Comments on: EPMU to register as third party

By: clintheine

clintheine — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 20:33:38 +0000

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!

By: Swampy

Swampy — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 09:49:10 +0000

The list on the Labour website is wrong. The Rail & Maritime Transport Union is also a Labour affiliate.

By: Richard Hurst

Richard Hurst — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 09:41:30 +0000

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).

By: GNZ

GNZ — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 07:21:00 +0000

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.

By: Rocket Boy

Rocket Boy — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 07:17:16 +0000

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.

By: sean

sean — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 05:57:32 +0000

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

By: roger nome

roger nome — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 05:45:13 +0000

DPF must be getting paid for this. I mean doesn’t all this spinning just get boring? surely.

By: tim barclay

tim barclay — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 05:00:01 +0000

I think we could do a law change deeming the Labour Party a trade union making it ineligable to stand for Parliamnet.

By: martin english

martin english — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 04:04:19 +0000

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

By: emmess

emmess — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 02:21:35 +0000

I seen some reusable supermarket bags with Go Green (“Green Party motto”) on them
Should they go towards the Greens advertising limit?

By: Richard Hurst

Richard Hurst — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 02:06:50 +0000

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.

By: catwoman

catwoman — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 00:41:34 +0000

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?

By: Pascal

Pascal — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 22:40:44 +0000

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.

By: Rocket Boy

Rocket Boy — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 22:23:52 +0000

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.

By: Insolent Prick

Insolent Prick — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 22:18:57 +0000

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?

By: pete

pete — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 22:16:49 +0000

Try reading the whole post.

Try reading between the lines. This is an anti-union post. Simply claiming otherwise doesn’t change that.

By: Rocket Boy

Rocket Boy — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 22:14:58 +0000

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?

By: Socrates

Socrates — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 22:13:35 +0000

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.

By: pete

pete — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 22:07:53 +0000

Can you name one organization where there is automatic membership to National?

Waitemata Trust?

By: Pascal

Pascal — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 22:06:37 +0000

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.