The balloon law
The Electoral Commission met yesterday and released some decisions, and is seeking further information on other cases. What literally had me bursting out with laughter was this statement:
The commission deferred consideration of whether a balloon bearing a party logo and website address was an election advertisement pending Crown Law advice
This is just too funny for words. Crown Law has to give advice on balloons!! Will they be researching overseas precedents concerning balloons? Will they look at other laws around the world which regulate balloons? I mean how will society cope without regulated balloons.
Will Crown Law blow up the balloon, and inspect it from all angles? Will the colour of the balloon be a factor? How about the shape of the balloon? And let us not forget size – at what point does a balloon become a blimp?
The Crown Law advice will normally be signed off by the Solicitor-General. An excellent use of time for the Government’s chief legal advisor!
Audrey Young had referred a number of taxpayer funded items to the Electoral Commission, including said ballons. In their response, they rule:
- Labour broke the law with their “We’re making a difference” booklet as it an election advertisement and lacked an authorisation statement. This may mean that the cost of such booklet (despite being paid for by the taxpayer) should be included in Labour’s expenses return.
- National’s Blue Green Vision did not break the law, as it was not an election advertisement.
- ACT’s “Not your typical party” booklet is an election advertisement, but the lack of authorisation may not have broken the law as it is unsure whether distributing to journalists at a party conference counts as publishing it. Again, this suggests the cost of it should be included in their expense return (less of an issue for ACT as unlikely to reach the $2.4 m limit) unless it qualifies for the parliamentary purposes exemption.
- The Labour Party balloon is having advice sought on it
The Electoral Commission decided not to ask the Police to prosecute Labour for their breach of the Electoral Finance Act, and to use it as an educational example. This is a reasonable decision. It does highlight however that Labour have basically broken their own law. They have also been breaking the law by using a non residential address in their authorisation statements.
The issue of the EPMU’s eligibility to be listed as a third party has been decided, but that decision will not be communicated until next week, after it has been written up in full.
April 3rd, 2008 at 9:03 am
Looking forward to the EPMU decision. If they are doing a proper writeup I presume that means they found it complex, and that there were things that needed careful clarification. Interesting.
April 3rd, 2008 at 9:03 am
I wonder if Helena Catt has received any (stern) phone calls from the 9th floor already this morning
Perhaps they could offer Helena a remedial common sense course from Annette King?
April 3rd, 2008 at 9:04 am
I have absolutely no trust in the Labour Party. They wrote the Electoral Finance Act, so should know all about it. When they break the law they wrote, they should be prosecuted. We know from 20005, when they were warned twice before the election that the pledge card was election expense, that they deliberately broke the law. And showed no contrition (only paying the money back because it was the pollitically expedient thing to do, not the moral thing).
If the Police don’t prosecute, I think someone should.
April 3rd, 2008 at 9:08 am
Why are you all wasting your time with the Electoral Commission and all your silly Lawyers? There is one who understands. One who in his infinite knowledge can clear up any issue raised. One who has grasped the EFA in its complexity and who can make pronouncements on each issue with the certaintly of ages. If he can be bothered:
Or as he said just yesterday:
“Na, I just don’t bother engaging with Lee over the EFA. We’ve had this debate before, and from many of Lee’s pronouncements it’s clear he doesn’t understand the law.”
Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Tane: fount of knowledge regarding all things EFA.
Why didn’t the EC just go to him? Imagine all the time and effort not to mention money he could have saved us all! If you do have any issues, forget the Electoral Commission – just ask Tane. If he can be bothered engaging, of course.
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/04/english_flys_king_over_electoral_law_breaches.html#comment-428885
Definition of sham (verb)
forms: shammed; shammed; shamming
make believe with the intent to deceive; pretend; affect; dissemble
April 3rd, 2008 at 9:18 am
The first thing you learn at law school about law is that the law should be certain.
Well, in this case, it is certain – certainly disgraceful!
April 3rd, 2008 at 9:20 am
Re 3: If something is not published, it does not need a promoter statement, and the cost of it does not need to be included as a party expense. You can print $5m worth of pamphlets if you want, as long as members of the public never get to see them.
April 3rd, 2008 at 9:22 am
[DPF: The Electoral Commission decided not to ask the Police to prosecute Labour for their breach of the Electoral Finance Act, and to use it as an educational example. This is a reasonable decision. It does highlight however that Labour have basically broken their own law.]
I think David makes has a vaild point in relation to Act, but Labour drafted this law, it’s the law that they vigourously promoted and campaigned for it to be pushed into legislation so how can they possibly be given any leeway in breaking their own law. Are they claiming that they didn’t understand it??
April 3rd, 2008 at 9:35 am
We are in danger of allowing the coming election to become a farse. Any close result could result in court actions and claims that the election was unfare, the very thing Labour claimed they would be sorting out. I do worry that Labour has too much influence over areas that will at some stage be called upon to take action. How will the police handle being given information by the electoral commission which would result in them having to proecute Labour? Broad is a politiical appointee and despite what King will claim it is obvious that Broad will find his position compromised by having to proecute his employer.
April 3rd, 2008 at 9:42 am
yes paulhelen – a cynic might claim this is the end-game in what may well be a very tight election. I can see Wisnton for one already sharpening his pencil.
April 3rd, 2008 at 9:49 am
Funny?
Its bloody pathetic. Rather like what this load of wankers has made our entire country.
April 3rd, 2008 at 9:53 am
You have to remember that the Acting Police Commissioner did not investigate, let alone prosecute in the case of the formal complaint laid with him on 10 February 2006 re the misappropriation of Helen’s Leaders Funds to pay for her pledge card, for an otherwise bankrupt party.
So come this election anything goes. Shades of a banana republic?
April 3rd, 2008 at 9:55 am
Pathetic sods they all should be made to blow up balloons in correction facilities. Crown law are that dysfunctional and the police are totally rooted, well what can one say. What a cot case country overflowing with corrupt administration. She’ll be right mate, just head across the ditch like Uncle Sullen Caustic Kullen said !!!!
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:03 am
Delicious irony is the best kind!
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:04 am
“Crown law are that dysfunctional.”
You base this on what exactly Dad?
Go on you insane bugger, have an attempt at argument, I know it’s too hard for you to stop being like a 10 year old and name calling, but for once in your exceedingly bizarre existence qualify your claim.
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:05 am
Had to smile at the radio today ‘Lawyer Bill Hodge said this was wone of the Bill’s unforeseen circumstances’ Funny we foresaw it, bleated about it, complained about it and screamed about it, but guess what, because it didn’t suit the powers that be to listen, it’s like it never happened and now they reckon it was ‘unforeseen’. If this was ‘unforeseen’ i can only imagine that Lawyer Bill Hodge’ must need a white stick to get around with..
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:06 am
Any comments on the balloon Graeme? Perhaps the colour will be a factor if that colour was red.
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:10 am
Paul I can give you examples of the crown law office being manipulated by politicians to pursue litigation.
Can you stop calling me a child you spastic imbecile.
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:21 am
Stop trolling, Paul. Settle down, Dad. Don’t let him wind you up.
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:22 am
Helen should just call Mugabe and ask him how to steal another election.
After all he has had plenty of practice.
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:29 am
It’s easy Mark, you just find a bunch of ex-Exclusive Bretheren who can expose some bare-faced lies…
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:37 am
“Uncle Sullen Caustic Kullen” Is rather childish behaviour Dad, and since it’s your method of attack almost every post, as it is of children, I could only assume that you are indeed a child.
” can give you examples of the crown law office being manipulated by politicians to pursue litigation”
By all means, I mean you make a claim and seem to have evidence…
But remember these claims need to be on fact and not some UFO theory of political interference.
Mark, glad to see the level of political discourse has risen above childish name calling to high school connectivism.
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:41 am
Quite frankly Paul I find your comments disgusting and you as a blogger a balloon of hot air.
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:42 am
I see those at the Electoral Commission don’t know how to write letters. And to a journalist, at that. In Audrey Young’s letter.
” a promoter statement is need on every party election advertisement”.
um, the word is “needed” – or “required , would be a better word.
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:56 am
Dave, It’s hard to get good help in such a tight labour market.
April 3rd, 2008 at 11:00 am
.. Except if that help is involving the Crown Law and balloons are involved.
Incidentally, even if Labour had put valid authorisation on its leaflets these election campaign advertisements will not be counted as election campaign expenses even though the campaign material is funded by the very people the campaigners are campaigning among with such campaigning material.
They are funded by the party`s parliamentary taxpayers budget.
April 3rd, 2008 at 11:24 am
When will the warning take effect from – from the date of the breach, or the date of decision? I ask this because from where I sit, Labour are already SERIAL offenders, with at least two more breaches in the pipeline:
http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2008/04/labour-breaks-efa.html
April 3rd, 2008 at 11:41 am
Should be all on for young and old this arvo
Q2 – Hon BILL ENGLISH to the Minister of Justice: Is it the Government’s policy that if the Electoral Commission believes an offence has been committed under the Electoral Finance Act 2007 it must report this to the police, unless the Commission believes the offence is so inconsequential that there is no public interest in doing so?
Q6 – Hon BILL ENGLISH to the Minister of Justice: Does she stand by her statement, in relation to whether particular material constitutes election advertising, that “It is the Electoral Commissioners’ view that counts”?
April 3rd, 2008 at 11:50 am
Dave, it has nothing to do with how they were paid for, rather the message they are sending. If it is promoting work done by the MP in his/her capacity as MP then that’s fine, no authorisation required.
However if it is asking for votes, or dissuading from voting for another party etc, then it needs to be authorised.
The whole issue is interpretation of each and every taxpayer funder leaflet, booklet or balloon to see what the message is. And that is very, very difficult as we have just seen.
April 3rd, 2008 at 11:50 am
great questions inventory2
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:01 pm
INV 2 – you forgot to include the answers to these two questions and the ensuing carry on.
Annette King – `The Electoral Finance BIll was passed by a parliamentary majority’.
Bill English – `Point Of Order Mandam Speaker, the minister made no attempt to answer the question’.
Margaret Wilson – ` I listened very carefully and she did answer the question’.
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Maybe the Justice Minister and MADam speaker use invisible sign language that only the sisterhood understand?
Flood parliament with pink and red balloons and hopefully it will lift up and blow away. What a charade of lies.
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:15 pm
What a joke. I wonder if anyone now referred to the police will be having their lawyers using this ‘educational’ example as a precedent for them not to be prosecuted?
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Look I know my ignorance regarding the EFA is on record (see above) so I hope you do not mind me asking:
Regarding the ‘Balloon Effect’ are we to only prosecute when actual balloons are inflated with a message to ‘vote/not vote’ or should we also extend ths to the possession of, with intention to inflate a balloon?
Or indeed being in possession of the balloon with the means with which to inflate said balloon? If it could be proven for example, that a politician or party were found to be in possession of say adequate supplies of ‘hot air’, but the said balloon were safely stored in a separate location, with the message intact, but uninflated, would the possession and knowledge of the said politician’s ‘hot air’ implicate him or her, viz-avis the above sections of the EFA?
Would the storing of said hot air constitute an electoral expense, were it implicated as a means to expand said balloon, or would the hot air have to be expended in another forum, – say Parliament – safely, and without inducements to vote or not vote – , as long as the Parliamentary Crest were present at the time?
Finally, if the hot air expended were in excess of that required to inflate said balloon, would a complainant be able to refer the excess expended hot air as a breach of the EFA, and demand a recount?
Tane – you’d know the answer to this lot you are a self-proclaimed expert on hot air after all.
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Mark: “Helen should just call Mugabe and ask him how to steal another election.
After all he has had plenty of practice.”
Why would she need to call him? He should call her.
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:22 pm
“self-proclaimed expert on hot air after all.”
Tane is the expert alright, as the steaming fumes that come from the sub standard sewer blog are simply overwhelming for normal people to feel comfortable with.
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:26 pm
“The Electoral Commission decided not to ask the Police to prosecute Labour for their breach of the Electoral Finance Act, and to use it as an educational example. This is a reasonable decision.”
Come on David. Why should this government – the most corrupt in our history – get the benefit of any doubt? After all, they deliberately created that doubt.
It’s a totally predictable decision, like all the others where Labour have been let off by compliant bureaucrats. But how can you call it reasonable?
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Obviously it would be necessary to draw up a list of potential offenders, too.
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Haha, if crown law proceeded with offenses committed by cabinet ministers and a prime minister while in power the front bench of the labour party would be empty. All Balloons away MADam speaker. Where is the Justice Minister? At the hairdressers again.
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:59 pm
What other law allows the first offender to be let off in the interests of education?
And what other first offender was the party that introduced the law?
This corrupt outfit was warned repeatedly up and down the land that their law would rebound on them.
In a non-corrupt country the Police would be called, and the Police would prosecute.
In the end, we get the government we deserve. Have our morals really sunk that low?
April 3rd, 2008 at 1:37 pm
DPF: “The issue of the EPMU’s eligibility to be listed as a third party has been decided, but that decision will not be communicated until next week, after it has been written up in full.”
Fascinating. I bet that letter is getting careful drafting by the lawyers.
If they say no; unions affiliated to the Labour Party cannot be registered as third parties because they are involved in the administration of the Party, then the Unions will seek a judicial review. Crown Law and the Ministry of Justice will be engaged against the applicants, defending the view of the Electoral Commission.
If they say yes: unions affiliated to the Labour Party can be registered as third parties (I am guessing that given the care over the drafting I suspect they are going here) then what will DPF do?
Gosh the letter will require some gymnastics’s to overcome a relationship where the union members are members of the Labour Party, voting and being represented from LEC’s up. Indeed they are represented at the Conference which is the Supreme governing body of the Party when in session. Indeed “administration” of the party would seem to me to be a lesser level of involvement than what affiliated unions actually have.
And does National have the ability to amend it’s Constitution to allow for affiliated organizations in a timely fashion? It would seem that such close relationships are incentivised by a holding that affiliated organisation can register as third parties. And at 120k a pop they might be worth it.
April 3rd, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Chris, the gymnastics aren’t that hard. They just need to argue that the EPMU members hold positions within the Labour party in their personal time, not as part of their EPMU duties. As to what evidence they use to support that, it will be very interesting. I’m pretty sure that much of the activity occurs during work time….
April 3rd, 2008 at 2:37 pm
It has little to do with what one does in one’s personal time. The problem is that affiliated unions play an integral role in the Labour Party at all levels of the party – indeed they often claim they formed it. They are formally represented as affiliated unions on the NZ Council, at the Conference on LEC’s etc. One will struggle to maintain they are not involved in the administration of the Party – unless one construes “administration” in a narrow and technical way.
April 3rd, 2008 at 4:01 pm
dave asks:
Actually that’s a pertinent question. Since electioneering is banned on polling day itself and all signs, logos etc are supposed to be removed, party supporters traditionally bedeck themselves and their vehicles in party colours, hoping that, for instance, the sight of a bunch of blue balloons bobbing round in the wind will suddenly cause a swinging voter to think to themselves “Oooo look! Balloons! Well that settles it… if they can blow up ballons they can certainly run the country. I’m voting National!”
They’ve also been known to wear, say, green t-shirts to encourage people to vote Green. So I suggest someone ask the EC the following:
- If we see a balloon representing a party we don’t like, can we pop it?
- Will they offer some sort of reward for each deflated illegal ballon we corral before it has time to insidiously affect the mind of unsuspecting voters?
- If we see a supporter from a party we don’t like wearing a t-shirt of a colour clearly designed to perniciously brainwash people on their way to a polling station, can we affect a citizen’s arrest and force it’s removal?
April 3rd, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Here’s my take
http://nzdebate.blogspot.com/2008/04/labour-has-broken-electoral-finance-law.html
SCRAP THE ACT!
April 3rd, 2008 at 5:10 pm
BUGGERLUGS…I agree with you. This can’t be seen as an educational example, it can only be seen as a precedent demonstrating how far you can go without being referred to the Police or being penalised. Will ESPINOR corner Klarkula and give her the hard grill tonight.
April 3rd, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Helen should just call Mugabe and ask him how to steal another election.
After all he has had plenty of practice.
I think youll find don’s friend bush is the expert
April 3rd, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Fuck off mike you’re a dickhead.
April 3rd, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Rex:
“If we see a supporter from a party we don’t like wearing a t-shirt of a colour clearly designed to perniciously brainwash people on their way to a polling station, can we affect a citizen’s arrest and force it’s removal?”
After those little vixens in London as well! A man your age! It is such a shame you ruined my erotic reverie with the unfortunately placed apostrophe in ‘it’s’ – I’ll never get my rhythm back now.
Unless you rewrite it to include hand-cuffs.
April 3rd, 2008 at 9:11 pm
The mind boggles…what if the ‘balloon’ were a condom?….but was not unfurled enough to reveal the essential authorisation?
After all a while ago, there were green t-shirts encouraging a voting preference without the requisite visible name & address
That said, condoms can now come in various colours – would they be considered in the same category as a ‘t-shirt’ or other party political visible manifestation…..NZF: black (specially for Peter Brown); Nats: blue; Labour: red….
But it’s a new dimension on encouraging voter participation & enjoying participation in the full electoral process.
Not sure though whether Rex’ solution of “popping it” or “forcing its removal” are appropriate remedies….?
The Commission will need an additional Crown Law opinion….since how credible or relevant is the ‘law of common sense’ – yet again.