EFA is reason Labour websites taken down
The Dominion Post and NZPA have confirmed that the reasons for a dozen Labour Party websites being taken down is that they may have been in breach of the Electoral Finance Act.
Labour really are having such problems with Annette King’s law of common sense.
I do hope Labour have been keeping track of the costs of all those websites since 1 January, as it would be very risky not to include them as election expenses.
The next big issue is the Beehive website. I think it is indisputably an illegal election advertisement. Look at some of these statements on there clearly designed to persuade people to vote for or against a party:
“John Key cannot be trusted to protect KiwiSaver for New Zealand workers and he has shown he is not serious about addressing New Zealand’s long-term savings challenge.”
“Now that National’s grounds for opposing New Zealand Fast Forward have been exposed as fraudulent, National should own up to its error of judgement and reverse its promise to scrap the Fund,” Jim Anderton said.
“It’s a pathetic stance that shows once again National cares only about costly point scoring and cannot take difficult decisions.
Beneficiaries better off under Labour
So the Department of Internal Affairs had better start to get worried. A website is explictly included as a method of publishing an election advertisement:
publish, in relation to an advertisement, means to—
(g) disseminate to the public by means of the Internet or any other electronic medium; or
(h) store electronically in a way that is accessible to the public
And now look at s67(1)
The following persons and bodies may not publish, or cause or permit to be published, any election advertisement:
(a) the chief executive (however described) of a department of State or a Crown entity:
(b) a department of State
The Beehive website is published by the Department of Internal Affairs who pay for it.
May 28th, 2008 at 7:53 am
Fair enough on the beehive website, the government should not be using thier governmental role to promote thier party.
May 28th, 2008 at 7:59 am
Helen’ Pledge Card at the last election, if I remember rightly had a reference on it to the Labour Party Website, had reference to the Student Interest Loans something like: “Only a vote for Labour will get you this loan”.
I concluded, at the time that the offer was an out and out “bribe” and lodged a complaint with the Chief Electoral Officer to no avail? I argued at the time, in my complaint that to the Police Commissioner: ‘ That as a servant of the Crown she was advantaging her Labour Party over the other Parties.’ The media at the time were referring to bribes.
Today it still would not be considered a bribe. It would just be an election expense?
May 28th, 2008 at 8:22 am
LOL, the law of unintended consequences.
May 28th, 2008 at 9:12 am
Labour are getting spanked over this. They’re loving every minute of it.
May 28th, 2008 at 9:13 am
I notice Kwiblogblog was morbund yesterday and is not even coming up this morning
Could be just a coincidence, might be just my computer but certainly backs up some claims made by the right about that blogs writers and its backers
May 28th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Look, we know they broke the law and weren’t prosecuted after the last election, why will play any differently this election?
The Nats will play with a straight bat, Labour will cheat. If the election is close, they will hang on for months while it goes through the courts…
I think I’ll go to Australia too.
May 28th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Doesn’t this whole thing reflect badly on *every* Kiwi?
After all (as the politicians keep telling us) they are accountable to the voters and if they don’t do their job properly, they’ll get voted out.
But we keep voting the bastards back in!
I think this country needs a *real* breath of fresh air rather than doing what we’ve been doing forever — simply turning our undies inside out ever couple of terms so the least shitty side is next to our bum-skin.
That’s why I keep promoting the concept of recoverable proxy. Yes, it would be a *really* bold step (although not as bold as some think) and it would allow *US*, the people of the nation to have the final say in the passing of all legislation.
As a nation of individuals, we could have recovered our proxies and killed the EFA stone dead.
Instead, we effectively hand over all responsibility and control of the nation to an autocracy that changes hands every few terms.
Come on people — this is the 21st century. Why are we still using a representative political system that was created in an era when there weren’t even telephones or reliable private transport?
If we want the country run right, we have to take personal responsibility for demanding change.
Or have I got this wrong?
May 28th, 2008 at 9:59 am
The head of the Department of Internal Affairs should be charged for breaching the Act.
This is balant promoting of the Labour party. This is an illegal and a corrupt practive from the head of the Department of Internal Affairs.
May 28th, 2008 at 10:16 am
Section 67 – the ban on Government departments publishing election advertisements – contains no offence provision.
May 28th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Bill English raised this yesterday during question time: http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=s-Qb31NDMJI
May 28th, 2008 at 11:04 am
But having no authorisation statement does carry an offence provision under s64(2) and also if the cost is over $120,000 a corrupt practice under s66(1)
May 28th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Section 64(2) has nothing to do with promoter statements.
Section 67 prohibits publishing or permitting to be published. It is substantially different from section 63 and 66, the offences in which relate to “promoters” and not to publishers.
A breach of section 67 may be committed by a Government Department – even through something like acquiescence, But the offences you list cannot be – unless the publication is on the Department’s (or the Chief Executive’s) initiative. I don’t know that anyone is seriously suggesting that as a possibility.
May 28th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
For once, I support the Electoral Finance Act — at least, on the issue of government websites and press releases promoting the party that happens to be in power. It would be a blessed relief to read a press release on a new government initiative that doesn’t suggest sainthood for the party and minister who happened to head up the department whose work is being promoted.
Let’s keep this bit in when we revisit the legislation post-Election.
May 28th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
A Mr N Muntz said it best.
Ha ha!
May 28th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Is this perhaps a sign that they’re planning on prosecuting National supporting websites? That wouldn’t surprise me after the EMPU court case that Labour would like its day in court with National or National supporters on the receiving end. It’ll be dirty politics until the election dust has settled so this move would make sense.