Young Labour in Epsom

October 25th, 2011 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

Whale blogged last week about a pamphlet being put around Epsom by . It is authorised by , the Auckland Regional Chair for Young Labour.

The Herald notes:

Mr Banks also refused to comment on the leaflets, one of which presented a derogatory comment he made about Pacific Islanders in 1978 as if it were made last year.

The pamphlet is so deceptive in suggesting the comment was made in 2010, rather than 33 years ago, that Mr Joule should be very careful. If that pamphlet is distributed within two days of the election, then s199A may apply:

Every person is guilty of a corrupt practice who, with the intention of influencing the vote of any elector, at any time on polling day before the close of the poll, or at any time on any of the 2 days immediately preceding polling day, publishes, distributes, broadcasts, or exhibits, or causes to be published, distributed, broadcast, or exhibited, in or in view of any public place a statement of fact that the person knows is false in a material particular.

Now we are talking a corrupt practice, not an illegal practice. That can mean some serious jail time. I think there is a very arguable case that the pamphlet is fake in a material particular, namely that it makes it looks like the quote was made in 2010, not 1978. It is an obvious deliberate stragey to deceive, as they could have supplied the refernce of when the quote was made, not when it was re-reported.

Voters will make up their own mind on the pamphlets. The Herald story states:

Yesterday, Mr Parker said he had nothing to do with the pamphlet, but he believed it was fair for Mr Banks to be held accountable for the comments now as they were “part of his political life”.

Really? The Auckland Chair (or rep on their National executive) of Young Labour would stick up these pamphlets without the local candidate’s knowledge? Is that bridge still for sale?

There is another interesting aspect to this. You see Mr Joule is not a registered promoter for the election and he is promoting an election advertisement. Now that is fine if he is an unregistered promoter and spends less than $12,000. However certain people can not be unregistered promoters, including:

a person involved in the administration of the affairs of a party

Now the question is, does being on the national executive of Young Labour make him someone who is involved in the administration of the affairs of Labour? If so, then he is already in trouble.

Finally I wonder what would be the reaction of Labour if someone dug up quotes from say Phil Goff in 1978, and stuck up pamphlets and posters which made it look like he said them in 2010, rather than 1978? I think they would rightly cry foul, but they are happy for Young Labour to do it on their behalf. A reminder of why they got kicked out in 2008.

Tags: , ,

53 Responses to “Young Labour in Epsom”

  1. Inventory2 (10,085 comments) says:

    I’ve already linked to my blog-post on the General Debate thread, so I won’t repeat it here. But whichever of Labour’s strategic masterminds hatched this plot should be applauded, because Phil Goff and Annette King’s voting for 17 asset sales totalling $9.49billion (in 1987-90 dollar terms) is now back on the agenda. After all, if one candidate is going to be held to account for his historical views, mustn’t all?

    Thanks heaps Trevor and Pete :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Bob R (1,332 comments) says:

    Interesting to see that this guy is an intern with Len Brown?!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Scott Chris (5,868 comments) says:

    Farrar says:- “The pamphlet is so deceptive in suggesting the comment was made in 2010″

    I disagree. It cites the Herald as the source of the comment.

    The intent may be to mislead, but in itself, the message is perfectly accurate, and *does not say* that the comment was made in 2010. It says the Herald *reported* the comment in 2010.

    I see no problem with this for two reasons:

    First, innuendo is accepted political practice. All sides participate in it, so it is morally consistent within the established culture.

    Secondly, I do not like John Banks. Once a bigot, always a bigot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. George Patton (347 comments) says:

    @ Bob R – an intern with Len Brown you say? That probably accounts for why Labour were attacking Banks’ record so hard as Mayor of Auckland.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. big bruv (13,199 comments) says:

    I really do not know why we on the left are so determined to play fair with left wing low life. Time after time the left resort to dirty tactics yet we seem to insist on taking the stupid and arrogant approach of being ‘above’ that type of thing.

    It is time we started fighting back, prove to the scum from the left that if they want to start a shit fight then they will always come off second best.

    Mallard, Fenton and Parker are just three Labour MP’s who would take a huge hit if we started digging up their past.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Nick R (497 comments) says:

    I’d be surprised if there is a prosecution over this. The threshold in the Act is high – there has to be a deliberate falsehood, and Banks is not (as far as I know) denying having made the statement. So the pamphlet appears to be literally true. So its misleading at worst. Maybe we should call it fomenting happy mischief.

    But there is nothing new or unusual about trawling back through the decades to find dirt on a candidate. Labour tried it with Joh Key at the last election and came away looking daft. National and ACT have spent many happy moments over the years taunting Keith Locke over what he did or didn’t say about the Kmer Rouge etc. And Whale has been cheerfully (and quite legimitately) blogging his Phil Goff memories for ages too.

    I think Banks has handled this well by saying he’ll deal with it in debates if the issue arises. This sort of thing should be handled on its merits rather than trying to drag the Police in. That looks suspiciously like trying to shut down political debate or electioneering – the sort of thing you’d expect in Singapore.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Brian Smaller (3,981 comments) says:

    Seeing as dredging up old comments is OK according to Labour, how about we look at Andrew Little’s own words – “Fuck Off Phil Goff”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. thedavincimode (6,512 comments) says:

    zzzzz
    The voters of Epsom will be thrown into turmoil over this for sure …
    Meanwhile, throughout the rest of the country, Labour’s political message continues, literally, ad nauseum.

    GOAL!!! (own)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. peterwn (3,138 comments) says:

    Wonder who paid for the photocopying or printing? My guess is they were run off on a Labour Party, union or Students Association machine. It is very doubtful that Levi paid for them out of his own pocket at the local Epsom print shop.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Pete George (22,713 comments) says:

    big bruv: I really do not know why we on the left…

    Converted have you? Next thing you’ll be liking the Crusaders.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Ross Miller (1,659 comments) says:

    Not really a problem for Labour as ‘they’ decided some time ago the Electoral Act does not apply to them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Bob R (1,332 comments) says:

    ***Secondly, I do not like John Banks. Once a bigot, always a bigot.***

    Heh, I would be interested to know whether Scott Chris would live in Otara or send his kids to a school with a largely Maori/PI roll. I doubt it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Longknives (4,384 comments) says:

    1978????

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. tvb (4,192 comments) says:

    Labour are having a bit of fun in Epsom. They are smart voters and they can see through the Labour Party. The big question is whether Act is needed for National and Epsom voters will make their minds up at the last minute.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. big bruv (13,199 comments) says:

    Pete

    Thanks for pointing that out, not sure what the hell happened there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. thedavincimode (6,512 comments) says:

    Bob R

    I’m sure that the only reason that he wouldn’t live there would be out of concern over what might happen to Dad’s Aston Martin Vantage when he came over to visit. Otherwise, he would leap at the chance.

    Would love to live in Otara: CHECK
    Unfortunately can’t because of Dad’s car: CHECK
    Moral victory: CHECK

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. ben (2,396 comments) says:

    I don’t care if Mr Levi is lying or being deceptive. I don’t care if John Banks is a good guy or not.

    What is a concern is that such silly, arbitrary laws on what people can say and when are in place, and that the penalty for anyone who hasn’t taken the time to fully understand them is potentially jail time.

    The importance of democracy surely justifies the elimination of restrictions on speech, rather than their introduction. Otherwise how are we supposed to know that, outside election time, Mr Levi is in fact a liar?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. tristanb (1,133 comments) says:

    Secondly, I do not like John Banks. Once a bigot, always a bigot.

    I don’t like him either.

    But that attribution is completely misleading! When I read it, it looks as though he said it last year. If they were honest the source should say “John Banks 1978″, not NZ Herald 2010.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Pete George (22,713 comments) says:

    All the action seems to be happening in one electorate – Whale points out a press release from Sensible Sentencing who may take action against assertions David Parker in his post here the other day.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. ross (1,454 comments) says:

    So Whale is still obsse

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. ross (1,454 comments) says:

    Whale is sill obssessed with Labour…I am not sure how that is news. Can anyoe confirm that he’s intending to vote for Labour?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Scott Chris (5,868 comments) says:

    The bigot bit was a disclaimer, saying I’m not going to be objective in discussing John Banks.

    Regarding schools in Otara: Had there been a high achieving Polynesian school in Otara when my daughter was younger, and had it been culturally appropriate for her to attend, and had she wished to attend, then I would have had few qualms in consulting with her mother as to whether sending her there would be feasible.

    As far as I can see, it is acceptable to discriminate against a standard of academic supply, but not against race.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Psycho Milt (2,246 comments) says:

    The pamphlet wasn’t “false in a material particular” if the quote really was printed in the Herald on the date given in the pamphlet, which is all that matters from a legal perspective. The question of whether voters might misinterpret the date is a political one, not a legal one. In short, he’s got you fucked.

    Also: what’s the point? Banks may have been a racist shit 30-odd years ago but wouldn’t dream of making disparaging remarks about Coconuts and other darkies these days? Meh.

    [DPF:I hope he listens to you and tries distributing them in the last two days.]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Inventory2 (10,085 comments) says:

    @ Ross; here’s a piece of news for you; this isn’t about Whale; it’s about Labour’s dirty tricks in Epsom

    I repeat my opening statement; if John Banks’ opinion from 1978 are valid for debate, so are Phil Goff’s views on Rogernomics and asset sales from 1984 to 1990. And when he gets called to account, he can be reminded that HIS party set the ground-rules. If they want a dirty campaign, there are plenty who will oblige.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. s.russell (1,558 comments) says:

    This is a classic case of over-egging the pudding. Stating that the quote was from 1978 might slightly weaken the case against Banks. But not stating this makes Labour look dishonest (whether they are legally in the clear of not).

    But I also wonder about the election expenses angle. Surely the cost of this leaflet would count as part of Parker’s expenses? And yet he says he had nothing to do with it? This all seems pretty dubious. Either he authorised it or he is not in control of his own campaign.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. laworder (269 comments) says:

    Even old Labour seem to be making a mess of things in Epsom, let alone Young Labour
    see http://www.safenz.org.nz/Press/2011candidate.htm and Whaleoils post on same, as Peter George refers to earlier

    After Parker’s performance I will now definitely be voting for Banks in Epsom (where I live) even though I dont really like him

    On a completely unrelated matter, I dont know if I’d really fancy living in Otara, but I think my smoky 1995 Mitsubishi Lancer with 240ks on the clock and a few scrapes would be safe? Have done a few jobs out there and its not as bad as people think. Mangere’s scarier

    Regards
    Peter J
    Webmaster for http://www.sensiblesentencing.org.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Paulus (2,485 comments) says:

    I suspect that the printing and photography were done somewhere within the Auckland Council. Perhaps Len Brown could look into this ? Like Hell.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Chuck Bird (4,658 comments) says:

    “It is time we started fighting back, prove to the scum from the left that if they want to start a shit fight then they will always come off second best.”

    BB you are spot on there. When Clark got caught out as being a fraudster I offer $1,000 for the painting she claimed to have painted. The guy who bought it stalled me. It later sold for $5,500 and was destroyed. I tried to get some support to do a private prosecution without success. I was told that elections should not be decided in court. A private prosecution could have made a big difference even if not successful. It could have quite possibly seen Clark convicted.

    Parker is not a young Labour activist but a senior Labour MP. He has made an statement about ACT that is totally untrue. I hope that ACT are getting legal advice as well as Garth McVicar as it affects them more. It would appear the Parker could not only be sued for defamation but possibly cause a serious complaint of breaching the electoral ACT.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. mickysavage (786 comments) says:

    Hmmm playing dirty tricks by reporting something that Banks actually said and DPF all for using that dreaded legislation he used to complain about because it stifled free speech. Not to mention scare mongering by using a section that clearly does not apply. Ironies abound …

    [DPF: What a surprise, Micky approves of deceptive campaigning. I'm shocked.]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. leftyliberal (642 comments) says:

    Given that the quote did appear in the Herald in 2010 makes it appear fair game to me. Also fair game would be bringing up anything silly that Parker or Goldsmith has said in the past.

    The simple answer for Banks would be: “Yes I said that back in the 70′s. It was wrong and I don’t think like that any more.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Inventory2 (10,085 comments) says:

    You miss the point micky; where do you draw the line? If Banks’ comments from 1978 are going to be an election issue, how about Goff’s comments and decisions from 1984 to 1990? You can’t have it both ways, unfortunately, and now Phil Goff’s past record on asset sales is fair game.

    PS: what would $9.49 billion in 1990 terms be worth today?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Psycho Milt (2,246 comments) says:

    …now Phil Goff’s past record on asset sales is fair game.

    It always was fair game, it’s just that no-one gives a shit. Whether he went along with it due to Cabinet collective responsibility, or whether he thought it a good idea at the time but changed his mind when he saw the results, it’s a big So What. Find him bad-mouthing darkies back in the 1980s though, and it’s all on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. ben (2,396 comments) says:

    PS: what would $9.49 billion in 1990 terms be worth today?

    $15.6 billion

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Elaycee (4,285 comments) says:

    mickysavage (759) Says: October 25th, 2011 at 1:31 pm “…Ironies abound”

    Yup – one of the ironies, Greg Presland is that you can post crap on Kiwiblog and the owner of the blog allows you to do it. OTOH, anyone who dares posts facts on your blog, gets banned.

    And yet you want to throw the expression ‘free speech’ onto the table.

    Now THAT is ironic!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Ohhh so Banks was a bigot in 1978 not 2010… silly me… obviously that makes a big difference… to some.

    Actually I do appreciate that people can change their views, but believing that about Banks is about as believable as the notion that Young Labour were not trying to mislead.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. double d (225 comments) says:

    funny post elaycee @ 2.08pm.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    elaycee,

    Actually to be fair, mickysavage merely referenced someone else’s complaint about free speech. Moreover, there is no right to free speech on a blog. In this blog David Farrar is lord and master and can be as lenient or as severe as he wants to be and the same right belongs to every blog owner. The right to free speech implies the right for anyone to start a blog, but it does not imply the right to say whatever you want on someone else’s blog.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    “…using that dreaded legislation he used to complain about because it stifled free speech”

    I think we have far too much regulation of election campaigns, but it seems fair to me that in the days leading up to the election that dishonest material used to sway votes should be punished to protect the integrity of the election. A person’s vote relies on the information they have access to and publishing dishonest material right before an election which does not permit enough time for people to check, or be informed about, the facts on such a disinformation campaign undermines the integrity of the election result and should be regulated against.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Chuck Bird (4,658 comments) says:

    How many homosexual MPs did Phil Goff invite to his well known BBQ? If he were to have another would he do the same?

    I wonder how many so called homophobic comments Banks made since a Labour MP referred to Finlayson as Tinkerbell?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Scott Chris (5,868 comments) says:

    Inventory 2 says:- “Goff’s comments and decisions from 1984 to 1990?”

    Well duh. There’s no dirt to dig. In fact, his alignment with ol’ Rog even brings muted praise from the more fair minded righties.

    The rest (presumably you included) just ignore it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Elaycee (4,285 comments) says:

    @Weihana – mickysavage (Greg Presland) posted the words ‘free speech’ – its there for all to see. I pointed out the irony – you can see that too.

    I’m sure you’ve observed / experienced the threat of being banned from blogs (for example, RedAlert when you have dared “disagree with the moderator” [Trevor]). But, as long as your comments are reasonable, you can freely post on KB from any quadrant of the political spectrum.

    There is, of course, a big difference. One of them adheres to the principles of ‘free speech’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Kimble (4,374 comments) says:

    So Whale is still obsse

    Who else read this mis-comment by Ross as saying “So Whale is still obese”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Elaycee (1,502) Says:
    October 25th, 2011 at 2:46 pm


    @Weihana – mickysavage (Greg Presland) posted the words ‘free speech’ – its there for all to see. I pointed out the irony – you can see that too.

    Indeed, but a reference to someone else complaining (supposedly) about free speech isn’t necessarily to make one’s own point with regards to freedom of speech.


    I’m sure you’ve observed / experienced the threat of being banned from blogs (for example, RedAlert when you have dared “disagree with the moderator” [Trevor]). But, as long as your comments are reasonable, you can freely post on KB from any quadrant of the political spectrum.

    There is, of course, a big difference. One of them adheres to the principles of ‘free speech’.

    I’ve been to Red Alert once and yes I observed their intolerance for criticism. But strictly speaking, moderation of blogs, even discriminatory and unfair moderation, does not violate a principle of free speech. “Freedom of speech” to me implies the freedom to start one’s own blog, it does not imply the freedom to say whatever you want on someone else’s blog. It’s like going to someone else’s house to have dinner and not observing their etiquette.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. David Garrett (6,307 comments) says:

    I am just wondering why the nasty Mr Presland bothers with his silly nom de plume when everyone knows who he is….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Nookin (3,031 comments) says:

    David

    Mr Presland is still entrenched in the early part of the 20th century.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Bob R (1,332 comments) says:

    ***As far as I can see, it is acceptable to discriminate against a standard of academic supply, but not against race.***

    @ Scott Chris,

    Fair enough, although if you’re consistent then I presume you oppose affirmative action too?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Nookin (3,031 comments) says:

    “Who else read this mis-comment by Ross as saying “So Whale is still obese”?”

    Indeed, Kimble yours is a possible intrpretation. However, my take on it was that yet again Ross’s two fingered typing got so far ahead of his brain that he had to stop, take a break and let his brain catch

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. davidp (3,540 comments) says:

    Last election, Labour were busy banging on about the Springbok Tour in 1981.

    This election, Labour are banging on about things Banks said in 1978.

    Next election, Labour will probably be banging on about Muldoon being mean to Bill Rowling or something in 1975. And the only relevance that most voters will see is that Phil Goff was in parliament while Rowling was Leader of the Opposition. Labour are a party of the past.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. 3-coil (1,200 comments) says:

    davidp – Labour are the dregs of a party of the past.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Scott Chris (5,868 comments) says:

    Bob R says:- “Fair enough, although if you’re consistent then I presume you oppose affirmative action too?”

    Yes if it infringes on the rights of normal citizens. No if it means *extra* help is available for those who genuinely need it, and that that help is demonstrably useful to society as a whole.

    Those who genuinely need help needn’t be colour coded IMO.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Johnboy (14,857 comments) says:

    I’m surprised FESter hasn’t given us a legal opinion on this topic yet.

    Perhaps he is otherwise engaged? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. freddos (54 comments) says:

    I wonder if Key decides not to come in behind Banks whether Act’s party vote will collapse on Election Day and go to National? Or will a few % on the right be wasted?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Clint Heine (1,563 comments) says:

    Oh but the delicious irony gets even better for Mickysavage aka Greg Presland… who know he has no shit show in hell of ever being elected into Parliament because of the things he has said online, hoping not to be caught out.

    Greg – if must hurt that you can’t even get selected by your own party. Although it hurts many of us too, as we’d have a great time attributing you to far worse statements that you have made over the last 2-3 years online. You are a quote goldmine.

    I am not a fan of Banks being an ACT candidate but so what? He is a different person than he was when a National MP. Being Mayor of the biggest Pacifica city in the world and growing up has changed him.

    As for Greg Presland….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.