Are Labour’s ads in breach of the Electoral Act?
June 17th, 2011 at 7:59 am by David Farrar
This advertisement appeared in a Grey Power magazine. In scanning it the e-mail address phil.goff@parliament.govt.nz got obscured, after the phone number.
Now we know from the minutes Whale published, that Labur have been instructed to use parliamentary service resources to benefit Labour, and this ad is funded by Parliament.
Now up until the regulated period starts on 26 August, this ad can be funded form Labour’s parliamentary budget as it does not explicitly call for votes, money or members. However my recollection is the rules are the party logo must be the same size as the parliamentary crest, and clearly in this ad it is way way larger, and appears twice.
So Labour may have broken PS rules (unless they have amended the rule about logo size) in this advertisement. However it could be worse. They may have broken the Electoral Act because there is no authorised by promoter statement.
The Electoral Commission has just this month published a booklet with guidance for MPs. They stress that even taxpayer funded advertisements need an authorisation statement if they can be “reasonably regarded as encouraging or persuading voters to vote or not vote for a party”.
In their official guide, the Commission notes a factor that may indicate if an advertisement is an election advertisement is “references to a party’s election policy or what they will do if re-elected”.
Look at the ad and the part that says “Under Labour there will be no asset sales”. Bingo.
The ad is very clearly designed to encourage people to vote Labour. That means it should have an authorisation statement with a name and address.
Related posts:
- Labour referred to the Police for Electoral Act breach
- Mallard ruled in breach of Electoral Finance Act
- The balloon law
- Labour escapes referral on YouTube breach
June 17th, 2011 at 8:06 am
What a nonsense complaint. These rules are complete twaddle. All parliamentary activity is political activity – it’s foolish to pretend otherwise.
Vote:June 17th, 2011 at 8:16 am
mikenmild. The business of Parliament is to make the laws that run the country, and to debate the merits or otherwise of those proposals.
If their focus is on electioneering, and they are using parliamentary staff to do it, then they are not doing the job they were elected BY US to do.
How would you feel if an employee of yours was using business time in such a way?
Vote:June 17th, 2011 at 8:19 am
But like WinstonFirst, Labour know (do) no wrong.
Vote:June 17th, 2011 at 8:27 am
I am sad that a) taxpayers fund any of this sort of thing at all, and b) that such detailed rules exist. A lawyer’s paradise is everyone else’s hell.
That said, it looks like you’ve caught them David. Again. The bankrupt Labour can’t afford legal advice, and now it’s tripping up at every turn on rules (I presume) it once drafted.
What delicious irony.
Vote:June 17th, 2011 at 8:33 am
I’m with ben – there should be no spending of our money on these ads and there should be no rules about folks spending their own money. It’s a travesty that the Nats basically signed up to Labour’s repressive laws.
Vote:June 17th, 2011 at 8:33 am
The myopic socialists will see nothing wrong with this, but given Labour’s track record of stealing off the taxpayer and passing retrospective legislation to cover their tracks, this latest example should not come as a surprise.
If this type of (ongoing) activity had taken place in a listed Company, the directors would be held accountable.
Vote:June 17th, 2011 at 8:33 am
mikenmild .. we have rules on basically everything. If the maker of the rules break them, especially as many times Labour do, then ALL rules are meaningless. It doesn’t matter what you think or anyone else for that matter .. RULES are RULES.
Vote:what I want to know is, why do Labour get away with breaking them all the time (pledge card theft of taxpayers money excluded).
June 17th, 2011 at 8:34 am
mikenmild: so we should ignore the laws that are stupid? Excellent.
DPF: I’m interested that there is a lot of comment on the form of these ads (which are admittedly stupid – stop signs on the side of roads, no authorisation etc), but little comment on the substance.
The position is stupid. The whole “no asset sales” theme is being allowed to run without people every single time pointing out that:
1) The “assets” involved will still be majority owned by the govt. So it’s hardly like the prices can be jacked up without government agreement
2) In fact, prices increased substantially in govt owned entities under the previous govt, a bit less so under the current one – evidence is that govt as a monopoly supplier rips off the citizen far more than competitive private enterprise does
3) Many of the “assets” we’re talking about make no sense at all for the govt to own
4) When they’re sold “offshore” then we end up with money, and we either buy some other asset in NZ with that money, or buy some offshore asset.
5) Usual poor economics in comparing profits leaving NZ to ….. nothing. What happened to the money we got? It got invested somewhere, it reduced our debt, or created another asset that we otherwise wouldn’t have owned. The question isn’t whether profits go offshore, it’s whether the profits from enterprise A are higher than the profits from enterprise B
In short, we need to shift this discussion from Asset Sales to rebalancing our portfolio. If I own a rental property, and sell it to buy a different one, I don’t begrudge the buyer of my first house that they now make profits. I’m making profits on the new rental property, and presumably I think those profits are better, or else I wouldn’t have done it.
If we don’t start targeting the message, it will start to get traction. And that will lead to bad policy.
Vote:June 17th, 2011 at 8:39 am
Come, come David. Don’t be mean.
I seem to recall that with just five months until the election, Whale told us recently that Labour North has less than $13,000 in the bank to cover six or seven electorates. Not one, but all the Auckland region.
Vote:Of course at a national level (no pun intended), they still have $1,739,000 (after GST) of taxpayer money in their kitty. If it were not for the taxpayers (including their tithe on taxpayer funded MP salaries) and trade union fees, Labour would have “zip”.
So, we should all understand that since THEY believe THEY deserve our hard-earned taxes, we MUST give without question.
June 17th, 2011 at 8:49 am
You’re being pathetic – we all know labour only intended these rules to stop evil right wing parties from using their US backed sponsors to bankroll a win.
The rules do not , I repeat, do not, apply to labour.
Vote:June 17th, 2011 at 9:03 am
Labour is a party of just a narrow sector of state sector / trade union/ special interest people. They do not believe that rules apply to them. Their only interest is in what is good for Labour. They believe that the people were misguided in 2008. They have no insight into their failings.
Labour are cheating.
Labour will cheat again.
Labour will get desperate and do far worse in the months to come unles they are stopped.
Vote:They need to be fined and prosecuted for this egregious breach of the law again.
Do the NZ Police read this blog. You have provided prima facie evidence of breaking the law.
June 17th, 2011 at 9:10 am
All parties routinely break these sorts of rules. That does not condone any current breach; but, as I have said before, any notion of a distinction between parliamentary and political business is a complete nonsense. Why should some public funding of political parties be reserved for electioneering and other public funding controlled by these rules?
Vote:June 17th, 2011 at 9:22 am
It’s not that they don’t think the rules don’t apply, it’s the mentality of “let’s get it out there so people see it, and we’ll deal with the consequences later. If we win, we’ll just apply some retrospective legislation to solve the problem”.
Vote:June 17th, 2011 at 9:26 am
Same old Labour, still cheating and stealing.
Vote:June 17th, 2011 at 9:48 am
Perhaps our anger shouldn’t be directed at the left or the government as a whole but should be directed at ourselves. We have allowed our politicians to introduced laws that are self serving and our taxes are being used to promote parties and ideas that would never stand alone without the state sponsored propaganda machines. Until the populace rises up and says enough of this shit it won’t change. We are the sheep, we are to be fleeced and they will tell us to enjoy it because they will do as they wish.
Vote:June 17th, 2011 at 10:09 am
PaulL 8.34
Couldn’t agree more. If National is not very careful they will cede this part of the game to Labour just as they did mining in national parks. Wood and trees.
Vote:June 17th, 2011 at 10:19 am
How about the Labour Party place ads in Grey Power stating “stop asset sales, vote Labour and invest in finance companies instead”.
Vote:June 17th, 2011 at 10:22 am
All comes back to having too many politicans with stuff all to fill their day in with so they do that by constantly interfering in others lives, including their own.
shut the place down for 11 months and let us get on with what we do best. Pay them to go fishing. We would still be ahead.
side show bob (3,257) Says:
June 17th, 2011 at 9:48 am
Perhaps our anger shouldn’t be directed at the left or the government as a whole but should be directed at ourselves. We have allowed our politicians to introduced laws that are self serving and our taxes are being used to promote parties and ideas that would never stand alone without the state sponsored propaganda machines. Until the populace rises up and says enough of this shit it won’t change. We are the sheep, we are to be fleeced and they will tell us to enjoy it because they will do as they wish.
So true.
Vote:June 17th, 2011 at 10:28 am
it’s hardly like the prices can be jacked up without government agreement
____________________________________________________________________________________
If National sell off state assets, you’re kidding yourself if you think they will then interefere in anything by letting the market dicate prices. So it’s highly likely prices will rise with governement agreement in line with National party ideology.
Selling assets to buy other ones is not what the justification is. It’s to pay down debt, unless you’re talking about selling power stations to build more prisons ?
And its your bullshit rental property analogy thats gotten us into this fucked up mess. NZers buying property rather than investing in a small business has destroyed our entrepreneurial spirit.
sometimes the end justifies the means.
STOP ASSET SALES…spread the word by any means neccessary.
Vote:June 17th, 2011 at 10:29 am
ssb, V2, rise then and force it to change.
If we come out of nowhere and get some showing in the polls it will start to shake them. They don’t want change to their cosy arrangements, they resist change, they will only change if they have to compete with something different. Or survive.
Vote:June 17th, 2011 at 10:36 am
BEN “I am sad that a) taxpayers fund any of this sort of thing at all, and b) that such detailed rules exist. A lawyer’s paradise is everyone else’s hell.”
I agree absolutely taxpayers funds should not be wasted to spread misinformation or any other kind of information in this way.
Vote:June 17th, 2011 at 10:37 am
That wet bus ticket really is getting a work out this year.
Vote:June 17th, 2011 at 10:46 am
I think PaulL highlights Key’s biggest weakness, his political naiveity in the long game. Sure he’s well liked and I think he’s making pragmatic changes as fast as possible with such a knee jerk population but he really does let some of the messages that Labour and the Greens repeat ad nauseum gain traction without any fight what so ever. The mining issue was lost on day one and this asset meme is starting to stick…
Vote:June 17th, 2011 at 10:53 am
Labrator – I disagree; all National needs do is compare Goff’s stance on asset sales circa 2011 to his record as a Minister between 1984 and 1990. It is Goff who is rewriting history.
Vote:June 17th, 2011 at 12:27 pm
@Inventory2 But they’re not, they’re not doing anything. Sure, they’ve got heaps of time before they election but I’d love to see them educate the masses a little rather than give up on people easily won by slogans from Labour and the Greens.
Vote:June 17th, 2011 at 12:27 pm
All National needs do is compare Goff’s stance on asset sales circa 2011 to his record as a Minister between 1984 and 1990. It is Goff who is rewriting history.
_________________________________________________________________
Voters don’t give a shit about what Goff did a quarter of a century ago. Seriously, is that all you got ?
Its a new generation of voters in a brave new world that need appealing to now and we don’t want assets we already own being sold back to us. The simple truth is, most of us are too fucking broke ass to afford them, but then I guess, we’re not the ‘Kiwi Mums and Dads’ Key and English mean when they tout the need to flog off the family silverware.
If the election is to be fought on this issue, Goff’s stance from 25 years ago pales into insignificance with Key and English’s current inept mismanagement, broken promises and self serving lies. History will bear out what softcock apologists to failed ideology these two numbnut dickheads were.
Vote:June 17th, 2011 at 1:00 pm
Voters don’t give a shit about what Goff did a quarter of a century ago. Seriously, is that all you got ?
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Voters do give a shit about the billions of dollars that went into finance compaines and then vanished. The simple truth is that there is a massive amout of money not being invested at the mo because there is nowhere to put it that uncomplicated investors (like my parents) feel safe with.
Vote:Want another property bubble? then dont give investors any other choices.
June 17th, 2011 at 2:56 pm
Asset sales do not make economic sense but then I suppose making sense doesn’t matter when you are glued hard and fast to an ideology. As Brian Gaynor said to Lange in 1984 , ”Wealth comes from ownership , not disposal.”
Vote:June 17th, 2011 at 3:09 pm
Well isn’t Labour just adhering to left-wing ideology?
Take stuff you want, get others (via taxes) to pay for it.
Vote:June 17th, 2011 at 3:44 pm
Joana @2:56. I don’t think there is much evidence for Brian Gaynor’s proposition being applied to government. To private enterprise, perhaps yes, but to government I doubt it. The Soviet Union owned everything. China has grown only since it has let the private sector own productive assets. I think it is the left which is glued to ideology, the tiny centre as it exists in NZ is responding to facts rather than ideology.
Vote:The only problem that I see with asset sales is that government will be tempted to spend the revenue rather than reducing debt. It is the use of the revenue which is the problem, and the only possible justification to hold onto assets until one glorious day we have responsible government.
Off topic, but one shouldn’t let the left’s ideology lie unchallenged.
June 17th, 2011 at 4:57 pm
Comparing to Goff in the past is the wrong message. That’s saying “we know it’s wrong but Phil did it too.”
The whole point here is that the asset sales are a good idea, and good for NZ.
Partial asset sales make absolutely no difference to pricing of services – the govt is still 51% or more shareholder, and can veto anything they want. The point being that they have no evidence of vetoing, for example, electricity price rises in recent years.
In terms of reinvestment – John Key has been clear he wants to reinvest. In assets like a broadband network, for example. Black with a Vengeance is misrepresenting entirely what’s going on.
Vote:June 18th, 2011 at 12:31 pm
The simple truth is that there is a massive amout of money not being invested at the mo because there is nowhere to put it that uncomplicated investors (like my parents) feel safe with.
_______________________________________________________________
Theres nothing complicated in starting a small business.
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 8:03 am
Theres nothing complicated in starting a small business.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Which is why 80% of small businesses fail in what the first 3 years?
And a retired couple of 68 yr olds really want to start up a business?
Some investors want a stable income with low risk, a float of some decent large NZ compainies would allow such investment.
Vote: