The chilling effect
October 31st, 2008 at 9:02 am by David FarrarClaire Trevett in the NZ Herald has some examples of what the Electoral Commission has called the “chilling effect” of the Electoral Finance Act”
- Martin Taylor, chief executive of HealthCare Providers, said the lack of clarity meant he had to pull out of running his main election ads.
- Family First’s Bob McCroskrie faced the same problem and said he was being careful in case ads he did not believe were election advertising were later found to be so. His group had to shelve an initial plan for a pamphlet for every household because the cost was twice that of the $120,000 spending cap.
- There are no (as third parties) business advocacy groups, no Maori groups, and major lobby groups such as Federated Farmers, Grey Power and the Sensible Sentencing Trust have steered clear of the new regime, opting for more muted campaigns on “issues”.
- The Cycling Advocates’ Network has a website and email-based campaign, including posters for download urging people to “make your vote a vote for cycling”. Spokesman Stephen McKernon said it would add an authorising statement to its website and change some of its content after the Electoral Commission told him political parties would have to give written approval of claims they were ‘pro-cycling’.
- The Employers and Manufacturers Association was referred to the police for an advertisement opposing a law change to stop employers giving more pay in their pay packets to non-KiwiSaver members.
- “In newspapers, there is next to no interest-group advertisements and usually this is their one chance to get their say in. I think it’s an enormously dangerous development.”
Remember if the Labour-NZ First-Green axis gets re-elected, then not only will they retain the Electoral Finance Act – they will make it worse. They will keep all the restrictions on people’s ability to campaign against parties and candidates, but make it much easier for parties to use taxpayer funding to drown out their opponents.
Related posts:
- The chilling effect of the EFA
- NZ Herald on “chilling effect” law
- NZ Herald on electoral finance
- Police not to prosecute Anderton
October 31st, 2008 at 9:17 am
DPF:
Isn’t the real difficulty (indeed, if any) raised by these people that the Electoral Commission hasn’t given guidance on these issues or there has not yet been any body of caselaw which has developed about the rules, not the rules themselves? We know that the initial bedding down of any new regime involves a period of uncertainty.
Following the election and any issues which are determined following the election (when returns are provided etc), any purported uncertainties will be clarified. But if the EFA is substantially amended or repealed, then you’ll have the same period of uncertainty associated with a new regime.
It’s much like the changes to the rugby rules etc. There was initial uncertainty about the ELVs but after the players and referees got used to applying the rules, they became more certain.
[DPF: Only partly. The extending of the law from traditional ads to the Internet has been a major problem. The use of "any form of words and graphics" is too wide. The way it was done with no attempt to even consult the Opposition meant it created a bitter arena also. I could carry on but no it is not just being new law. My submission detailed many improvements that could have been made, while still fulfilling the objectives]
Vote:October 31st, 2008 at 9:22 am
And this is exactly the effect that Helen wanted, no voices but hers.
Fortunately her message is crap and no one but the myopic hard core socialists are buying it.
Vote:October 31st, 2008 at 9:26 am
Given the fight that some of our daily papers put up against the EFA I will be surpised if this doesn’t gain traction and a higher profile. It seems like a perfect chance for the MSM to say “I told you so”. Well, I hope they do so.
I can’t believe that my country, which above all has always had a reputation for fairness and charity, has fallen to such depths in regards to our failing democracy.
With the passing of two pieces of legislation in particular (EFA & section 59 amendment) the government proved it is ok for them to ignore the peoples will. Once that level of power has been tasted, democracy must seem like bland fare indeed.
NZ has changed a lot in the years I was overseas, I fear she will never be the same again. I will however do all I can next week to help stop the rot.
Vote:October 31st, 2008 at 9:27 am
Electoral Finance Act, so much for freedom of speech. What agenda have the architects got to hide?
Vote:October 31st, 2008 at 9:30 am
I’ve received a ruling from the Electoral Commission which favours the Service and Food Workers Union:
http://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2008/10/31/response-from-the-electoral-commission/
I’m amazed that blogs are excluded from the EFA rules – how long will that last if Herr Helen retains her strangle hold on this country?
The White Witch (aka Helen Clark) clearly has no respect for the rule of law or human rights when she writes laws that breach the Bill of Rights.
Vote:October 31st, 2008 at 9:33 am
Don’t for a minute think that a REVOLUTION is an impossibility should the axis of EVIL manage to find a backdoor into power again! I’m sure our friend Bainimarama could provide some helpful tips…
Vote:October 31st, 2008 at 9:40 am
DPF, what is National’s position on this pernicious EFA? This is not a trick or rhetorical question…. I don’t know whatether they plan to repeal it or not. Has National made any definitive staement about what they intend to do about this?
[DPF: National will repeal it within days of office. They will incorporate the provisions around donations transparency into the old Electoral Act and then consult all parties and the public on further amendments to the Electoral Act]
Vote:October 31st, 2008 at 9:47 am
There will be something added to the EFA if the left are elected again, and that is legislation to control the internet. Probably similar to that intended by Australia.
You can guarantee that if the left win, they’ll be coming after bloggers and the internet. If I was National, I’d be asking the Labour/ NZ First/ Greens axis to declare their intentions on internet regulation.
Vote:October 31st, 2008 at 9:50 am
Labour are able to get a rulling from The Electoral Commision re there Booklet for over 60′s.
Any body else can get stuffed.
Bloddy anazing how this happens.
Vote:October 31st, 2008 at 9:53 am
Earlier this year, the NZ Herald was running the pix and names of all MP’s who voted for the EFA on a monthly basis and promised to keep it up til election time. Haven’t seen it for a couple of months now. Anyone know why it has been stopped?
Agree, the issue of the EFA needs to be brought into focus especially as we are heading towards the last throw of the dice to return this country to sanity.
Vote:October 31st, 2008 at 9:56 am
Actually, isn’t it the Advertising Standards Authority, the non-governmental, self-regulatory industry body, which has been the first off the mark in regulating electoral advocacy on the internet?!?!
Vote:October 31st, 2008 at 9:59 am
Doug: I understood it wasn’t a ruling; it was a response to a question from the a journalist, and it was from the Chief Electoral Officer – not the Electoral Commission itself.
Vote:October 31st, 2008 at 10:02 am
Hels and her partners in crime, Labour supporters, must be held to account for this terrible law.
Vote:October 31st, 2008 at 10:07 am
“I can’t believe that my country, which above all has always had a reputation for fairness and charity, has fallen to such depths in regards to our failing democracy.”
Sadly I can. I have said before that Helen Clark leaves Muldoon in the dust when it comes to lust for power and control and a willingness to use it to silence dissent. She is at heart a Stalinist who believes that the Party/State rules supreme and the rest of the country must simply obey without question.
This is why this election is so important, and why those armchair ideological purists who dismiss National as “Labour-lite” are so utterly stupid and deluded.
This election is not about this or that policy, it is about whether we survive as a free country at all. Because if Labour and the Greens are running the show after Nov 8, you can kiss whatever real freedoms we have left goodbye, as well as any hope for a free and fair election anytime after that.
Vote:October 31st, 2008 at 10:16 am
the toxic combination of the EFA and the Charities Act has seen the end of the traditional advocay role of charities in NZ.
The sectors been silenced. Remember the history of charities and that it was in Elizabeth Firsts time that charities were defined in law but they go back much further.
Their contribution in dollars is estimated at $3Billion plus.
yet in one 3 year term a government has managed to wipe out hundreds if years of good.
Those who froth when some of us compare the Clark administartion to others could contemplate the stealth that has been used to effect the same as these other regimes but in another much more sinister way
Vote:October 31st, 2008 at 10:17 am
One of the motivators of the formulation of the EFB was when National refused to discuss State-Funded Elections.
State-funded elections brought up by Heather Simpson, to try and bail Labour out after they bankrupted themselves with illegal rorts they had to pay back..
So, Labour did the political equivalent of throwing their toys out of the cot, and came up with a shonkily drafted and secretly allied EFB, without National as a kind of ‘punishment’. The fact that Labour had also taken a ‘hit’ because of National’s effective ‘IWI/KIWI” billboard campaign didn’t hurt Labour’s motivations either. – but all of that aside – mark my words one of the agendas behind the EFA was to secretly promote State Funded elections under the guise of ‘failing’ to reach a reasonable settlement over Constitutional reform with the EFA.
Electoral Phonies Act.
The only electoral Finance Labour is interested in, is one which gets the Taxpayer to pick up the whole tab, and which disregards the millions of dollars and service the Union movement can bring to bear during the ‘election period’.
Vote:State-funded elections would effectively extend the ‘election period’ (ie terms of regulation) to the whole three years.
Then we would not be ‘amongst’ the most proscriptive western democracies.
We will be THE most proscriptive. That means you too, bloogers.
October 31st, 2008 at 10:21 am
And the other challenge we face is that minor parties outside of parliament get zero press. Therefore compound that with the restrictions of the EFA and what chance does the public have of hearing genuine alternatives?
I hope everyone on this site that wants a National lead government puts a very clear message out to everyone they know that live in both the Epsom and East Coast Bays electorates to use their two ticks very strategically.
With their Electorate vote: Vote Paul Adams in East Coast Bays and Rodney Hyde in Epsom.
By splitting their votes they are effectively giving two ticks for a National led government.
National’s greatest challenge is obtaining the numbers to govern! Both Adams and Hyde have publicly stated they will only support National. Phone talkback, phone the press, do all that you can to see both of these men win their seats.
By doing the above National supporters have everything to GAIN and absolutely nothing to lose!
Get that message out NOW!
Vote:October 31st, 2008 at 10:21 am
I’m just glad that no one has laid a complaint with the Electoral Commission over Richard Meros’ excellent play, On the Conditions and Possibilities of Helen Clark Taking Me a Her Young Lover. That show had words AND graphics!
Vote:October 31st, 2008 at 10:22 am
Dean Knight your post at 9.07 am talks about the uncertainty.
This is just one of the many issues the Human Rights Commission raised last year. They specifically referred to the uncertainty and its wide ranging nature. The Commission said that the EFB was “inherently flawed” and should be withdrawn. In its efforts to restrict free speech the government ignored the HRC.
The HRC also said if the Bill was not to be withdrawn it would be essential that there be a further round of public consultation and submissions. They also said the Act should apply for no more than three months immediately prior to the election and that third parties such as Family First should be allowed to spend up to $300,000.
Again Labour, NZ First and the Greens ignored them. In my opinion restricting free speech in a democratic society in such a deliberate and blatant way proved to me that the Labour, NZF and Green MPs are not fit to govern the country.
Dave Mann you asked what National’s position is and David Farrar has told you. If I am privileged to be elected an ACT MP next weekend I will be doing everything I can to hold the National Party to its commitment. The EFA does not need to be tampered with. It should be repealed and we should start again as the HRC recommended in September 2007.
The Herald is to be commended for its ongoing campaign.
While the people of New Zealand, including groups such as Family First, will not get this election back again, we can all punish the parties responsible for passing this law. If they are defeated it will be a lesson to all political parties not to try this sort of disgraceful stunt again.
Vote:October 31st, 2008 at 10:41 am
John B:
I think we’ve addressed those points before and are matters which we do not agree on their relevance or impact.
But something fresh (and I’m not sure whether you were present at the Court of Appeal when the point was raised – it may have been before you arrived). When discussing the question of whether the Court ought to give a declaration of inconsistency, in the abstract – without any relevant factual matrix, Glazebook J expressed some concern about doing so. Her particular concern was that the *first* task for the court when determining the interpretation of any relevant provision in the EFA was to consider whether, in the relevant factual setting, the provision could be interpreted in a manner consistently with the freedom of expression in the Bill of Rights. That is, section 6 requires, where possible, that these definitions people are complaining be “read-down” as far as reasonably possible to allow the expression.
We’re yet to see this method of interpretation be applied as explicitly as that, although it is hinted at or applied in summary fashion in some of the decisions so far. It’s still, in my view, a bit difficult to judge the impact of the regime until we’ve actually see how it plays out – especially there’s a strong argument that it’s just not as bad as it might look to some!
Vote:October 31st, 2008 at 10:47 am
“Family First’s Bob McCroskrie faced the same problem and said he was being careful in case ads he did not believe were election advertising were later found to be so. His group had to shelve an initial plan for a pamphlet for every household because the cost was twice that of the $120,000 spending cap.”
I feel like throwing up about that in particular.
AND, let’s PLEASE NOT get diverted into arguments about “how high” or “how low” the spending limits “should be”……..OK Mr Farrar?
ANY limit is an assault on freedom of speech.
If an issue is important enough to someone that they can raise money to publicise it, THAT is a positive good, not an evil to be discriminated against. As for extremely rich individuals trying to “buy” elections, are we all idiots? All we need is transparency, and you can bet that anyone trying this on would find he was wasting his money, such is the entirely natural aversion to such people on the part of New Zealanders. What the Heleban actually hates and fears, is grassroots political awareness.
Vote:October 31st, 2008 at 10:49 am
“It’s still, in my view, a bit difficult to judge the impact of the regime until we’ve actually see how it plays out”
We are seeing how it “plays out” right now. CHILLING.
“especially there’s a strong argument that it’s just not as bad as it might look to some!”
There is no strong argument. There are some pathetically weak ones.
I have a better idea, and mine does not require paragraphs of dishonest pretzel twisting legal speak. Dump the act. It simply has no right nor reason to exist. Dump it now.
Vote:October 31st, 2008 at 10:53 am
So they are an “Axis” now?
I fully agree with you righties on everything you have said about the EFA. It’s not right.
But you do yourself and your credibility no favours, filling your writing up with extreme metaphors like that. If you want to be perceived as a little hate website, spitting venom from the sidelines, go right ahead…
Vote:October 31st, 2008 at 11:04 am
deanknight
I am dumbfounded to read that you think it is a bit difficult to judge the impact of the regime until we have seen how it has played out.
If you want to see how it is playing out may I suggest you read page A6 of this mornings NZ Herald for the full version of Claire Trevett’s article. Family First are not able to do what they want to do, and other lobby groups are silenced because they are so fearful of the uncertainty and consequences. In that regard I believe it is playing out in exactly the way NZF, Labour and the Greens wanted it to. To suggest otherwise ignores the fact that they could have voted for $300,000 and three months if they wanted to. What other interpretation can you put on their decision to ignore the HRC.
As for the Appeal Court I gave my barrister Nikki Pender the Family First documents at the first break so that she could show Justice Glazebrook a real life example of a lobby group being censored in New Zealand. Nikki chose not to present them in evidence because she said that was properly produced once the strike out has been overturned and we are running our substantive case in the High Court next year.
Finally, as to your comments that my arguments are repetitive and have been dealt with. They will not be dealt with until the Act is repealed, and if I am elected an MP, you can expect to hear them a lot more in the future until the Act is repealed.
Vote:October 31st, 2008 at 11:05 am
Are the crapweasles have been unleashed from their morning briefing.
Full steam ahead and don’t mention the fiasco that was Thursday is it team?
Well today is Halloween so Helen it is the one day a year Helen can show her face in public and blend in without airbrushing.
Vote:October 31st, 2008 at 11:07 am
Isn’t it time the anglosphere’s hate-metaphor factory came up with a new model? “Crapweasels” is like, sooo last week now…
Vote:October 31st, 2008 at 11:14 am
GJ said: “With their Electorate vote: Vote Paul Adams in East Coast Bays and Rodney Hyde in Epsom.”
Who the hell is Paul Adams? He was third in the last election in that electorate and only got 6 thousand votes to McCully’s 17 thousand. Even Labour got nearly twice as many votes.
Giving Paul Adams your party vote in East Coast Bays will simply take away the numbers from McCully and could see Labour win the seat. Your advice is appalling – except the bit about Rodney Hide (which you spelt incorrectly).
Vote:October 31st, 2008 at 11:20 am
Paul Adams is from the Family Party……….
Vote:October 31st, 2008 at 11:26 am
“Isn’t it time the anglosphere’s hate-metaphor factory ……”
Isn’t that a racist & bigoted comment? Almost hate speech ratty.
I know you have nothing constructive to add to this debate, or any debate for that matter, but thats a bit too close to the edge.
I’m senstive ya know. ( and no, I won’t add a smiley face in an insincere effort to appear like I’m being humorous)
Vote:October 31st, 2008 at 11:29 am
CraigM:
Murray identifies with what he calls “The Anglosphere”. He has a page all about this on his blog. You could read it, and figure this out for yourself.
And FYI I identify with what Murray calls “The Anglosphere” in my own way too, albeit with fewer references to crapweasels…
Vote:October 31st, 2008 at 11:30 am
We don’t want you.
Vote:October 31st, 2008 at 11:33 am
Sweet as, Murray. Believe me, there’s very little that being your friend would do to enhance my pride in my country/heritage!
Vote:October 31st, 2008 at 11:34 am
pywacket “Earlier this year, the NZ Herald was running the pix and names of all MP’s who voted for the EFA on a monthly basis and promised to keep it up til election time. Haven’t seen it for a couple of months now. Anyone know why it has been stopped?”
I seem to recall seeing it about 3 or 4 weeks ago if memory serves correct. Maybe the Herald are saving the last one for the final week of the campain.
Vote:October 31st, 2008 at 11:35 am
Ratbiter, so you don’t like “axis”, why, the word is perfect as it discribes what we face. It is an axis an axis of evil, we are dealing with “bad bastards” here, no two ways about it.
Question: if you get charged under new FTA rules would one expect to escape a date in court if a National government got in?.
Vote:October 31st, 2008 at 11:47 am
Side show bob: Could you pose your question again in different words please? I don’t get it.
Vote:October 31st, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Thats because you a re not very bright amongst other serious issues you have.
Vote:October 31st, 2008 at 12:02 pm
JohnB:
(1) I think my point is to question whether the cause of the “chilling effect” is the doomsayer commentary about the nature of the rules, rather than the rules themselves. We won’t see whether there was a reasonable basis for the self-restrained attitude of these groups until those rules have been tested and applied. My intuition is that there has been a lot of unduly cautious legal advice having been given.
(2) My nod to our previous discussions was to recognise our discussion about the views of the HRC on the length of the regulated period and the spending limit. As you know, I don’t think that their view is intrinsically correct – just because it’s their view. But I accept you seem to do and are therefore you happy for this body to be responsible for adjudicating on all human rights issues. I presume then that if the HRC is the “authoritative” body on rights issues, you and your party will be supporting the HRC’s recommendation that the Human Rights Act 1993 be amended to claify that trans-gender people be protected from discrimination on the ground of gender identity?
(3) Just to clarify, I was not saying your arguments have been disposed of – rather, that we (and others) have debated them and we’re obviously in an agree to disagree zone.
(4) Good luck on the hustings. I wonder, though, if you are elected as a parliamentarian, whether your view favouring the the primacy of the courts on human rights matters – rather than the elected representatives – might soften?
Vote:October 31st, 2008 at 1:01 pm
WraithX :
WraithX: The following might help you. As Lindsay Addie has already said he is the Deputy Leader of The Family Party. http://www.familyparty.org.nz
And yes Paul Adams did secure 6,000 votes (the highest polling independent Candidate in the last election) gaining more votes than 8 MPs that got into parliament via the Party Vote. He achieved that in a 5 week campaign after leaving a party that failed to stand on the principles it was elected for, thus he was an MP from 2002 to 2005. His voting record on most legislation was directly in line with Nationals.
If the East Coast Bays electorate had voted in Adams last time (on the elctorate vote), National would have had a chance of forming a Government. (According to the leader in the NZ herald about a week ago they were only one seat short)
Do you really understand MMP? It is only the party vote that determines the number of seats a party will have in the house. (made up of both electorate and list MPs) If National does not achieve at least 48% of the party vote they AGAIN will have a real challenge in forming a government and I personally feel they will fall just under that.
In East Coast Bays giving your electorate vote to Paul Adams can take absolutely NOTHING from National. What they (National) do need is the party vote. McCully at number 11 on the National list will certainly return to parliament. The electorate vote to McCully is simply wasting a very important vote.
However if Adams does win the seat it may well be the best result for National.
Simply because it may be that one seat they again need to form a Government.
So my advice is correct. You would be wise to think it through. National is short of friends and this is a very powerful and effective way of rectifying this.
Let’s take your worst case scenario of a seat going to an opposition party. That still does not affect the number of seats in the house for National. Their number of seats is only connected to the result of the party vote percentage. It has NOTHING to do with how many electorates have been won. (That was the case under “first past the post”, where the importance was the number of electorates won. That is now totally irrelevant under MMP)
Adams is highly respected in East Coast Bays having run a number of businesses there for years. He has also won three NZ championships in motorsport and is well recognised for having worked amongst the community for 20 odd years. So to me he is fairly widely experienced.
He has more than a good chance of taking this seat and I hope that he does.
Vote:October 31st, 2008 at 1:24 pm
I have to take my hat off to the Family Party. They have explained the MMP system so well and it’s captured on a flyer that I’ve received at home. Makes sense to me (see it on http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0810/S00509.htm).
When you dig deeper WraithX, you’ll find that the ECB ELectorate has been changed to exclude Glenfield = LESS LABOUR VOTERS! (Do the maths WraithX)!
Your comments show how mis-guided you are: “only got 6 thousand votes”. That made him the HIGHEST POLLING independent candidate in NZ. More votes that 8 MPs that got in via List.
So, do you and those Nats amongst us living in ECB want to see National come in and govern or do you want that rabble to rule and ruin our lives for another three years? Look at the flyer below. McCully WILL get in with OR without our electorate vote. But it we all pool together and vote wisely and strategically, then we can get ADAMS AND McCULLY in. He already has 6,000 voters that favour him.
I see his billboards all over the place and I now see him and his team out there with their banners. Where’s McCully? Monkey see, monkey do…
http://img.scoop.co.nz/stories/images/0810/64d72ac87b548945ae1c.jpeg
National 1, Family Party 1, Labour 0
Vote:October 31st, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Just read THIS from the Maxim Institute:
Democracy losing popularity?
A new report from the Economist Intelligence Unit suggests that democracy is ceasing to expand internationally. While many countries still rate as being highly democratic (including, of course, New Zealand) there has been little movement in the uptake of democracy in countries under “authoritarian” or “hybrid” regimes. In addition to this, some of the world’s model democracies, including the UK and the US, have been rated as being less democratic than in previous studies. In the UK this is the result of a lessening degree of “political participation.” The report also questions to what degree government intervention as a result of the global credit crisis will further degrade democratic rule.
Read The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Index of Democracy 2008
Vote: