Another Tui ad
August 1st, 2008 at 11:08 am by David Farrar
Okay this oen isn’t an official one. I got it from Paul Walker.
This one however is real, but alas it may be short lived. The Herald reports:
A Tui billboard saying “When Winston says no, he means no – Yeah, right” has brought a warning that it may breach the Electoral Finance Act.
The billboard is in the Tauranga electorate Winston Peters is desperate to win, and the Electoral Commission told the Herald it would write to brewers Tui saying it could be “election advertising” against him.
I am not surprised. It was pointed out during the hearings on the then EFB that commerciakl advertisements could be caught up. And alas satire is also covered.
Tui brand manager Jarrod Bear said the brewer had not received any correspondence from the Electoral Commission and was not considering taking the billboard down.
Asked if Tui was aware of the legislation when it came up with the billboard, Mr Bear said, “Not particularly, no, not the finer details of it.
“It sounds a little bit crazy and it’s definitely not our intention to be campaigning in favour of one or the other.
Also intentions have little to do with the application of the law.
The possibility that Tui billboards making satirical political references would breach the act was raised while it was being put through Parliament last year. Whether the Tui billboard is an election advertisement depends on whether it can reasonably be seen as trying to persuade people either to vote for Mr Peters, or against him.
Let us look at the exact clause – good old s5(1)(a)(i):
means any form of words or graphics, or both, that can reasonably be regarded as … encouraging or persuading voters to vote, or not to vote, for 1 or more specified parties or for 1 or more candidates or for any combination of such parties and candidates:
Now note the test is not what the intention of the creators is. The test is simply whether that particular form of words or graphics ends up encouraging or persauding people not to vite fir Winston.
And it is hard to argue that a billboard which suggests he does not tell the truth, or is evasive or deceptive does not have an effect in encouraging people not to vote for him. It is a very negative attribution.
So alas the end result maybe that all of election year, Tui can not do billboards which take the piss out of a politicans. Says who? Well the politicians who passed the law.
August 1st, 2008 at 11:28 am
It has to count as satirical media, surely.
Vote:August 1st, 2008 at 11:31 am
DB Breweries must keep the billboard up there.
Let the Electoral Commission have a go at them because the Labour Govt with its Winnie First and Green backers of the EFA need to be publically shown up for what they are.
It is the most damning indictment in free speech in the history of this country if they are made to take this down.
They used Tui boards with much humour and jibes at both Labour and National at the last election and for goodness sake if they have to take this down then we are really in Mugabism times when even humour is repressed.
This is truly Stalinist in design and Nazism in practice.
What is the difference to the Chinese authorities restricting the internet/media in China over the Olympics because they don’t want the regime criticized to what the Govt here is doing with this ad thru the EFA.
Where has Freedom of Speech gone?
The Green Party who should be defending this critical freedom of Democracy are silent.
Come-on, if this was happening in Tibet you would be announcing it in our Parliament yet when it happens to us you are SILENT AGAIN.
TO ALL GREEN MP’S – WHERE ARE YOUR PRINCIPLES FOR PROTECTING YOUR OWN NZ CITIZENS RIGHTS?
Vote:August 1st, 2008 at 11:34 am
Another doomsayer interpretation, which applies an unduly aggressive meaning of the phrase, ignores the purpose of the act, other interpretative principles, and the rights-consistency injunction in the Bill of Rights.
If I was advising Tui, I would happily advise them that they are entitled to continue their campaign…
Vote:August 1st, 2008 at 11:35 am
I’ve included my own thoughts about the Electoral Commission in a post this morning – complete with a “Yeah, right” at the end!!!
http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2008/08/election-ad-yeah-right.html
Vote:August 1st, 2008 at 11:35 am
Surely “The Law of Commonsense” applies here?
Vote:LOL
August 1st, 2008 at 11:36 am
Ryan Sproull – Thats the point. This Act has no protection of satire.
Vote:August 1st, 2008 at 11:37 am
Dean – which is why the Electoral Commission has said they are going to advise that it could be covered?
Vote:August 1st, 2008 at 11:40 am
The Heleban will be pulling all the strings to try and ensure that this DOESN’T get prosecuted, surely (law of commonsense and all that). They KNOW that they touch a people’s icon like the Tui billboards only at the cost of considerable odium for themselves. But if they wrote the law, and Tui gets prosecuted under it………..
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA……….another nail in the coffin………..
Vote:August 1st, 2008 at 11:46 am
It’s clearly an issue ad.
The issue is “is Winston telling porkies?.
I agree with Dean. I doubt it’s in breach but maybe not for the “issue ad” reasons.
Vote:August 1st, 2008 at 11:47 am
Oh, but “ordinary New Zealanders can still say what you like, do what you like, protest, shout, chant slogans and walk to the steps of parliament or whatever” (Winston Peters to Nelson Grey Power, 14 December 2007).
There’s clearly been a mistake here, since silencing Tui was obviously not the intention. Hopefully Tui will write to Mr Peters asking him to live up to his assurances and defend their billboard. After all, the man’s not a hypocrite.
Rest of the speech is worth a read (wait till lunch is fully digested, though) for lines like this:
Yes, John Key and Bill English are, even as we speak, secretly plotting to make Logan’s Run a reality in New Zealand. “Ve haff ze technology to vaporize ze wrinklies, Bill, now ve can start recruiting ze zandmen”*
I’ve never bothered to read his stuff since I stopped writing it, so I hadn’t realised quite the extent to which it was barking. Is it any wonder the elderly leave these meetings scared witless and voting NZF?!
* Apologies for the cheap racial stereotyping, but we are talking about Winston’s fantasies here, and in his mind all evildoers are foreign.
Vote:August 1st, 2008 at 11:50 am
Your question has been answered, Logan Five.
Vote:August 1st, 2008 at 11:51 am
I thought the EC had previously said they would be taking a narrow rather than broad view of what was encouraging people to or not to vote. ie there had to be a specific call to action rather than general and implied comments.
Vote:August 1st, 2008 at 11:59 am
“the Electoral Commission told the Herald it would write to brewers Tui”
Who are these whining bitching little commie arseholes anyway?? Why doesn’t our media shine some light on these people? They sound just like the kind of offensive scum who should be boxed up and exported to North Korea.
Vote:August 1st, 2008 at 12:04 pm
iiq374:
All the Commission said was that they would advise Tui about the law so they were aware of the restrictions.
They admit they haven’t assessed it for compliance or not.
Vote:August 1st, 2008 at 12:07 pm
The billboard is from the EB (‘Excellent Brewers’) so it’ll be fine. Were brought to us by that other bunch… well that would be a different story.
Vote:August 1st, 2008 at 12:11 pm
And what Sir Redbaiter do you think of my Green Party question above ?
Is the Tibet analogy fair?
and good point if it was the EB the whole of the Army and the Police would be down on them like a ton of bricks!!
Vote:August 1st, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Yeah the EC seem to be doing their duty under this insidious law only to the absolute minimum necessary, Red, so I wouldn’t be too hard on them.
It’s like a parking warden coming up to you and saying “Erm, your car probably shouldn’t be there, it might possibly be in breach of a Council bylaw or something. Not sure, the law’s a bit murky, but better safe than sorry, eh? So I’m just going to stroll off now and if it’s not gone when I come back in… oh, say six months… I shall be very disappointed”.
Vote:August 1st, 2008 at 12:34 pm
I do hope that a representative of Tui, connected with the setting up of billboards, reads this kiwiblog discussion, as I would respectfully suggest – if they are required by the Electoral Commission to alter this sign – is to replace it with a sign that says nothing – has just a black blank, and to the side the usual words: Yeah, right!.
That of course should gain Tui the publicity they want, especially if MSM pick it up, and leave the Commission and EFA screwed because the sign itself would say nothing, but the circumstances [some of the Commission's own making] would say it all.
Vote:August 1st, 2008 at 12:38 pm
“And what Sir Redbaiter do you think of my Green Party question above ?”
You mean this one servant?
“TO ALL GREEN MP’S – WHERE ARE YOUR PRINCIPLES FOR PROTECTING YOUR OWN NZ CITIZENS RIGHTS?”
A very good question and I thought overall an excellent post. However you know of course that appealing to the Greens on the grounds of real concern with human rights, liberty, free speech and all of those concepts is a complete waste of time. The Greens do not believe in such things and NEVER HAVE. They are Marxists, Communist, Stalinists and like all such scum in reality have scant regard for the principles that have for so long underpinned western culture. Sue Bradford went to China and came back saying how wonderful it was. While Chinese protesters for democracy were being shot and jailed. She never protested there.
Like all of the left, they pretend to hold these things dear at the same time as they work gradually and silently and surreptitiously to destroy them. You might get some platitudinous waffle from them in response to your demand, but they’ll never really do anything that might foul up their long term plans for the destruction of capitalism and the establishment of a one party state.
Vote:August 1st, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Ratbiter would never stereotype the political left.
Yeah Right.
Vote:August 1st, 2008 at 12:52 pm
So let me get this straight. The Electoral Commission that has allowed a massive, cohesive campaign to be waged by the Labour Party using Union funding is the same as the Electoral Commission that is going to write to a brewery about a pisstake, satirical advertisement as a breach of the Electoral Finance Act?
It’s gone beyond banana republic and into comedy.
Vote:August 1st, 2008 at 1:26 pm
So pray tell is this the same Electoral Commission who would break Tui like a butterfly on the wheel whilst allowing Unions who are so close to the Socilaists you couldnt put a cigarette paper between them to register as independent third parties so they can spent money gained from the Socialists under the guise of EDUCATION GRANTS to spread their filthy propoganda to the good citizens.
Well tell me Is this the one and same Commission
Vote:August 1st, 2008 at 1:31 pm
If they are ordered to take it down they should replace with “When Labour, Greens, and NZ First passed the EFA they said they were not taking away your freedom of speech.”
Vote:August 1st, 2008 at 1:36 pm
I disagree with Dean Knight and agree with DPF – the Tauranga Tui billboard is undoubtedly an election advertisement under section 5 of the Electoral Finance Act 2007.
To attempt to deny the reasonable political persuasiveness of the billboard is odd. To claim the right to engage in politically persuasive speech one needs to place Dominion Breweries Ltd within one of the categories of permitted speakers within the EFA.
In terms of persuasiveness, satire is often used in negative campaigning – indeed some of the most affective political advertising mixes fact with humour.
If this billboard were done by Simon Bridges the National candidate for Tauranga (minus the Tui Branding and assuming the promoter statement) then it would be a candidate election expense.
So applying the EFA and accepting that the Tauranga Billboard is reasonably politically persuasive, Dominion Breweries Ltd is likely over the $12k limit for unregistered “third party” political speech and certainly because of the location of the billboard in Tauranga and the message on it, over the $1k local candidate directed unregistered “third party” political speech.
Plus of course there is no promoter statement on the billboard.
Dominion Breweries can also be excluded as a registered “third party” a candidate (or a candidate who is advertising in another capacity) an MP in that capacity, a non commercial blog, a registered political party or a broadcaster/newsmedia.
Indeed I would argue that this type of speech by Dominion Breweries Ltd is the very kind of speech the EFA is designed to regulate.
It would be odd if one were to be able to engage in politically persuasive speech merely because one is engaged in trade and are advertising in order to improve that trade. If this were so, then those in trade (not including the newsmedia) are even more privileged than the newsmedia itself.
Unfortunately New Zealand has adopted a system of attempting to comprehensively regulate the freedom of expression relating to parliamentary politics, corporate satire is caught by that. The solution to the Tui dilemma is not to wriggle about trying to deny the obvious political persuasiveness of the satire or attempt to mine the BORA for some out – the best approach is to accept that the attempt to regulate is flawed and inconsistent with a free society. Whatever the risks of not regulating non party and candidate speech are, they are preferable to attempting to “balance” and therefore counterbalance all political expression.
Vote:August 1st, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Does the Ford ad which shows a couple of farmers driving across a paddock in a red ute and finishes with the driver saying “should’ve bought a blue one” also breach the Act?
Vote:August 1st, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Yes hagues, except even that probably won’t pass so they could put -
“When L. . . . . ., the G……., and NZ F…… passed the EFA they said they were not taking away your freedom of speech.”
Vote:August 1st, 2008 at 1:50 pm
polemic, you don’t think a parallel with Tibet is insulting the people of Tibet? They get thrown in jail for carrying a photo of the Dalai Lama for gawd’s sake.
Vote:August 1st, 2008 at 2:09 pm
They should replace it with;
Vote:“when the EC say no, they mean no “
August 1st, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Chris Diack:
I think the fact the it is Tui Breweries making the satirical statement is part of the essential factual matrix for determining whether it can reasonably be regarded as encouraging people to vote. The difference between a billboard from them and Bridges is important.
Note, I’m not saying other Tui billboards will not breach. But, on the worst intrepretation, this one does no more than speaking to Peter’s credibility as a politician. On an objective view, it is entirely agnostic about whether we vote for him or not. If, however, it had stronger ties to electoral candidacy, then I would adopt a different conclusion.
Vote:August 1st, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Chris Diack:
What bothers me about it is why would it persuade somebody to vote for them? I’m struggling a bit with my own thoughts here, but if you look at the advert without knowing about the Winston Peters saga (You’ve been in a coma for a long time and just woke up as the ambulance drove past the billboard) how would it persuade you?
By suggesting that a politician lies? The sky is blue, water is wet and none of our politicians are 100% pristine and lillywhite.
And if you do know about the whole Peters saga this would not influence your vote. You’d look at it, you’d laugh and think: “That fits the old bugger like a bottle of Jack”. It’s not imparting any new knowledge.
Does that make any sense? Not that it changes the letter of the Act as written down and is being oh so selectively applied. Your analysis seem very good to me and I agree with what you’ve written.
Vote:August 1st, 2008 at 3:24 pm
This is an Election add
Vote:Yeah right
August 1st, 2008 at 3:36 pm
I think that regular substantial donations to the Spencer Trust would enable this billboard to remain where it is.
Vote:August 1st, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Dean Knight:
Mmmm relying on “an essential factual matrix” which is primarily that it is Dominion Breweries Ltd doing the political satire as part of a long running ad campaign to raise brand awareness doesn’t help you get around the breadth of s5 (1) (a) of the EFA.
The provision is directed at the “what is being done” not the “who” is doing it.
The “who” comes up in s5(2) which established the limited range of speakers and circumstances where those words and graphics won’t be electoral advertisements.
I cannot see how one can consistent with the drafting or the scheme of the statute read in consideration about “who” is doing the speaking into considerations about whether the speech itself is reasonably politically persuasive.
The only way one might do this is to say because of the Tui branding, people looking at the Billboard would not find the satire politically persuasive. But you concede that if it were done by Simon Bridges (absent his name on the billboard) it would be.
The problem is that this is somewhat counter to the whole purpose of advertising and satire generally.
The proposition in the Tui ad is that Peters is untruthful by referencing the “No means No” saying and consistent with the Tui branding they ‘call him out on it’ by using a sarcastic colloquial branding statement.
It only works as a piece of advertising if people viewing it while passing register who it is referring to, and to what it is referring. Dominion Breweries must be hoping for this because it’s this recall and brand association that is suppose to work on you when considering the purchase of beer. But one cannot get there without conceding that it might reasonably persuade people to vote either against or for Peters.
Satire is the most affective meaning of broadly cast political advocacy, because of its economy and its focus on essential truths about politicians. Political satire done in the furtherance of trade is likely to be even better because they have to reference something that resonates across large numbers of people – that’s the only way this satire works to sell more product. In all likelihood satire done by Tui will always be better and more persuasive than that done by political partisans – who are mostly humourless.
The problem for Dominion Breweries is that to argue the billboard doesn’t reasonably politically persuade is to basically argue that it’s ineffective in advertising terms. I am sure you will win with that one. Yeah Right.
Vote:August 1st, 2008 at 3:50 pm
when key is saying..”it’s communism by stealth’..
..what he is actually saying is..
..”national will adopt this policy..next week..”
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 1st, 2008 at 4:19 pm
diack says..
“..In all likelihood satire done by Tui will always be better and more persuasive than that done by political partisans – who are mostly humourless..”
..speak for yourself..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 1st, 2008 at 4:23 pm
“..but they’ll never really do anything that might foul up their long term plans for the destruction of capitalism and the establishment of a one party state..”
oh no..!..who told you ratty..?
we’ll have to change the/our master-plan now..!
(ratty..the gift that just keeps on giving..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 1st, 2008 at 4:50 pm
when key says..”..this is our one-page employment policy…”
..what he is really/actually saying is..
..”we actually have another 32 pages detailing what we would do to workers..
..that’s in the secret-agenda-file..’
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 1st, 2008 at 4:55 pm
when key says..”we believe in private/public partnerships’..
what he is actually saying is..
“crosby-textor told us the was the best way to conceal our privatisation-by-stealth-secret-agenda”..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 1st, 2008 at 5:38 pm
So we’re
blessedcursed with 5 – yes, 5 – posts in a row from Philu. That is surely a record of troll-like proportions – at least for Kiwiblog.Spot the pattern:
3:50 – smear 1: Key – when key is saying..”it’s communism by stealth’.. ..what he is actually saying is..
4:19 – smear 2: Chris Diack – ..speak for yourself..! [implying Chris Diack is mostly humourless]
4:23 – smear 3: Redbaiter – (ratty..the gift that just keeps on giving..eh..?..)
4:50 – smear 4: Key – when key says..”..this is our one-page employment policy…” ..what he is really/actually saying is..
4:55 – smear 5: Key – when key says..”we believe in private/public partnerships’.. what he is actually saying is..
It doesn’t take much imagination to see how Phil passes time.
*Sits and waits patiently for smear 6: Nomestradamus*
Vote:August 1st, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Chris Diack:
We might need to agree to differ. In this context, in my view, the “who” is intrinsically linked to the “what”, especially because the “what” directly incorporates the “who” (in the sense that, on its face, its Tui advert, continuing the practice of satirical comment). The implicit message is clearly different from Tui, than if published by Bridges. And the “can reasonably be regarded as” opens up this portal of analysis.
Vote:August 1st, 2008 at 8:13 pm
I may be delusional, but I had hoped that there were actually limits to what the EFA covered. If Chris Diak is right that the Tui Billboard “can reasonably be regarded as … encouraging or persuading voters to vote”, then we are all stuffed. Surely, taking the piss out of Winston, as part of a long-running series of satirical ads is encouraging people to think well of Tui beer?
Vote:August 2nd, 2008 at 2:20 am
deanknight & Chris Diack: Differ you might, but a bloody interesting perspective from both of you. Thanks.
Vote:August 2nd, 2008 at 5:04 am
Nomestradamus
Youre feeding the troll.
Vote: