And the majors
The afternoon session was pretty boring in the end, as both National and Labour were saying they should get the same amount of money.
National
Jo de Joux gave a short submission saying National and Labour should get the same amount. Made reference to the advantage the incumbent can get from the restrictions in the Electoral Finance Act and Government advertising campaigns.
Some questions on how the other parties should be treated in terms of tiers.
They want 15 minutes opening time for National and Labour but broadcasters have said 24 minute block on Friday and 48 minutes on Saturday, so the question from Helena Catt was if they won’t budge would National rather have 12 minutes on Friday or 15 minutes on Saturday. They said 12 minutes on Friday.
The normal question over TVNZ’s new requirement to be paid in advance was put. Murray McCully deftly suggested it was an issue for the Commission and the broadcasters to resolve, not the parties.
They were questioned why they suggested all five minor parties (except Progressive) get the same Tier 2 funding despite the Green polling considerably higher. Response was that polls do not always track minor parties well and the difference between 5% and 2% isn’t huge.
Labour
Mike Smith appearing. Guess Mike Williams was still hiding from the media. In fact I hear his cellphone message now asks people if they are journalists to ring someone else. Mike Smith speaks very softly so was hard to hear everything he said.
He said two main parties roughly equal on criteria of votes and MPs so should get the same. Also said polls should not be relied on so much as less people have landlines, so they should have reduced significance.
Also downplayed membership figures as different parties may classify how you qualify to be a member in different ways. And suggested National’s extra broadcast buy from last time due to the GST error should be taken into account for this time. Strangely he did not suggest Labour’s $800,000 overspend should be a factor.
He later clarified in questioning that while he was bringing the 2005 GST issue to the Commission’s attention, in the end they are advocating both Labour and National gets the same.
Labour said the new TVNZ system would not be a big issue – needing to book 10 days in advance. In my experience bookings are made well in advance, but the details of the actual ad is what may change right up until the last minute.
They also said they are happy with 62% for major parties, not 66% as National suggested.
So the morning session was far more interesting. Herald and Don Post did turn up in the afternoon.
I actually think the Commission has a pretty easy job this year as there is no dispute over National and Labour getting the same, and little issue with $10 – $20 k each to parties outside Parliament. The real interest will be how they treat the other six parliamentary parties.
If they have just a Tier 2 and Tier 3 then I’d say Greens, NZ First and Maori in Tier 2 and ACT, United Future and Progressive in Tier 3.
If they have a Tier 2, 3 and 4, then the possible options are:
- Greens – Tier 2
- NZ First – Tier 2 or 3
- Maori Party – Tier 2 or 3
- ACT – Tier 3 or 4
- United Future – Tier 3 or 4
- Progressive – Tier 3, 4 or possibly even Tier 5
It will be interesting to see the determination.
April 29th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
So it seems everybody agrees that National and Labour should get the same. Can we then move on to the harder question – if National get a much bigger share of the vote than Labour this year, say 45% to Labour’s 30%, should National get more $$$? I think so, but Labour would doubtless argue that they are both still in the same tier.
I realise this isn’t the issue at hand, but I think it’s best that we start discussing it now.
IMO, providing that the figures are as the polls predict they will be, National should get twice Labour’s entitlement
April 29th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
What a fucken quagmire. Typical unworkable socialist bullshit. The obvious way to deal with this issue is to have NO GOVERNMENT FUNDING and NO RESTRICTIONS on advertising. Lets have a real election, unfettered by nerd like attempts to make everything impossibly “fair.”
April 29th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Well I object to any of these bastards getting any of my taxes. Its political welfare and they are a bunch of beneficaries.
At the very least they should have to sign a contract and undated letters of resignation.
The conditions are that they publish ( cost included in their EFA advertising) a manifesto with timelines and costs.
If they fail to meet the terms and conditions then their letters of resignation are dated.
Same as applied in other contractual scenarios.
This would concerntrate their minds on the task of governing the country a task that is very low if it appears at all on their list of things to do.
We should also demand a set of KPIs be included in the contract.
Again nothing radical Just hold them to the same standard as most others in the work force are held too/
Ohh Of course I forgot They are the political class Above the mere peasants afterall.
April 29th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Gd, you seem to be taking your deserved cynicism towards the Greens, Labour and their lickspittles and directing it toward all politicians. There are good people in Parliament in the ACT and National parties who have not and will never betray the trust of New Zealanders. They don’t deserve to be lumped in with Liarbour and its lackeys.
April 29th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Hear, hear redbaiter. Going cap in hand to the government to spend your own money on TV & Radio ads is so………..communist China or USSR, especially when people like John Boscawen can spend hos own money buying ads!! If he can why can’t PARLIAMENTARY POLITICAL PARTIES!!!
April 29th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
How surprising, Labour and National want the same thing. Exactly the same amount of money from the public pursue. And deny other parties the opportunity to buy anymore advertising. What a disgusting show.
April 29th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
berend: Exactly. Tweedledum and Tweedledee line up for another helping of taxpayer funded pie and expect the thin kids to miss out. As Gooner, Red and gd have said, it’s just political welfarism. If National and Labour, after all their years of existence and all their years in power, haven’t got the monetary or physical support to run a campaign by now then clearly not many people really support them. Sure they’ll toddle off to the polls come election day and vote for one or the other, but ask them to put their hand in their pocket or turn out and bang up some billboards and their support doesn’t run that deep.
Only a new party which hasn’t had the opportunity to promote its philosophy to the public can justify requesting any public funding for advertising – because political discourse benefits from having a variety of voices. If, once they’ve made clear what they stand for, no one is buying then it’s time to fold up the tent or fund your own propaganda.
Edit: I just had a thought. Who really watches these “party political broadcasts” anyway? Ours are rarely attack ads, which at least have the redeeming feature of being entertaining. They’re always worthy and dull.
So if National were capable of thinking outside the square, it’d be offering some of its allocation to the smaller parties and saying “we’re doing this because we oppose the EFA and think everyone deserves a voice and because we believe that what we have to say is so compelling that it’ll eclipse Labour’s offering – and we don’t need to drone on forever to do it”. That might get people to pay some attention, at least, and show they were more than just unprincipled snouts-in-the-trough pollies like the rest of them.
April 29th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Dont be a twat Rex.
The EFA has nothing to do with the broadcasting funding, which has been in this bi partisan format for ages.
Apart from the 1 Jan date and a few minor other changes national would be very happy with EFA, since they are well aware the boot does get on to the other foot.
Pushmepullme your question is easily answered , in 2002 National got 20.9% of the vote while Labour got 41.2 %
Surprised ? Not as surprised as DPF was at the time.
But the 2005 broadcasting funding was only 10- 12 % different.
Which comes to the same amount national stole by not paying the GST
Surprised
[DPF: Strangely Ghost is not a Spokesperson for National so his pronouncements on what National would be happy with should be given the same credibility as Parekura Horomia on kids missing breakfast. And Labour had 22.2% more broadcasting funding than National last time, so the extra 12.5% is not "the same amount" so once again Ghost lies]
April 29th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
ghostwhowalks3 says:
With a preface like that, we must be about to gain the benefits of GWW3’s vast experience in the political arena…
Uh, yeah… I know. I was merely making the point that National could, if it wanted to be bold and innovative, redress the other imbalances created by the Act by giving up some of its air time, which I don’t think will do it much good anyway.
Uh, yeah… I agree with you. In fact I said as much in my first sentence. Oh wait… I agreed with you. Now that does make me a twat.
April 29th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
I’m another person who would prefer no funding for political parties. I’d be happy if these discussions were all about cap to spend spam^h^h^h^h promoting political parties.