership eligibility – join them and you are automatically a member of Labour should you wish to exercise those rights.
Of course affiliated unions have a role and primary purpose related to industrial relations, not politics, and that should not be restricted. But it is a grey area when union membership is also de facto party membership and the union is affiliated.
This isn’t anti-union. If for example a farming lobby group was formally part of the National Party, and membership of the farming lobby group also gave you membership rights in National – then the same questions should arise.
UPDATE: I should make clear that the EPMU can not campaign for people to vote Labour without Labour’s authorisation and it counting as part of Labour’s limit. They can campaign for people not to vote National or to campaign against parties wishing to introduce choice of provider into the ACC scheme for example]
February 5th, 2008 at 8:48 am
Narrator: I am Jack’s complete lack of surprise.
February 5th, 2008 at 8:49 am
<p>Where can one find who are registered third parties?</p>
[DPF: http://www.elections.org.nz/parties/listed-third-parties.html ]
February 5th, 2008 at 8:54 am
DPF:
FUBAR link.
February 5th, 2008 at 8:57 am
I wonder if Andrew Little has a jester’s cap with tinklebells on the end to go with all the other hats he’s wearing.
February 5th, 2008 at 9:00 am
The Union spend should be considered part of the Labour Party spend, I feel a law change coming on to do that and much more. If I could think of a constitutional way to destroy the Labour Party permanently I would do it.
February 5th, 2008 at 9:02 am
Joining the EPMU or the NDU for that matter is de facto joining the Labour party. The EPMU etc have always made their support for Labour very clear, incluing Union reps in workplaces passing out printed material supporting Labour policies, cash donations from Union members fees to Labour and as DPF points out Andrew Little has leadership positons in both organisations.
The EPMU IS Labour and Labour IS the EPMU.
So, should the EPMU’s spending be included in Labours spending, instead of as a third party?
Logic and fairness would say yes, but logic and fairness havn’t been seen in Wellington for the past 8 years.
February 5th, 2008 at 9:13 am
David, how could it “plan” to spend more than it is allowed?
February 5th, 2008 at 9:15 am
Well, everyone’s got used to the Unions campaigning on behalf of Labour, including running nation-wide advertising campaigns. This development just makes it much more blatant and cynical.
Ironically, I wonder if this “outing” themselves by the EPMU will give a new National government the public justification to rewrite electoral law so the unions spend is considered part of the Labour party’s.
The barefaced hypocrisy of having Andrew Little so deeply involved in both organisations and the “free ride” membership links between the EPMU and Labour … plus the electoral scepticism & dislike of the EFB … I figure tha creates more than enough of a public image & perception to support a nice law change.
February 5th, 2008 at 9:17 am
“I mean I am sure it is a total coincidence.”
Understatement of the year.
February 5th, 2008 at 9:26 am
For more of the similar: http://monkeyswithtypewriter.blogspot.com/
It’s not just the EPMU but look at the CTU, who asserted they ’swung’ South Auckland for Labour last time, and intend to do so again, but without telling people who to vote for’
Pass me the Tui.
February 5th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Unions aren’t political?
Just industrial relations?
News to me.
February 5th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Thanks for the link David.
I asked because I contacted you regarding the leaflets handed out to customers entering a well known chain store advising people not to purchase a certain type of furniture. These were emblazoned with the Green Party logo and I assumed that the individuals handing them out were Green Party members.
I have yet to confirm this but it would appear from further discussion that the people handing out these leaflets were from Greenpeace.
How does this fit with the EFA is Greenpeace is not registered as a third party??
[DPF: While the pamphlets had the Green logo on them they did not appear to me (thanks for the copy) to advocate any sort of voting behaviour, so shouldn't be covered by the EFA]
February 5th, 2008 at 9:42 am
INcreasingly the Greens seem to be the political wing of Greenpeace. That’s a worryy
February 5th, 2008 at 9:56 am
The union wants to spend what is lower than the $300,000 those other guys wanted? So what?
Compare the union’s $120 grand with what those brethren hypocrates want to buy an election with!
February 5th, 2008 at 9:59 am
DPF, your basic argument is that any organisation where the members are also all members of a political party and some even have roles in the political party should then be considered as part of that political party, especially when electoral spending is being determined.
Of course this wouldn’t apply to any right wing organisations now would it? Because you would claim that certain key people are not members of ACT or National.
February 5th, 2008 at 9:59 am
He-Man this is why a Royal COmmission on Electoral Spending Reform is needed. This sorry debate is just going around in circles.
February 5th, 2008 at 10:02 am
I agree, Lee.
February 5th, 2008 at 10:08 am
He-Man: The union wants to spend what is lower than the $300,000 those other guys wanted? So what?
And is it not interesting that the government set the limit for third party spending exactly at the point where their biggest amount of support is coming from? But like we’ve been told many times, the interest of the EFA was in equality. It’s just that some, this being the Labour Party, is more equal than others.
He-Man: Compare the union’s $120 grand with what those brethren hypocrates want to buy an election with!
You know, I’m growing tired of going through that. So rather than doing that I will simply accept that you are one of the propaganda fed fools that believe by supressing somebody’s right to speak their mind you are giving other the opportunity to speak theirs. So long as they agree with you.
February 5th, 2008 at 10:11 am
Rocket Boy: Of course this wouldn’t apply to any right wing organisations now would it? Because you would claim that certain key people are not members of ACT or National.
Can you name one organization where there is automatic membership to National?
Thus far we have the EPMU. All their members are automatically Labour Party members and have all the rights of Labour Party members. Their president is vice president of the Labour Party and potentially an electoral candidate.
So conveniently, the Labour party now indirectly have a $120,000 bigger warchest for this election than other political parties. Excluding of course all that government advertising that we’ve seen the whole civil servant fiasco erupt over
February 5th, 2008 at 10:46 am
So is Kill the Bill going to be counted under the National spending limit?
[DPF: As the Leader of the Libertarianz is one of the three trustees, more likely it would be a Libertarianz expense
]
February 5th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Pascal: ‘Can you name one organization where there is automatic membership to National?’
No, but Federated Farmers probably comes the closest, followed closely by the Auckland Yacht Club. But then again that was not my point.
Pascal most of what you said was just a rehash of the DPF post, you got anything new to add?
February 5th, 2008 at 11:00 am
I’ve got something to add:
Don’t vote Labour
February 5th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Well, it seemed as if you missed the salient point of DPF’s post Rocket Boy. Apologies if you did not. But it seems to me that this whole automatic membership thing is simply another vehicle for Labour to increase their electoral spending above those of the groups they have tried to suppress.
Consider for example the following scenario. What if there were a few organizations registered as third parties where all their members belonged to National. To play devil’s advocate here – let us say that each member of the Exclusive Brethren registered as a Third Party and accepted donations from National Party members to accumulate their $120,000. Each organization could then spend those funds campaigning “Do not vote Labour” without affecting the National Party’s spending limit in the same way that the EPMU could spend theirs on campaigning “Do not vote National” without affecting the Labour Party’s limit.
This seems wrong to me. It seems to breach the EFA in intent, if not in deed.
February 5th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Note: In no way should my use of the Exclusive Brethren as an example be seen as an acknowledgement that they are in cahoots with National. I still strongly believe that they are indepent and wish to see a non Labour / Green government; rather than necessarily a National one.
February 5th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Waitemata Trust?
February 5th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Rocket Boy you missed this bit at the bottom of the post.
“This isn’t anti-union. If for example a farming lobby group was formally part of the National Party, and membership of the farming lobby group also gave you membership rights in National – then the same questions should arise.”
Try reading the whole post.
February 5th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Pascal: I agree, that would seem like an obvious work around for the rules.
If you don’t want a Labour/Green or National government what do you want?
February 5th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Try reading between the lines. This is an anti-union post. Simply claiming otherwise doesn’t change that.
February 5th, 2008 at 11:18 am
I was expecting Tane or IrishBill to wade into this debate. They normally do with anything relating to the Labour Party.
I wonder why they’re so silent?
February 5th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Socrates: Yes DPF makes a valid point, but there is a fine line between an organisation where all the members are automatically members of a political party and one in which all the members are members of a political party anyway.
And if this was a ‘rule’ that meant the expenditure was counted in the electoral budget then all the organisation would have to do is get one high profile member to resign from the political party or join another party and they would avoid the issue.
The Kill-The-Bill Campaign and John Boscawen’s links to ACT come to mind.
February 5th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Rocket Boy: If you don’t want a Labour/Green or National government what do you want?
Personally I want a little bit of all of them. The good bits. They all have something to offer and I don’t hold an ideological hatred of any one party. I just dislike bits of what they all do.
Rocket Boy: The Kill-The-Bill Campaign and John Boscawen’s links to ACT come to mind.
They do. And all by his lonesome John Boscawen probably has as big a budget as the EPMU. However, I’m guessing that John Boscawen does not receive any money from the government or collects any revenue from his … erm … members for political activism / other activities.
Kill the Bill is an interesting example. They consist of people from a number of different political backgrounds and if I’m not mistaken not all of them are voting members of their respective parties.
February 5th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
I do wonder if when new members join the EPMU it is clearly written on the forms they complete that they are also joining the Labour Party, or that some of their membership payment will be used to support the Labour Party.
Do the disclosure laws (or similar) apply in this case?
February 5th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Rocketboy your suggestion that Federated Farmers is somehow the ‘closest’ to ‘automatic membership of National’ is laughable.
Fed Framers have always taken the view that they will work with whatever govt is in power, simply because whatever govt is in power is going to have to work with them due to their enduring importance to the NZ economy.
The most recent federated farmers conference was addressed by none other than…..Dr Michael Cullen taking about the enduring importance of farming to the NZ economy, surprise, surprise.
When was the last time English or Key was asked to address an EPMU or CTU conference?
Geez, Rocketboy I’m going to assume your comment was satire because you can’t have been serious.
February 5th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
I seen some reusable supermarket bags with Go Green (“Green Party motto”) on them
Should they go towards the Greens advertising limit?
February 5th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
I’m a bit late to the conversation, but my reading of Section 13 of the Electoral Finance Act 2007 (from the website http://www.elections.org.nz/parties/apply-list-third-party.html ) suggests that if the EPMEU were an unincorporated body, they would be inelegible to be a registered third-party. This is becuae they would fail the test of the majority of its members also being members of a party other than a non-contesting party.
1) I preseume the EPMEU is “a body corporate that is not an overseas person with the meaning of the Overseas Investment Act 2005;”
2) Why would any other body corporate (i.e. something called “Not the National party”) not be eleigible ? (the Not is there to ensure that it is not confused with the National party….)
3) If one were to test the law, why not create several such bodies corporate – viz
* Not The Labour Party
* Not the Maori Party
* Not the ACT Party
etc
February 5th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
I think we could do a law change deeming the Labour Party a trade union making it ineligable to stand for Parliamnet.
February 5th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
DPF must be getting paid for this. I mean doesn’t all this spinning just get boring? surely.
February 5th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Well DPF – normally you rave about Andrew Little despite his obvious affiliations. Yet here you are having to eat your words. Lesson learned eh?
I see Andrew Little as a media limelight hogging, one-sided opinionated unionist who has a knack for coming across on TV not too bad. While he has obvious vested interests in the EPMU that he represents he doesn’t deserve your accolades. I have never heard a balanced response from him. He does not deserve your respect! Hope you can see through it all now.
Nice post though
February 5th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Well Richard my suggestion that Federated Farmers are closest to having ‘automatic membership to National’ may seem laughable given that Michael Cullen addressed their recent conference. But given the fact that Labour approved the dairy merger that became Fonterra and there are now some very rich dairy farmers you would think that farmers might look favourably toward Labour.
Wrong! I am sure it is bred into them that they vote National and come November we will once again see a sea of blue in the rural seats.
February 5th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
the cynicism employed by labour in regard to the EFB is comical.
It is less a matter of being surprised an outraged by it and more a matter of being surprised that there was so little effort done to hide it and surprised by the ability of labour ministers being able to keep straight faces.
February 5th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
I have to agree we will see a sea (hehe) of blue in the rural seats and labour will only have themselves to blame: rural school closures, attemped forced public access and attempted farm dog microchipping, the failed fart tax, pulling the plug on crown lease holders tenure review and on and on.
But to suggest Fed farmers is automatcially in the pocket of National similar to Labour and the EPMU? LOL. If that was the case then ex-Labour Minister Jim Sutton would never have had the Aoraki seat for so many years (till Joe Goodhew gave him the heave-ho).
February 5th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
The list on the Labour website is wrong. The Rail & Maritime Transport Union is also a Labour affiliate.
February 6th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Is this the same EPMU that receives cash rewards from Labour under the guise of the Employment Relations Educational Contestable Fund (ERECF).
Seems like it’s a nonstop money go round with Labour and their mates!