And the EFA strikes again
May 29th, 2008 at 11:36 am by David FarrarThe Electoral Finance Act is the gift that goes on giving.
The NZ Herald today reveals that Labour has had to centralise every single proposed communication by a candidate or MP, with a committee of two head officer staffers and three parliamentary staffers (yes parliamentary staffers approving election material).
So no candidate can put anything out until the weekly committee meeting approves it.
The act had broadened the definition to mean any form of words or graphic that could reasonably be regarded as designed to encourage or persuade someone to support a party or candidate.
The act is not working in the way that Labour had anticipated because it expected that most material its MPs produced under parliamentary funding would not be counted as election expense, whereas the Electoral Commission has no regard as to how material is funded.
It is actually established case law that it does not matter who pays for election adverts, as to whether they are adverts and expenses. Labour and allies tried to subtly change the law, but failed.
New Zealand First’s weekend post-Budget advertising campaign was paid for by taxpayers and carried a parliamentary crest, but was authorised as an election ad.
That means the party can’t be prosecuted if it is found to be an election ad _ but the cost of it will have to be counted against the party’s total election expenses.
This is correct that NZ First has no issues under the EFA. They are authorised and there is no way they will come close to their spending limit.
However I do wonder about The Parliamentary Service approving them, and whether the Auditor-General should be taking a look at them. The NZ First advertisements are blatant advertisements implicitly calling on people to support them if they want lower GST and more money for pensioners (Winston isn’t too hot on the idea of spending less than you bring in). Now Labour, Greens and NZ First passed a special law to make it easier for their election advertisements to be funded by the taxpayer. However even under this new law, the NZ First ads are pushing the boundaries. I really think the Auditor-General should take a look.
Related posts:
- The Electoral Finance Act strikes again
- It’s legal because they changed the law
- You Paid For It
- The Parliamentary Purposes Exemption
May 29th, 2008 at 11:57 am
What a waste of time and money, and a massive hindrance to MPs normal duties. If everything they publish must be checked centrally, this will greatly hinder MPs just doing their job. MPs are paid to be MPs, not to campaign.
The more mess like this the better, it should signal the repeal of the EFA in the not-too-distant future.
Vote:May 29th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Overheard in Labour’s Weekly Committe Meeting…
H1 to H2
“Heather does this Campaign Ad make my Butget look big?”
Vote:May 29th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Got phone spammed by Pete Hodgson at lunchtime. I listened to the whole thing, looking for a breach of the Act, but there wasn’t any encouragement to vote Labour.
His recorded message let me know he was concerned about the low uptake of 20 free hours childcare and that I could call his office for more information.
But all the same, I have not been phone spammed in my life, and then it happens in election year.
Vote:May 29th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
I want to know if the PM’s speech before the Vietnam veterans yesterday will be counted as an election advertisement. It clearly encouraged people to vote for the Labour Party, yet I didn’t see any authorisation statements anywhere.
Vote:May 29th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Surely the advent of this Committee of PAID public servants in public service premises (Parliamentary Buildings) itself should count towards election expenses.
Is this now a free branch office of the Labour Party?
Vote:May 29th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Swampash, one has to be careful there. Everytime Cullen open his mouth he sounds like an advertisment for National.
Vote:May 29th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
If I were Labour I would make a big fuss about trying to get it right, and be seen to do so.. then try to win the election on court cases after the election.
JC
Vote:May 29th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Be sure your sins will find you out. The EFA, the Labour led Government’s Self Destruct Legislation
Vote:May 29th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Have you any reason to believe it won’t?
Vote:May 29th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Perhaps they’re exempt on the basis that nothing Winston could possibly say would now be capable of convincing anyone to vote for his pathetic collection of ne’er-do-wells?
Vote:May 29th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Yawn ….
Vote:May 29th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
roger,
you might yawn but why would labour need such a high powered committee if the law was so simple that its application could be dealt with by using common sense?
Vote:May 29th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
It appears that the law of commonsense needs a body to oversee it:
“Labour Party has set up a powerful central vetting committee, including Helen Clark’s chief of staff, Heather Simpson, to inspect every proposed publication by every Labour candidate and every Labour MP in election year.”
reports Audrey Young of The Herald.
I would applaud this, if it were to ensure that the said information was factual or ethically sound, but after the Pledge-Card fiasco in which Heather Simpson was instrumental in lying to the EC, having her in charge of this body, which after all is only deemed necessary because of their own inept law-making capabilities, is a banana-skin situation JUST WAITING TO HAPPEN.
Why? Because Heather Simpson will allow material through which is very much on the edge of what is appropriate, and will forward the ongoing push to emasculate the EC, until it is merely an appendage of governement.
You saw it here first.
Lee – MWT
Vote:May 29th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
So where did Winston get $158,000 from – so he could repay the money he stole last time – why has tha gone quiet – does the Auditor General have the power to Audit the books of NZ First if there is a proven lie (after all prsident Dail said somehere between $10k and $100k.
Fess up Winston you wanker!
Vote:May 29th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Another point – will this “weekly inquisition” mean that Labour MPs will be fighting between themselves as they seek to spend a very limited pool of money.
The law is a joke. It can only get worse for Labour in the run up to the election.
Vote:May 29th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Law of common sense should apply Roger – the MPs should just do what is intuitively right, and they will be fine. The need for this committee means that either:
– the law wasn’t common sense, you need someone special to interpret it (meaning you were personally wrong Roger), OR
– Labour MPs don’t have any common sense and cannot be trusted.
I’m a bit torn between which of those to believe – both are clearly possible.
Vote:May 29th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Ready……aim…………………………..FIRE!
Vote:..
..
..
..
..
..
..
.
.
.
.
.
Where did that hole in my foot come from?
May 30th, 2008 at 4:55 am
Surely the direct costs of the parliamentary staff vetting Labour election material should be included in the election material spend total?
Vote:May 30th, 2008 at 5:19 am
Once again Labour gets stung by its own legislation. It should have never brought the EFA into existence in the first place. One more “I told you so” to direct at the diminishing Labour base come November.
Good to see the Budget didn’t score Labour any additional points in the latest Herald-DigiPoll survey. It’s a steady decline in the polls for Labour from here.
Nice.
Vote:May 30th, 2008 at 9:45 am
Have you any reason to believe it won’t?
Vote: