EPMU allowed to register – again
July 29th, 2008 at 7:00 pm by David FarrarI’ve just been told by a journalist that the Electoral Commission has decided to allow the EPMU and four other unions which have chosen to be affiliate members of the Labour Party to register as a third party. This means the five of them can collectively spend $600,000 attacking National on behalf of Labour.
I think the Electoral Commission has got it massively wrong – again. Their decision that “person” in the EFA excluded organisations got over-turned by the High Court quite comprehensively.
On this issue, I am astonished that they could have reached a conclusion that the EPMU is not involved in the administration of the Labour Party, when there was documented evidence they take an active role in selections, conferences and the like. They in fact have a constitutional entitlement which probably makes them the most powerful member after the President.
The Electoral Commission was required to turn down any third party application unless they were posiively satisifed they were not involved in a party’s administration. This meant that if it was a borderline call, it should still have been turned down. And I don’t think it was even close to borderline.
My arguments on the EPMU’s involement with Labour are here. The Electoral Commission decision is here. At this stage they have given no reasoning for their decision.
I won’t decide on any next steps until I have read the rationale for their decision.
There have been many decisions the Electoral Commission has taken which I have supported. There have also been several where I disagreed with their decision, but believe it was a reasonable decision nonetheless.
This decision, and their earlier one which the High Court over-turned on the EPMU, fall into a category where I don’t think any reasonable person could reach the conclusion they have.
Related posts:
- Victory in Court
- High Court hearing on Electoral Commission and EPMU
- EPMU appeal fails
- The decision in the EPMU case
July 29th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
You would expect the EC to be reasonable and I’m sure they will swear black and blue that theirs was a reasonable decision.
Lets take a quick peek at the makeup of the EC.
President: Hon Justice Andrew McGechan
Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court: Joe Williams
Secretary for Justice: Belinda Clark
Chief Executive: Dr Helena Catt
So you’d assume that a couple of old judges wouldn’t be playing games, wouldn’t you?
They just aren’t prepared to rock the boat and make a “controversial” decision the other way, they would say to ensure fairness etc, I’d say to make sure they don’t close any doors. Not that any implications would have been communicated by the gummint or its flunkies around this matter, its just that one knows when one is paddling against the tide. Especialy if one spends quite a lot of time at VUW.
This will go to appeal and get killed, after the election process, again.
Liarboring tries once more to route the democratic process.
Our statutory bodies and watchdogs need a bloody good cleanout to ensure they do their job for THE PEOPLE, not to ensure their own longevity on the Wellington cocktail and junket circuit.
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
If you do apply for a review, is there a trust that accepts donations to help with the legal expenses or should people give the money directly to your lawyer? And do you have to get them drunk first or is that optional?
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
This is seriously becoming corruption of the political process.
The unions support Labour.
Business supports National.
Business are largely being scared off from electioneering, unions are not.
And, a large component union electioneering is not quantifiable. A companies union member will be constantly badgering the factory staff to vote labour, handing out pamphlets and so on. None of this activity is on the radar.
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
If they say “yes”, then people concerned that the EFA should be applied evenly even tho it was intended to limit National (but not Labour, NZ First, and the Greens) will take them to court.
If they say “no”, then the unions take them to court.
Either way, they end up in court. So what does it matter what they decide?
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
$600,000 is a lot of money. I have no issue with the unions being able to parallel campaign for the Labour Party. They were going to anyway. This way at least it is legal. if National want to take their arguments to the workplace they should – except of course they won’t be able to afford to.
Vote:Evidently we need a royal commission into electoral reform to be commenced as soon as the next election is over. Perhaps it will remedy the shameful debacle we have been recently lumbered with.
ps what exactly are the points of a) the Electoral commission,
b) The High Court? Why don’t we just make it up as we go along? Which of course is in the original spirit of the EFA anyway.
July 29th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
If an EPMU vehicle is damaged during the election campaign, will the repainting costs be considered an election expense?
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
After hearing Dr Helena Catt on 9 to noon a few months back explaining the changes in the EFA, I’d certainly not consider her impartial.
She completely trivialised the IMO onerous requirements for disclosure, indicating she’s one of the brain-washed labour devotees happily guzzling whatever the Labour party spurts out.
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
wreck – you’re dead right there. Before I discovered the joys of self-employment, I worked at a workplace represented by the EPMU. In the run-up to the last election, there was a constant EPMU presence, countless flyers and brochures, all of which were pro-Labour, and regular reminders that a vote for anyoone other than Labour was betraying the union. I questioned the Field Officer one day, suggesting that I didn’t need to be told how to vote as I was perfectly capable of making that decision myself, and was told that it was none of my effing business, and that the EPMU’s role was to do whatever it took to keep the effing tories out of power. ‘Nuff said.
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Duxton – no comment.
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Did you really expect anything less?
At 25 points behind Labour is hardly going to stop stacking the decks in their favour.
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Yes Inventory same thing at the factory where I was teaching – funniest thing though, that factory closed down two years ago, so that will be one less place for them to lobby in.
Vote:PS it appears that civil disobedience is the only sane way forward.
July 29th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Maybe one of the conditions of Nationals 90 day probation bill is that you can’t join a union?
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Working for part of the Govt (a commercial part) I got warned at the last election about having a National banner above my desk. I wonder if a Labour one would have been okay?
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
David: Can you not admit you got it wrong with this one?
expat: Do you think, for some reason, that not silencing some of the countries biggest collectives, representing thousands of workers nationwide, from having a say is not a decision made for the people?
And Inventory, Lee, thanks for your anecdotal evidence regarding union reps. I’m sure you were perfectly polite to him and solicited that kind of response. I got told of at work for having a Greens placard on my desk – obviously all employers are assholes that don’t like to have political dissent in their workplace.
[DPF: How am I in the wrong? The Electoral Commission's initial decision on this issue was found to be wrong in law and overturned in court. This latest decision is, in my opinion, on even weaker grounds than their initial decision. If a court rules I am wrong, I will accept their decision]
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Warning Warning
Collective organisation may be allowed to advocate for the rights of its members
And they do not even have a secret trust to fund the advertising…
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
>> expat: Do you think, for some reason, that not silencing some of the countries biggest collectives, representing thousands of workers nationwide, from having a say is not a decision made for the people?
The election is about individuals voting and should be left to the individuals and the political parties.
As such adjunct organisations should butt out, unless you think that all of the employer and business lobby groups should be allowed to spend money as well?
Why are these unions more special than anyone else?
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Chris S – David got nothing wrong. It’s the EC that might have erred.
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
DPF, I agreed that the Court got it right re the EPMU being a “person”. That is a simple matter of legal interpretation, and I am surprised the EPMU actually contested it.
However, re the “involved in the administration” issue, I think you are clutching at straws. They EPMU is an affiliate under Labour Party rules. That is really just the same status as a member, but with more voting clout. I am a member of the Green Party, but that doesn’t necessarily mean I am “involved in the administration” of the Party (actually I am, which is another matter, but one reason I would not attempt to register as a third party).
For a case to succeed, it would need to show that the EPMU were actively involved on a day to day basis with administrative matters, rather than just being a collective member of the Labour Party, or even having a governance, as opposed to administrative, role in its affairs.
I really think you’re flogging a dead horse here – hopefully not one of the ones Winston is backing!
[DPF: I don't think the line between governance and administration is as simple as you suggest. By your logic a party president could register as a third party as they govern rather than administer. By the EPMU's own admission they get involved in selection meetings, list ranking, manifesto policy setting - all core areas of a party's affairs]
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
I await more spit flecked placard waving union members screaming at cars and buses in Auckland as the real workers go to work in the morning.
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Yeah, but DPF, as a Green member, even if I were not involved in the adminsistrative affairs of the Party, I would still be entitled under Green Party rules to be involved in the “selection meetings, list ranking, manifesto policy setting”, as is every other Green Party member.
Are you seriously suggesting that the EFA prohibits any Green Party member (because the Greens have democratic processes in under which any member can have an input to these issues) from registering as a Third Party?
I think it is highly unlikely that the Courts would interpret the legislation as a prohibition of Party members exercising their democratic right to free speech, given the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990.
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Toad, I think it’s *extremely* rich of you to use the NZBORA to justify your argument when the EFA is patently inconsistent with the rights and freedoms contained in the NZBORA yet that inconsistency was given short shrift by both Dr Cullen and Crown Law.
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
If Liarbore don’t like a particular legal interpretation of a wording or rule they just change the definition of the words that make up the rules, and their affiliates i.e. unions do the same.
Vote:I know the unions didn’t make this decision, but this liberal system of logic is so infectious it would seem that it now affects a great many otherwise reasonable people.
This has become a major strategy of the far left for some time now, you take a word like bigot or fundamentalist, and slowly engineer these words to the definition most favourable to your own position.
Hence anyone who disagree’s with a liberal is now “unoficially” considered a bigot, anyone who believes in absolute right and wrong is considered “fundamentalist”.
Like all aspects of societey, the left are engineering the english language to their own ends rather than letting it evolve.
The end result is, border line decisions like this tend to go their way because of the confusion they have created through words and legal interpretation.
When you stand back and look at the situation any reasonable person can see the decision of the Electoral commision STINKS.
But Liarbore wins cause ya can’t legislate morality.
July 29th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
I’m an avid reader of Kiwiblog, but haven’t felt the need to comment in the past, as many others, especially David himself, have taken the time to present the position of common sense, principle and reason on my behalf.
In the spirit of cameraderie then, I shall make my initial foray into the realm of political comment a clear and concise one:
Firstly, as has been stated many times before, the EFA is a completely unjustifiable restriction on free speech. We all know that this Act was implemented by the Clark party and its neo-marxist allies simply in order to prevent the restoration of intelligent government.
Secondly, saying that the EPMU isn’t involved in the administration of the Labour party is wilful blindness. Statutory provisions are to be given meanings ascertained from their text and in light of their purpose (Interpretation Act 1999). On a plain reading of the provision, the EPMU should clearly be barred from registration.
Thirdly, the reason why the EPMU has been allowed to register is simple: they are Labour’s largest support base (the beneficiary hordes excluded), and thus are exempt from all laws, regulations and ethics. They are logically incapable of corruption or hypocrisy, as those are solely the domain of libertarians.
This country is going to the dogs at a bewildering speed, and, as much as I love it, I’ll be leaving as soon as I get my degrees (AFTER paying off my student loan – I’m no bludging communist).
Christopher J Laing
Vote:Dunedin
July 30th, 2008 at 1:36 am
The decison, for all that it is not surprising, is still astonishing. How can these people ever again expect to be taken seriously except as transparently crafted muppets?
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 1:44 am
A most excellent judgment on the part of the Electoral Commission and a victory for democracy!
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 1:54 am
Why is anybody surprised? The EFA was designed to shut up the right and to give favourable treatment to Labours allies, in this case the EPMU. It has served its purpose… but is damning proof that Labour are admitting that they cannot win this game fairly, and need to change laws as quickly as they can to deliver them the outcomes they need.
Will National kill this policy when elected or will they keep it as part of their “me too” policy platform?
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 2:26 am
The handwringers unite against the white male penis weilding opressors.
Hulun and Mikhael are preparing for one last stand at the littlebighorn.
Why is everyone focusing on why the Nats havent disclosed too much policy?
Why should they disclose any policy when Hulun hasnt disclosed the election date and keeps cheating and lying?
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 3:21 am
What a bad decision by the Electoral Commission. The EPMU should not be allowed to register as a third party and waste its member’s money on pointless advertising going again the flow of history. National has this election in the bag. With New Zealand in a deep recession it would be far better for the EPMU to give that advertising money back to its members. They might then be able to afford a block of cheese.
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 6:31 am
mickeysavage: “Collective organisation may be allowed to advocate for the rights of its members
And they do not even have a secret trust to fund the advertising…”
Actually, they do mickey. It’s called Government funding of trade unions.
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 6:43 am
For mickeys’s benefit, how does the gummint fund the trade unions?
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 7:02 am
Through various ‘programmes’: eg, grants for union ‘education’, etc. The issue was well canvassed when the ECA was repealed.
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 7:05 am
Oh, so as well as forcing low skilled workers to hand over a chunk of their wage each week (and it IS peer pressure force tactics) they also get various backhand grants from the gummint.
Well, well, well.
And then the flunkies at the standard work in a nice aircon office, sipping lattes and surfing the net all day – PAID FOR BY THE UNION MEMBERS.
Is that roughly how it works Duxton?
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 7:10 am
Sshhhh expat – it’s secret!
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 7:20 am
and here was me thinking that Tane and Co were just weasely little ‘tards.
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 7:54 am
Whoa, don’t get too hasty expat. Tane/Neale Jones is a fucking ‘tard. He argued until he was blue in the face that funds from the Employment Relations Educational Contestable Fund (ERECF) that his employer the EPMU receives from Labour annually doesn’t go towards campaigning “for” Labour. How is this so? How much does the EPMU get from Labour from this fund?
How many members of the EPMU know that they pay for Neale Jones and Rob Egan to surf the internet all day and fancy themselves as professional bloggers? How elitest is that?
What makes me peeved is how unions like to take advantage of lowskilled/badly educated workers. The Unite union is a prime example of this. FINSEC try to do this too under the guise of being non political.
Will National stop taxpayers funds going to Unions? Will they fight for workers to lessen the influence of unions?
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 8:30 am
Clearly the Electoral Commission has revealed its bias and invalidated its right to exist. Hopefully the National government will eradicate this nest of Labourite influence and set up a neutral and unbiased committee which will make the correct rulings.
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 8:42 am
“How many members of the EPMU know that they pay for Neale Jones and Rob Egan to surf the internet all day and fancy themselves as professional bloggers? How elitest is that?”
I’d say roughly none of them, they are too busy trying to earn enough to pay mortgages, buy groceries, whiteware, and petrol. The question is, would they care if they were told?
Even if as an experiment one were to distribute leaflets with some prime quotes from these said bloggers, I doubt if it would really register with the average union member. After all those workers pay their subs, so are endorsing this duty of resonsibility to the EPMU and their representatives, Neale Jones and Rob Egan, and have already signed the contract, as it were.
But just in case … For all media enquiries please contact EPMU communications advisor Rob Egan on 027 276 5146 or Neale Jones on 027 276 7609.
ps http://www.epmu.org.nz/news/show/172318 check out the similarities between VDS postings and EPMU media releases.
WHHoo – ‘Twilight Zone’ or what?
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 8:48 am
Of course the EPMU should be allowed to campaign. Freedom of speech means protecting that freedom for everyone, even Unions (the mandatory use of subscriptions for political campaigns is a separate issue). Indeed, the EPMU should not even have to register to participate in the political process.
BUT
It’s their dopey bloody law and they should have to follow it. I really don’t think the EC has the authority under the EFA to exercise discretion in favour of freedom of speech over the explicit requirements of the statute.
I am not convinced that they are bias, rather gun shy (and/or still using Crown Law).
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 8:50 am
If it were proven that the EPMU media releases and the Standard postings were fundamentally the same, would that indicate that while the High COurt Judgement agaisnt the EPMU was in force, that they had been breaching the EFA by covert means all the time? It wouldn’t be a too difficult job to cross-check them would it?
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 8:55 am
clineheine: Whoa, don’t get too hasty expat. Tane/Neale Jones is a fucking ‘tard. He argued until he was blue in the face that funds from the Employment Relations Educational Contestable Fund (ERECF) that his employer the EPMU receives from Labour annually doesn’t go towards campaigning “for” Labour.
It’s rather simple as well. (Note, dollar amounts are illustrative only)
Scenario 1
1. Union has annual budget of $200,000.
2. Union plans on spending $100,000 on education.
3. Union’s has $100,000 left for other activities, including electioneering
Scenario 2
1. Union has annual budget of $200,000.
2. Union plans on spending $100,000 on education.
3. Union receives $100,000 for education from government which is spent on education
4. Union’s has $200,000 left for other activities, including electioneering
Now we only have to figure out why the Electoral Commission is working on behalf of the Labour Party. What hold does the Labour Party have over them?
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Keep up the good work on this issue, DPF but DON’T lose sight of the all-important point. Free Speech means no restrictions on citizens spending their own money – period. The Nats can do what they like with the law to ensure transparency, but if they give us an “EFA Lite” with tinkering of spending limits and registration requirements and so on, they are a bunch of betrayers. Hope that’s clear.
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Did the members of the Service and Food Workers Union know of or approve the union’s spending of $237,000 supporting Labour in 2005? Would the members of the SFWU be concerned to know that Labour only declared a donation of $20,000 from their union? Would members be concerned to know that the budgeted election spend was $70,000, and that the SFWU recorded a loss of $218,000 in 2005?
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 10:12 am
And what policy does such support buy, Inventory2?
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Among other things, it bought a place in the House for Darien Fenton, who prior to the 2005 election was, interestingly enough the National Secretary and Northern Regional Secretary of a high-profile trade union – guess which one?
I’ll be posting about this later in the day.
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 10:19 am
David
It was well said “If you do apply for a review, is there a trust that accepts donations to help with the legal expenses or should people give the money directly to your lawyer? And do you have to get them drunk first or is that optional?”
Like many here I will happily contribute to such a fund. Latte will be fine, but a glass of Shiraz after the HVGS in September would be better
I wonder though. Do you think we could get every chamber of commerce and business round table to sign up as a parallel force to the unions?
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 10:47 am
DPF:
“’Ive just been told by a journalist that the Electoral Commission has decided to allow the EPMU and four other unions which have chosen to be affiliate members of the Labour Party to register as a third party. This means the five of them can collectively spend $600,000 attacking National on behalf of Labour.”
I would have thought that you would be delighted at this victory for freedom of speech Mr Farrar? What with being a “champion for freedom of speech” and all. Or are your principals only to be applied when it suits your political ends? What’s that “H” word again?
[DPF: I think the law should be applied correctly. Unions which do not affiliate have no issues raised. But this allows Labour through affiliated unions to have an extra $600,000 on attack ads spent without it counting towards their limit]
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Roger Nome/Phillip Mason said:
And this guy considers himself an academic.
Cue Tui ad.
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 11:26 am
Roger NOnaME
I think you must be confusiong DPF with someone who has no ethics or principles! Two things that show consistently here David’s consistency of view and respect for the law. (Both things that many others here would benefit (pun intended) from. )
Vote:This thread criticised an interpretation of the law that benefits some, but not all, of the people all of the time. The law is meant to benefit all of the people all of the time (e.g. it is illegal to burgle a burglers house – they get the same benefit).
July 30th, 2008 at 11:48 am
IMHO Im glad the Unions are allowed to campaign because I reckon its going to back fire on them big time. Workers are going to get sick and tired of being harrased especially with the cost of living going up I mean what can some fat arsed Union slob point to thats helping the workers pay the mortgage and feed to kids.
Yep can see some stoushes at the rock face with workers telling the union slobs to Foxtrot Oscar.
Would live to be a fly on the wall when it happens.
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
For those speculating on whether a judicial review challenge to the decision might have any prospect of success or not, see my discussion elsewhere:
> LAWS179: “EPMU, Electoral Commission, and jurisdictional facts”
[DPF: Thanks - very interesting]
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
just read this article in the herald and found the final sentence a little concerning…
“The Electoral Commission noted that the statute of limitations had expired for prosecution of electoral law offences related to donations returns for 2005.”
That means the statute of limitations is less than 3 years? That’s gotta be the shortest one on the books.
It means you can’t be pinged close to the next election for swindling the last one. Who passed that through? Was that part of the retrospective act that Labour passed to make their election buying legal? It’s disgusting.
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
dang, it stripped my link out..
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10524275
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Toad:
“Are you seriously suggesting that the EFA prohibits any Green Party member (because the Greens have democratic processes in under which any member can have an input to these issues) from registering as a Third Party?”
oh don’t encourage him -you know “Mr Free Speech” would love to see an interpretation of the law that sees every left-wing voter silenced (his dogged persistence in trying to find an interpretation of the law that silences the unions shows this).
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
David,
I don’t see why you’re complaining. After all, if we have a right to keep most of our income, then surely we only have a right to a mostly consistent legal framework?
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
DPF
You have made a basic error, that being that you expect the Labour-led govt to be bound by the rules they create for themselves. It’s bloody obvious the Labour-led govt never intended to exclude the unions from spending hundreds of thousands of dollars helping them with the election so why should the law be followed.
When it comes to parliament the law is a play thing. Retrospective validations covering 14 years showed us that when parliament don’t like following the laws they wrote that they just don’t bother with normal legal process.
WTF were you thinking when you expected anything other than “we will get what we want” from the Labour-led govt?
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 11:14 am
Does New Zealand have a “Statute of Limitations”?
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 11:38 am
Philip John Mason:
Or – perhaps instead of calling DPF a liar – you can see that he is simply working towards having the law that was secretly drafted by the Labour Party and the Green Party applied correctly. And not selectively depending on which favours those two parties the most.
In the beginning the majority of people on this blog said this law was a cock up and that it would act as a hindrance on free speech. Now they are proven correct and it is taking …
Actually. Why bother. You’re too much of a fucking authoritarian communist to know truth and honesty.
Vote: