Three good posts worth checking out on Whale Oil:
- A graphic of what a trillion dollars in $100 notes looks like compared to a person.
- His discovery that one of the entrants for Miss Tui works for Rodney Hide. He even supplies instructions on how to vote for Miss Samantha Rodgers.
- Some great quotes from question time yesterday.
The Electoral Commission has saved me from becoming the most hated man in NZ, and found that the Tui billboards are not election advertisements – but only just!
I asked the EC to rule on the Tui billboards after reading their determination that the EMA ads against KiwiSaver were election advertisements because they can not take into account the intent of the ad – only the impact.
The interesting thing is how close a call they say it was:
As a result the Electoral Commission formed the view that the billboard in question sits just outside of what could reasonably be regarded as encouraging or persuading voters to vote or not to vote in a particular manner, and is therefore not an election advertisement for the purposes of the Electoral Finance Act.
They went out of their way to say the billboard sits “just outside” being an illegal election advertisement. I think it shows hiw far reaching the EFA is, even though it has stopped just short.
Also the EC seems to suggest that Tui escaped only because of their unique place in NZ society:
While there is no exemption for humour as such, because of the long-standing and unique
background of the Tui advertisement series, the Commission does not consider that the billboard in question is likely to have an abiding impact on the thinking of members of the public.
In other words this is not much of a precedent for other satire.Tags: billboards, Electoral Commission, Electoral Finance Act, Tui
Taito Phillip Field explains why he voted to censure Peters in the Herald.
Mr Peters has claimed the privileges committee was biased and hit out at the Maori Party for betraying him and at Mr Field, saying theMangere MP “did not understand loyalty”.
This is loyalty, as practised in Siciliy I suspect?
Mr Field acknowledged Mr Peters had supported him. “I have a lot of time for Winston and I am supportive of him. I’ve always considered Winston a friend, but I had to make an honest decision which had respect for the privileges committee process.”
Winston thinks it is all about him, but for many MPs it was about recognising the fact the Privileges Committee heard all the evidence, and reached fair conclusions.
In the same report:
Meanwhile a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority about a Tui billboard saying: “When Winston says no, he means no. Yeah right.” has failed.
The complainant, N. Keesing, said it was “defamatory and racially discriminating towards Winston Peters”.
The authority ruled that it would be seen in a humorous light and did not meet the “threshold to effect a breach of the code of ethics”.
How is the Tui billboard racially discriminating??
It may however be an election advertisement. I have asked the Electoral Commission to rule on whether or not it is.Tags: Electoral Commission, Privileges Committee, Taito Philip Field, Tui, Winston First
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.Tags: Electoral Commission, Electoral Finance Act, inflation, Tui, Winston First