The chilling effect of the EFA
July 24th, 2008 at 1:32 pm by David FarrarSteve Pierson at The Standard blogs on the ads run by the Northern Employers and Manufacturers Association against a proposed law which stops employers from operating a total remuneration package that includes the cost of KiwiSaver.
What’s more, this whole embarrassing exercise may be in breach of the Electoral Finance Act. I’ve just had a tip-off from a reader who has laid a complaint with the Electoral Commission this afternoon.
It turns out the EMA has failed to register as a third party, which means it has an election spending limit of $12,000. Today’s ad was a half page full colour in the Herald, putting it at around $15,000 according to a recent rate card and pushing the EMA well over their legal spending limit. The ad also entangles the New Zealand Herald, which is in breach for publishing it.
Now think about this. The Government is passing a law which wll affect every business in New Zealand. The Northern EMA represents thousands of those businesses.
The Electoral Finance Act means it may be unable to run even a couple of ads against this law change, without breaching the Electoral Finance Act or being forced to register as a third party.
The Electoral Finance Act is not just about elections. It is about silencing dissent in election year. If the Government announces law changes in election year, then people should be able to lobby and advertise against them. Why should the EMA Northern be reduced to spending less than $1 per business it represents?
It is debatable of course of the advertisements would be ruled election ads. But the EMA Northern is now running the risk of being prosecuted if they do turn out to be.
Related posts:
- NZ Herald on “chilling effect” law
- The chilling effect
- The cumulative effect
- Cullen ruled election advertisement for National
July 24th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Presumably they’ve made an (entirely sensible) judgement that such an advertisement is not an election advertisement!
In my view, the doomsayer-style hysteria about the effect of the EFA on “issue ads” is grounded in fiction, not fact…
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
If this is a breach of the EFA then they’ve brought it on themselves. They could easily have registered as a third party and then spent up to $125,000 on this sort of dross. Alternatively they could have constructed the advertisement in a manner that made it more clearly an issues advertisement. To claim this chills debate is simply ridiculous.
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
It could simply be simple decision to run the adverts notwithstanding the EFA, leave the ball in the hands of the Electoral Commission and let them make the running.
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
I agree that the EFA was only EVER about silencing dissent in election year.
Vote:Anyone wishing to raise a political view is effectively unable to convey it to others, yet in contrast the Labour government is able to extensively promote its views.
Accentuating this wrong is the fact that the Labour government uses our taxpayer dollars for their propaganda, whereas anyone wishing to raise awareness of alternative ideas would be using their own or donated dollars – a much more democratic source of funding.
July 24th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
And if anybody here starts to froth when I say this was the original intent and Clark et al are no better than Hitler et al in regards to freedom of the indiviual I say FOXTROT OSCAR the evidence is clear and plain
And the likes of Ferdinand who sees no problem in citizens and organsiations having to register on the STATES REGISTER OR BE PUNISHED are fools.
If the STATE APPARTUS now goes after the EMA then this will proof my point that the whole intent was to suppress and punish any opposition to the Socialists.
Hiding behind BUT THATS THE LAW is a cop out
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
deanknight, so your interpretation of the EFA is that it’s fine for a union to campaign against proposed legislation… (legislation being an enactment of policy)? If so I’m assuming that it’s also fine for other interest groups to campaign against other policy? Yes..?
Or is it really that unions should be able to do/say whatever they like (because they’re Labour aligned) while everyone else is legislated into muted subservience?
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Imagine the scenario, the government prosecutes the largest paper in the country for a speech crime just weeks preceding an election. Got to be worth 2 – 3% more swing?
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
getstaffed:
The material words are “reasonably be regarded as … encouraging or persuading voters to vote” etc.
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
unaha-closp – not gonna happen. the organisation in question is aligned with Labour. but just imagine if some small religious group were taking half pages and voicing their opinion? OMG, there’s be a [another?] state-led inquisition
deanknight – so in your opinion publicising objections to policy and/or planned legislation can not be ‘reasonably regarded as encouraging/persuading’ etc ?
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
getstaffed:
depends. you’ve got a make a judgement. but this one falls well short. but, I suspect, closer to the election we will see election adverts masquerading as issue adverts – which is when it gets a little harder to judge.
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
getstaffed – The Employers and Manufacturers Association Northern Inc (EMA) is not aligned with Labour.
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
I agree with Dean – this isn’t even close to being an election advertisement. Instead, like the CAFCA postcards, it is very clearly aimed at getting people to lobby politicians, not at influencing voter behaviour.
As for The Standard, they seem to be doing their level best to prove the fearmongers right. Dicks.
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
The advertisment accuses Trevor Mallard of attempting to rip off the poor, the young and the elderly. If I/S is correct unlimited budget advertisments against party policy are always legitimate when the phone numbers of MPs are expediently listed.
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
The issue itself is so moronic only Labour could have caused it. Kiwisaver contributions ARE a form of remuneration.
Either the employer includes Kiwisaver in the remuneration package or they dont hire people who wont sign up to Kiwisaver. And who would refuse to sign up to Kiwisaver? The poor.
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Go for it, Northern Employers and Manufacturers Federation. The reality that Kiwis need to face is that NZ is lined up to join countries like Russia, Zimbabwe, China and Iran in blatantly jailing what are indisputably POLITICAL prisoners. And we need to get on a UN blacklist for it sooner rather than later. Someone failed to “register” or tick the right boxes and dared to criticise the Heleban – end up in jail. Come ON, what ELSE is it?
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Ah yes, the slippery slope towards inevitable Zimbabweism… (sigh)
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
How about we all chip in for a full page ad that screams “Vote Rational” in huge blue letters?
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Will RRM atleast in zimbabwe they are straight out corrupt and make no bones about. Not like our beloved Limbo party who write the rules in a vain attempt to hide their corruption. This stupid lot reminds me of some of my cows, they will hide a head behind a tree while their fat arses stick out for all to see. Many of your ilk will not see corruption but your can be assured it is sticking out like a cows arse.
Vote: