Electoral Commission decisions on EFA complaints
June 28th, 2008 at 6:58 pm by David FarrarThe Electoral Commission has made four decisions on complaints before it. They are:
- A determination that some NZ First banners in Tauranga were illegal election advertisements as they had no promoter authorisation statement. In a fit or arrogance, NZ First has not even deemed it worth responding to the Commission, so they have been referred to the Police for prosecution. Winston is ignoring the law he voted for, and believes he is above even responding to questions from the electoral authorities.
- A determination that some Green Party posters displayed in Auckland were unauthorised election advertisements but that they were not done by the Green Party itself (and had been modified without permission) so no offence by the Green Party. This does raise the issue of whether any effort will go into identifying who did display the posters because they almost certainly have broken the law.
- A determination that National’s “join the conversation” flyer is not an election advertisement as it main purpose is to communicate policy and solicit feedback for policy formulation.
- A determination that the Green Party broke the law by listing their financial agent’s work instead of residential address, but not referring to the Police as it is inconsequential.
All four decisions seem pretty sensible to me. The Green offence was relatively inconsequential (so I agree not to refere to Police) but the excuse that the Electoral Commission had not stated which address to use is pretty weak. The EFA could not be clearer that residential addresses are needed and the Greens voted for it.
We have yet to hear what will happen with the late donation returns for NZ First and ACT. NZ First has now twice shown a totally cavalier attitude towards the electoral agencies, as if complying with the law is for lesser mortals.
Related posts:
- Six Electoral Commission Decisions
- Two Electoral Commission decisions
- Four more decisions from the Electoral Commission
- High Court on Electoral Commission discretion
June 28th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
“pretty sensible” = “common sense”?!?!
Vote:June 28th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
I know of no evidence that the financial agent of New Zealand First is behind the display of the banners in Tauranga. To the best of my knowledge (and I have no special knowledge) New Zealand First has not been referred to the police – the illegal display of an election advertisement has been – who knows, that display might be illegal under section 65 of the EFA precisely because the person initiating the display didn’t get the required permission from NZ First.
[DPF: Well NZ First could actually answer the inquiry from the EC, then we would know]
Vote:June 28th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
The Electoral Finance Act (EFA) does not say an e Mail address.
Vote:The EFA does not say a postal address.
The EFA does not say a business address.
The EFA says a residential address.
If the EFA was prosecuted one fifth as closely as the Income Tax Act 2005 and the Goods & Services Act 1986 then that Green Party person would be hung, drawn and quartered.
AND why I am saying that?
Well, I am a director of a company with 86 employees, a turnover of about $15,000,000 and am presently dealing with a demented ferret from the Tax Department who is disputing an $80 invoice dated 3rd May 2008 that was included in the company’s April 2008 GST return. The $80 was for services provided in the month of April. Our business employs predominantly Maori and is more than 47 kilometres from the nearest trading bank. Technically, like the Green Party we were wrong. But we are presently being threatened with penalties for taking an Unacceptable Position. We expect that the demented ferret will get his way.
If any contributors doubt the veracity of my claims, and put their telephone numbers on the site, I will put them in the picture in a most certain manner. You can back that in, London to a brick.
June 28th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
The idea that someone who wasn’t part of the Greens would put up identical posters and deliberately cut off / white out the authorisation notice at the bottom…. I’m sorry, I smell BACON.
No, what I think the Greens were implying was that I photoshopped the authorisation out – as if I would waste my time framing a Party that is probably not even going to be in Parliament after October anyway.
Nope, the Greens lied their arses off to get out of that one. But hey, at least our children are safe.
http://blairmulholland.typepad.com/mulholland_drive/2008/06/the-greens-are-liars-as-well-as-hypocrites-and-lawbreakers.html
Vote:June 29th, 2008 at 9:16 am
I don’t understand. Is this to say that the EFA has encouraged, and will further encourage someone to act in a clandestine manner on behalf of the Greens?
“The bill has serious defects, which mean it will not achieve its stated aims. Moreover, it is likely to curtail the legitimate expression of opinions while failing to curb (and potentially even incentivising) clandestine conduct in relation to the electoral process. The bill as a whole represents a backward step in the integrity of democracy in New Zealand.”
Now, where have I seen that before?
Vote:June 29th, 2008 at 10:30 am
This is getting weirder and weirder. Am I correct in assuming that a Party can claim in defence that an advertisement promoting the Party and not carrying an authorisation, was not authorised by the Party and therefore the Party is not responsible ….. perhaps we might call that the Irish defence.
If I am then what a can of worms.
Open slather on advertising for individuals acting ‘independently’ from their Party.
Vote:June 29th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Of course.
If I put up an illegal “vote greens” poster, without asking the Greens, why should the Greens pay the price?
Vote:June 29th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Thanks Graeme … as I thought. So, any Party can, through a ‘nudge nudge wink wink’ campaign subvert the intent of the EFA with a perfect get out of jail card as their defence.
Stupid law and fodder to the legal profession.
sad.
Vote:June 29th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
So “an” Exclusive Bretheren could, you know, sort of, put up some billboards, criticising say the Green Party policy, ostensibly National advertising, but not authorised by them, and not authorised by the Exclusive Bretheren, and well, gee I dunno, would anybody be accountable under this law?
Michael !
Helen !
HELP !
Vote:June 29th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
I thought every one new that Winston was bigger than the law? Have you not been paying attention!
Vote:June 29th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
“So “an” Exclusive Bretheren could, you know, sort of, put up some billboards, criticising say the Green Party policy, ostensibly National advertising, but not authorised by them, and not authorised by the Exclusive Bretheren, and well, gee I dunno, would anybody be accountable under this law?”
Which of course is why they said they needed the EFA in the first place. All it appears to have done, is make it legally unpunishable to run a covert campaign as opposed to before?
“
Vote:June 29th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
The Green Party have also been subject to the rather pointless scrutiny of the Electoral Commission, and their supposed breaches of the EFA were done by some one else, not the Green Party, someone who is acting on their own, so they can’t be traced and therefore the Green party cannot be prosecuted.
Vote:This reminds me of a submission to the Select Committee for the EFB:
“The bill has serious defects, which mean it will not achieve its stated aims. Moreover, it is likely to curtail the legitimate expression of opinions while failing to curb (and potentially even incentivising) clandestine conduct in relation to the electoral process. The bill as a whole represents a backward step in the integrity of democracy in New Zealand.”
So, under the present EFA, if the Exclusive Brethren ran some ‘lookalike’ Green Party pamphlets that smeared the National Party and it could not be proven that they were financed or endorsed by the Green Party then there would be no grounds for prosecution, according to the EC.
What if, though, say an email to Jeanette Fitzsimons from the said covert operatives were uncovered, even though Fitzsimons said she had no recollection of them?. Would it be grounds for her resignation? Even if those emails were illegally procured? Would her resignation be acceptible to most people, given that she had been a victim of a criminal conspiracy?
And would Helen Clark stand up in parliament and demand that resignation for an attempted ‘rorting’ of the electoral system?
Apparently, under the EFA, it doesn’t matter either way, because such a rort would not even bear scrutiny from the Electoral Commission or the police in the first place….
Lee – Monkey with Typewriter
Ps. they don’t let me do this kind of thing on the VDS because I’m just too damn radical…so Thanks DPF – fight the power!!
June 30th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
On the topic of electoral advertising, does anyone know if National’s current use of crosby-textor to spread prejucdice and fear amongst swing-voters for political advantage (and so National doesn’t have to realese any policy) counts as an election expense?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/marlboroughexpress/4601215a6422.html
Vote:June 30th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Roger, do you have real examples relating to National in this election to discuss, or are you worried an asteroid might hit Auckland too?
Here’s a real example of gutter politics from last election:
..In this election period, the Labour Party sent fake “eviction notices” to several thousand individual State house tenants as part of a housing policy promotion. This action had two consequences for the State Services. Firstly, it raised trust issues as tenants were suspicious that a government agency had given their private information to a political party, and, secondly, Housing New Zealand staff had to manage calls from worried and scared tenants.
Housing NZ records mysteriously leaked to Labour Party
Those were the infamous fake eviction notices issued by Labour pretending to be generated by National. Dirty, very dirty.
The question is, did Helen Clark think up this level of gutter politics all by herself, or did she need a political adviser?
It’s almost heartening to hear that National would have to outsource gutter politics, given Labour appear to require no help in this area.
Vote: