Tui strikes again
July 29th, 2008 at 10:31 am by David Farrar
Taken from Whale Oil.
It is arguable the billboard is illegal under the Electoral Finance Act as it cost over $1.000, can reasonably be seen to persuade people against Winston, and is not authorised or done by a registered third party.
Tags: Electoral Finance Act, Tui, Whale Oil, Winston First
July 29th, 2008 at 10:32 am
If satire is illegal we should be very, very worried.
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 10:59 am
I hope Winston complains about it……pleeeeeease!
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Oh David, Puhleeze
It is a non-political statement of fact, How does a simple fact become a political statement of “don’t vote for the person/party this fact is about”. Sheesh, if I write on your blog “Helen Clark has committed forgery” do I need to provide my home address?
Now, knowing how much you were pushing your tongue against you cheek with the EFA comment, let’s take a class action against Tui – it will guarantee a LOT of coverage, and we can withdraw it as soon as the election’s over so we don’t end up with big costs – a bit like a Labour Party tax-reduction statement in a pre-election budget!
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 11:08 am
I wonder if the current Testra TV ads should be covered by the EFA… The ones with the same text read twice, once by a tired, sad, old man, and a second time by someone energetic and young.
Every time I see it I think of Clark, Cullen, Peters, and Goff. I think of 30 year old clapped out trains that just cost us a billion dollars. I think of a government who would prefer us to sit in the dark like our Victorian ancestors, rather than use electricity. I think of the reincarnation of Muldoon. I think of a group of politicians who should have retired 10 years ago but want to run the country for at least another 3 years.
And then along comes John Key and the National Party. The policies might not be radically different. But it’d be great to see some new faces who aren’t tired and bitter and mean.
I’m sure Telstra are sending us a subliminal election message.
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Is it just me, but does the second line seem to be not straight?
If it is not and was planned that way, boy have the Tui guys gone super subtle.
If unplanned, you just have to love the law of unintended consequences.
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 11:32 am
Sad to report but the EFA has no exceptions for satire or irony. Nor does it allow truth as a defence.
The billboard is an election advertisement (if any billboard ever is) because of its tendency to encourage or persuade voters to vote (for or) against Peters.
If the cost is over $4000 the advertiser has breached section 66 (read with section 118) and is guilty of a “corrupt practice”. The daily deemed cost of the site with the cost of the skin surely approaches that limit.
Corrupt practice is punishable by up to 2 years in prison or up to $40,000 fine (section 142).
Remember that a purpose of the EFA is “to provide greater transparency and accountability on the part of candidates, parties and other persons engaged in election activites in order to minimise the perception of corruption” (section 3 (d)) —Yeah right.
Could it be that Peters had the foresight to vote for the EFA, the way Berlusconi prepares legislatively for his future exposures?
So they did mean what they said – “Hey guys lets minimise the perception of corruption, just leave the corruption itself alone”.
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Please lets hope those responsible are dragged off in handcuffs in front of the TV cameras. With EFA opponents waving unauthorised banners And with Plod in mush attendence.
Crazy and her mates deserve nothing less
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
It’s not merely arguable. This falls squarely within the restrictions of the Act. If there is a complaint, they can only get away with it if the Electoral Commission or the courts choose to disregard the law.
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
So the question is – would reading that billboard influence your vote? If you did not know of the events currently clouding Winston Peters’ political future (I.e. waking up from a ten year coma as the ambulance drives past the billboard) would you even realize what it meant? Or do you need the knowledge to appreciate the humour and could it then actually influence your vote?
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
I thought it was suggesting that people should drink Tui – no?
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Couldn’t their lawyer argue that Peters is not the only Winston, and not even the only Winston in New Zealand, and therefore it is a fallacy to conclude that the billboard is talking about Winston Peters?
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
The billboard was not put up by Tui – it was put up by an “over enthesiastic supporter” who didn’t know the rules.
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
RRM: Couldn’t their lawyer argue that Peters is not the only Winston, and not even the only Winston in New Zealand, and therefore it is a fallacy to conclude that the billboard is talking about Winston Peters?
That snap you just heard is the sound of credibility stretched past breaking point.
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
“It is arguable the billboard is illegal under the Electoral Finance Act.” Yeah right.
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
RRM,
You could be right, so let’s see their lawyer argue that in court or does the “law of common sense” take precedent in this particular case?
Tricky eh?
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Would have thought ‘reasonable doubt’ would be the principle here, but perhaps this is the wrong sort of case…?
Vote: