EMA Advertisement referred to Police
August 26th, 2008 at 9:10 pm by David FarrarThe EMA earlier this year ran some newspaper ads trying to stop the changes to KiwiSaver legislation, which would have made it illegal to take account of KiwiSaver contributions in a total remuneration package.
The EMA ran the ads a few days before the parliamentary debate on the law change, and they did not mention voting – they encouraged people to lobby the Government and MPs. The ad (copied from The Standard) is below:
Now the Electoral Commission has just ruled that in their opinion the advertisement is an election advertisement, that the EMA Northern have broken the law in running the advertisement, and have referred them to the Police for prosecution.
Now for all those who claimed that the Electoral Finance Act would not restrain issue advocacy, you may wish to rethink your positions.
The key aspect here is the EFA is based on the effect of an advertisement, not the intent of the advertisement. Because of the “Stop Mallard” sign it was thought it could end up influencing some people against Labour.
What this really means is you can only run an issue based advertisement in election year if it is not too hard hitting. That is hugely advantagous to the Government who can push through bad laws, and opponents have to hold back in their criticism of the law changes, in case they break the law.
Because they stood up for their members on a bill before Parliament, the EMA faces a police investigation and probable prosecution. Just another reason the Electoral Finance Act should be repealed.
Related posts:
- Labour referred to the Police for Electoral Act breach
- Labour referred to Police – again
- Anderton referred to Police again
- Anderton referred to Police
August 26th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
What is the likelihood of a court case reaching a prosecution under the EFA, after a new government has been formed, then overturning the outcome of an election? In reality, it’s bit slim. The system runs so slow here you could say whatever, regardless of the EFA from here on in and your party, if they won, wouldn’t be turned out. It may be time for people to ignore this law entirely. The losing party who attempted to turn out a democratically elected government would have to build some sort of dictatorship in it’s place and retire from any relationship with average people. Their party would never be elected, ever again. The system would break down completely – and not just the electoral system.
Vote:August 26th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
How long will it be before you will be sent to prison for trying to ask Winston a question? This country is rapidly degenerating into a very sad farce.
Either National should go hard on the Winston question or gift all its questions to Rodney Hide so that he can ask them.
I hope that we see a massive show of civil disobedience over the EFA. The police have not prosecuted the Labour Party (surprise, surprise) but no doubt the full force of law will be applied to the EMA.
I fully expect to see the whole board of the EMA arrested at 2am by the armed offenders squad and shipped to an unknown police destination and held without charges until after polling day.
Vote:August 26th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Secret trusts blah blah blah……Exclusive Brethren blah blah blah……Transparency blah blah blah….
Just a hint to what the Standard will be publishing about this tomorrow.
Vote:August 26th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Surely the advert wasn’t ‘Intentional’
Seems to work for Labour.
This is now getting to be quite serious. There is nothing like removing liberty from the populace to bring on a Revolution.
Frankly National should simply copy all the devious little tricks that Labour have had effectively ‘approved’ as they were not intentional.
Vote:August 26th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
In a perverse way this is helpful. This is what the “law of common sense” really means – no chance to act as any educated person would.
You are no longer allowed to speak your mind.
Next they will save the bother of legislation and simply wire us all up to receive the green (sorry red) ray of mis-information and “we are all losers in the making so get used to it!” message direct to your cranium.
Reading the text it is quite apparent that ones intention is no longer relevant .. in the face of a clear statement that this notice is about your right as a citizen to BE INVOLVED in the body politic what is the response – charge the party who dares to challenge the status quo.
Time to remind people we want to be part of a winning nation that does act to make the world a better place ..
This lot want to prevent you understanding the world in which we live ! Time for change.
Vote:August 26th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Don’t we have a Bill of Rights to protect us against the Labour/NZ First Government?
Vote:August 26th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Does anyone trust the impartiality of the Electoral Commission these days? As a casual observer, one can predict which transgressions will be referred to police and which will not… simply based on the political leanings of the alleged offender and/or those whose political interests are aggrieved.
I really wonder what kind of personal leverage the 9th floor has key officials in our electoral, judicial and law enforcement bodies…
Vote:August 26th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
The letter by KEES KEIZER to EMA Northern indicates that the reason for referral to police is the belief that a suggestion that people telephone their MP to communicate concerns about a proposed Government measure breaches the EFA.
It is hard to imagine how this can be interpreted as a recommendation on how to vote.
Perhaps the legal beagles among us can weigh in . I have not studied law and so can only interpret the perceived transgression through the prism of the “law of common sense”.
I see no reason for this cause of action.
Is there a mechanism to refer people to a public service tribunal for “acts unbecoming” their office ?
Perhaps we need to write a letter to one of the following (or would that also be taken to be an advertisement ?!? )
Hon Andrew McGechan (President)
Vote:Ms Belinda Clark (Secretary for Justice)
Dr Helena Catt (Chief Executive)
August 26th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
It will escape no one that this decision targets an employer group. Would we expect anything less from the EC?
Vote:August 27th, 2008 at 12:13 am
Oh dear oh dear.
It’s almost impossible to deny the EFA was passed for Labour’s advantage when Labour get a warning for their recent breach and they wrote the law, while other ‘offenders’ (who can possibly claim they misunderstood the law) are referred to the police.
Vote:August 27th, 2008 at 1:50 am
Shot across the bows to the right – dont get cocky sunshines or we’ll EC ya.
luv Hulun and Huluna.
Vote:August 27th, 2008 at 6:45 am
This advert is clearly an encouragement to ‘not-vote’ for Mallard and his party; therefore I think (ie IMO) it is an election advertisment under the EFA, they state that it ‘appears’ to have costed in excess of $12,000 and that the EMA have not registered as third parties so cannot spend this amount.
the EFA has done its job –
established the legal precedent whereby ‘common sense’ can adjudge the merits of each case especially if it is anti-government?
enabled the administration to ‘cherry-pick’ cases where it ‘appears’ they have overspent
provided state-monitored political expression under ‘third-party’ ruling (for the election year – even though the government is at liberty to choose the date when it suits them)
capped the freedom of expression even down to whether it insinuates an opinion about a politician/party
employed the police as an arm of the government to increase the intimidatory presence over similar ‘common-sense’ cases.
Frank Bainamarama shouldn’t be excluding Helen, WInston and co from talks he should be inviting them in and asking them ‘Tell me, how did YOU do it?’. They make him look like an amateur.
It’s a banana republic – anyone want a banana?
Vote:Lee monkeywith typewriter
August 27th, 2008 at 7:10 am
It will be interesting to see if the Police’s attitude towards the EMA is as indulgent as it was to the Labour Party over the “We’re Making a Difference” brochure.
Vote:August 27th, 2008 at 7:20 am
The Executive of the EMA, Their advertising agency principals, and the Board of the Herald (Main) should easily get 4 years, paroleable after 1.
Seems fair.
If only they had painted a Caravan instead.
Vote:August 27th, 2008 at 7:22 am
4 years!? You right wing middle class white male penis weilding oppressor of minorities PIG, 8 years NO PAROLE.
Vote:August 27th, 2008 at 7:31 am
I’m sorry DPF, but your final paragraph contains a clearly demonstrable lacuna and as it reads is wrong. You said “Because they stood up for their members on a bill before Parliament, the EMA faces a police investigation and probable prosecution.”
The fact is that the EMA faces a police investigation and probable prosecution because they stood up for their members *against Labour* on a bill before Parliament. That little phrase- *against Labour* -is the determinant of whether the law is applied or not.
Vote:August 27th, 2008 at 7:38 am
lacuna – nice word, nice application.
I learn a new word everyday on Kiwiblog.
The funny (not ha ha) part is that middle NZ will vote these duplicitous fuckers out because ‘no-on likes a bunch of smart arse academics telling them what to do’ a la Hulun and Huluna.
Vote:August 27th, 2008 at 7:43 am
When you see the effect of the EFA it is outrageous that people are stopped from legitimate criticism of the government.
Vote:August 27th, 2008 at 7:48 am
“legitimate criticism of the government” – re-education camp for you young man.
Vote:August 27th, 2008 at 7:53 am
So let me get this straight, the crux of the issue is that the calling for individuals to contact MP’s is seen as a potential breach? Since when has it become illegal to contact an MP?
Should Telecom be prosecuted, after all, do they not list the contact details of MP’s in their directory?
Vote:August 27th, 2008 at 7:59 am
The distinction between issue advocacy and persuading people how to vote is completely unsound. There is little point spending a lot of money advocating for an issue on which the major parties agree. And there are only two ways to really advance an issue: one is to persuade politicians who don’t agree to change their mind and the other is to get them voted out. Guess which is more achievable?
Vote:August 27th, 2008 at 8:06 am
If you are allowed to convince the voters to vote out the politicians – apparently thats of dubious legality in Huluns Nu Zulund.
Vote:August 27th, 2008 at 8:19 am
This is Kees Keizer – the complainant.
http://www.europe.canterbury.ac.nz/people/kkeizer/
Vote:August 27th, 2008 at 8:31 am
OK Expat. Will raise you to 10!
As long as you leave my penis out of this!
Vote:August 27th, 2008 at 8:45 am
DPF, I hope you have good accounting records that show your Blog site and all associated mediums cost you less than $10k,
Vote:or are you already registered as a 3rd party ?
would hate to hear you have been sent to Siberia
August 27th, 2008 at 9:27 am
What really worries me is that the mainstream media pay so little attention to the bullshit of the EFA, and (let’s face it), most people are too stupid and/or disinterested to really comprehend the true meaning of the EFA.
My only consolation is that it looks like a centre-right government will be elected this year anyway, and they will surely abolish this disgustingly totalitarian law.
Ok, better go now, before the thought police get me.
Vote:August 27th, 2008 at 10:30 am
I seem to recall National being well ahead in the polls prior to the ’05 election and still managing to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. And they look to be doing the same thing this year.
I wouldn’t be counting any chickens yet. Still a lot of dirty tricks to be played.
I do find it disturbing that the EC seems to be quite biased in who it refers to police. My wife used to be lectured by Dr Helena Catt. Her description of her (and my wife is a leftie) = “nightmare flake”.
Vote:August 27th, 2008 at 10:57 am
The most serious matter here is the enthusiasm shown by the police in pursuing enemies of the state provided that those enemies are critical of the Labour Party. Anybody critical of the National Party will be exempt from the police’s duties.
Vote:the politicisation of the public service has reached alarming proportions.
August 27th, 2008 at 11:14 am
If anyone does end up in jail under this legislation, would they not qualify for the U.N. and Amnesty International’s “Political Prisoners” list? That would look good, wouldn’t it?
Vote:August 27th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
“it was thought it could end up influencing some people against Labour”
Because it says “Stop Mallard”… How could anyone interpret that as being against Labour?
What a total beat-up by the cunning embedded lefties in our corrupt system!
Vote:August 27th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
And how often were we told the EFA would not effect the right to free speech and to criticise the current government and that we were just a bunch of frothers for even thinking this.
So far we have had the Socilaists and friends of the Socialists ruled not guilty in cases where even blind Freddie could see the EFA applied.
And now the EMA are going to be done like a dinner.
Vote:August 27th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
The Electoral Commission is an abject disgrace to democracy and its members have no shame or they would have resigned long ago at what the EFA is forcing them to do.
May their days as Government-forelock-tugging bureaucrats be numbered.
And now the Police and justice system will be further corrupted by this Act too.
Vote:August 27th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Jail is a cost centre. Fines are a profit centre and a perfect adjunct to the socialist tax-haul regime. You can be that no rich-prick businesses owners will be going to jail while they can be squeezed for cash
Vote:August 29th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
In response to Lee C
The science of Cartography (maps) teaches that the brain recognises every scene from prior images seen and remembered.
Perhaps you came to your conclusions according to certain pre-conceptions (LOL), rather than looking again to find what is actually in the advertisement.
2 stop signs are present. They remind us that we have a choice and should consider whether to cross to the other side.
The character gives a subject and context to this advertisement. This is about stopping an individual who belongs to a community who have chosen a course of legislative action.
However the only suggested remedy is to use the telephone.
It is not reasonable to assume that the presence of the stop signs amounts to an inducement to vote.
This is the key milestone which might transform an advertisement into an election advertisement which falls within EFA scope.
Consider where you most often see a stop sign. If they are present in election booths or parliament were to be spray painted red shapes I might understand the connection.
If they are most populous on the road side or in media in order to get attention, we now have to look at the EFA tests in detail to understand the reasonable person response.
The Electoral Commission chose to focus on the effects,impacts and perceptions in order to decide the matter.
The impact of the advertisement was taken to be primary consideration in deciding whether a newspaper item is an election advertisement.
The overall perception was taken to be wanting to stop one politician or his party.
However the advertisment is in reponse to actions of parliament and a particular individual proponent of a course of legislative action.
No political parties are mentioned however the Commission has decided the target of the advertisement was to stop a political party.
They have perhaps succumbed to a world view which should not be the domain of the non-partisan regulator!
It is at this point we need legal help.
After a quick search I did not immediately find a definition for advertisement but no doubt this is grand-fathered in.
Also no mention of effects, impacts and perceptions.
It does however land with a surprising absence of the straight forward language we might hope for in the “law of common sense”.
If the next Parliament does not find the courage to srike this nonsense out, perhaps we can start another groklaw campaign!
Vote: