Sales pitch

59 comments on “Sales pitch ”

• Comments are now closed

1. coge 1

   26 August 2008 at 9:42 am

   I don’t get it. Is this an attempt at self employment?
2. sweetd 2

   26 August 2008 at 9:45 am

   I don’t see the authorising statment on that?
3. Steve Pierson 3

   26 August 2008 at 9:49 am

   sweetd – satire is excluded from the EFA. And, we don’t end statements with question marks.

   ayb – I was literally seconds away from posting my bit from the same photos. Funny thing is, of the 3 dozen photos we were sent I had chosen the top one as well for my post. Your text is better than mine though.
4. higherstandard 4

   26 August 2008 at 9:51 am

   Wonder what the people sitting in traffic thought ?
5. Steve Pierson 5

   26 August 2008 at 9:53 am

   HS. some of the other photos have people in cars waving or smiling.. the joker rang me up this morning and said it was a pretty positive feel.
6. Bryce Edwards 6

   26 August 2008 at 9:59 am

   Ha. Very good.

   But, Steve, can you please explain how satire such as this is exempt from the EFA?

   I assume the above election advertisement was put together by a Labour Party member or supporter (of course it’s hard to tell without an authorisation!). Does this mean that any election advertisement or campaign using signage put out by National, Act (or their supporters) is exempt if they use humour?

   Bryce
   http://www.liberation.org.nz
7. Steve Pierson 7

   26 August 2008 at 10:23 am

   Bryce, I think you’re taking a leap to assume it’s a Labour person or supporter. ‘It’s anti-national, so the person must be pro Labour’ Is that the kind of logic you would employ writing an academic work?

   In fact, i’ve just got a text from a labour activist who recognised the person and says he’s not Labour, despite the acitivist’s attempt to sign him up.

   The Tui billboards are exempt because they are satire, this looks like satire too and, if it is, it is exempt. If not, its in technical breach, just like all those Sensible Sentencing marchers etc etc.

   It’s your right to get your knickers in a twist over technical breachs of the law if you like. Why not take it to the EC and waste their time too?
8. Anita 8

   26 August 2008 at 10:26 am

   SP,

   I know I’m about to look stupid, but… 🙂

   Which bit of the EFA exempts satire?
9. Steve Pierson 9

   26 August 2008 at 10:35 am

   anita. s5(2)(c) http://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2007/0111/latest/DLM1092853.html

   “solely for the purpose of informing, enlightening, or entertaining its audience”

   of course, in this case, the quetion would be around ‘solely’ and to be fair it probably is an electoral advertisement but honestly, its a guy in a carboard box with a mask on – the purpose of the Act is to stop secret parallel campaigning, not street theatre… minor breaches of all laws happen all the time and no-one cares because laws aren’t there to punish minor breaches, they’re about the significant stuff.
10. Bryce Edwards 10

    26 August 2008 at 10:36 am

    Well Steve, my point about it being a National supporter was a parody of you!

    You (and Labour in general) have argued that the Exclusive Brethren anti-Labour pamphlets were logically pro-National and should have counted towards the National Party’s expenditure cap. Of course we can’t assume that the activist is acting on behalf of Labour. And attempts to do so often lack logic.

    But there is of course a serious issue about so-called “technical breaches” of the EFA. And I pointed this out in my above comment. If you are so keen on allowing humour to be exempt from requiring authorisation or counting towards a party’s election spending cap, then that’s a very slippery slope you’re heading towards, and you’re thus advocating yet another loop-hole for parties with wealth to be able to use that wealth unregulated.

    Bryce
    http://www.liberation.org.nz
11. Bryce Edwards 11

    26 August 2008 at 10:42 am

    Steve – it’s good to see you finally come to your senses and see that such political stunts do actually fall foul of your EFA.

    And the problem is that you’ve set up all these very grey areas whereby you say you can judge between some sort of legitimate “technical breaches” and “significant stuff”.

    I think you’ll find that increasingly it’d be hard for even you to draw the line between what is just “street theatre” and “parallel campaigns”. As far I can see, your way of determining this is likely to be: anti-National / pro-Labour minor breaches are OK; anti-Labour / pro-National breaches are parallel campaigning.

    Bryce
    http://www.liberation.org.nz
12. george 12

    26 August 2008 at 10:44 am

    Its not a question of EFA,its one of nationals secrete agenda’s.
    Tolling being one of many.The truth always comes out and yet again from a national source.
13. Felix 13

    26 August 2008 at 10:44 am

    It’s strange but when someone links to their own website in comments on someone else’s website I semi-consciously make a point of not visiting that site, ever.

    I wonder if others have a similar reaction.
14. The Jester 14

    26 August 2008 at 10:45 am

    Wealth?

    How much do you think was actually spent on such a prank?

    Also, who is to say this activist acted alone, and was purely in it to tell National he was not happy to pay $50 a week in tolls to cross the bridge (or where ever the tolls will be)?
15. Anita 15

    26 August 2008 at 10:46 am

    SP,

    I didn’t think there was an exemption for satire (or at least couldn’t remember seeing one). I think the test probably looks like this

    funny solely for the purpose of being funny – not an election expense

    funny for the purpose of persuading voters to vote or not vote … – an election expense.

    funny solely for the purpose of selling something unrelated – not an election expense

    So he’s bound by the unregistered cap and the requirement for a promoter statement, but no drama.
16. principessa 16

    26 August 2008 at 10:46 am

    Personally- I like his moxy. and his point.
17. Anita 17

    26 August 2008 at 10:49 am

    lprent, I miss a functioning edit 🙁 Can we have a preview until edit cheers up?

    everyone else, add “solely” to my 1st and 3rd italicised paras in your head 🙂

    [lprent: I’ll look at it as soon as I get some time. But for some reason my free time is a bit constrained because of the election. In the meantime – why not just try another browser. I’m not getting problems in firefox http://www.mozilla.com In the meantime I’ve adjusted your comment to try and get your intent ]
18. yl 18

    26 August 2008 at 10:52 am

    haha Felix,

    I agree, it is shameless self promoting haha. Considering there is already a link through the nickname tut tut.

    Anyway, as i watched agenda on Sunday i commented that it was nice to see the National party honest about there intentions. It has been rare for them as they have tried to hide there unpopular true intentions, as they are running there campaign on ‘say what ever it takes to get into power’ attitude. And swallowing a few dead rats along the way.

    Then, Monday morning, low and behold, Billy is on Morning report saying that his transport spokesperson misspoke.

    People have often said that this election is the National parties to lose, they seem to be doing a great job of that.

    Captcha – Hazard
19. Tim Ellis 19

    26 August 2008 at 11:04 am

    There isn’t an exemption for satire. The question is whether a statement seeks to persuade voters to vote for or against a political party or candidate. It’s hard to see how a Tui billboard would seek to do this. It is clear that when somebody paints up a mock toll booth, dons a Maurice Williamson mask, stands in front of rush hour traffic, gets his mate to take photos of it, and sends these photos to the Standard to be published, then this is a political stunt. The message is clearly designed to persuade voters not to vote for the National Party.

    Political stunts like this are exactly the kind of activities that are covered by the EFA and require promoters’ statements. Just because the person is anonymous and it might be hard for the police to investigate who is behind it doesn’t change the fact that the very same group of left wing activists who defended the passing of the EFA are now going about and breaking it.
20. Draco TB 20

    26 August 2008 at 11:22 am

    I’d call this an election advertisement as defined by the EFA. It has National written on it. In context it is obviously an encouragement to not vote National.
21. Matthew Pilott 21

    26 August 2008 at 11:26 am

    “…it doesn’t change the fact that the very same group of left wing activists who defended the passing of the EFA are now going about and breaking it.”

    Bollocks. Are you going to prove that the guy in the box defended passing of the EFA? Or that putting those pictures here are breaking the EFA? Or are you blatantly lying…
22. lprent 22

    26 August 2008 at 11:35 am

    Ummm. I think the key point (I wish Key could make some as cogent as the satire above) is

    Does the person intend to spend more than 10k doing electioneering?

    If they don’t, then I don’t think that any provision of the EFA applies. Doesn’t look like a particularly expensive billboard to me (the toll one not the tui one).
23. Pascal's bookie 23

    26 August 2008 at 11:45 am

    “In context it is obviously an encouragement to not vote National.”

    Draco, that’s just because you’re biiiiased. 😉

    I was reading just last night, over at the ‘writeups’ blog, which is golden, the following:

    I envisage a blissful future where outside every town and city in New Zealand there are massive toolbooths where we can pay our tolls to a Macquarie Bank subsidiary safe in the knowledge that to maintain their profits they are going to look after the roads a hell of a lot better than a government department and be constantly investing in new roading infrastructure in an environment where companies are free to respond to the market and where the Resource Management Act doesn’t hold them back because they can deal with the externalities privately.
    

    http://writeups.co.nz/

    As far as I can tell, that post is not satire.

    It would seem on the face of it that this man could be our masked stranger. I doubt it, but it could be. Clearly though he would find this stunt an encouragement to vote for the Nat’s.

    Certainly you could argue that Mr Writeups is a libertarian, and that therefore a ‘reasonable person’ test would exclude his opinions, but….

    …yeah ok, it’s probably an ad under the act. Any argument that relies on ‘what would an Objectivist say’ is automatic fail.
24. Edosan 24

    26 August 2008 at 11:56 am

    Steve:

    “solely for the purpose of informing, enlightening, or entertaining its audience’

    Isn’t that just for radio and television programmes?

    Otherwise, what was all that Tui billboard fiasco about?
25. Felix 25

    26 August 2008 at 12:21 pm

    Edosan,

    I think I must have missed the “Tui billboard fiasco” so forgive me if I’m way off, but I would view the Tui billboards as being a slightly different kettle of fish as they’re primarily a commercial advertising a product.
26. sweetd 26

    26 August 2008 at 12:25 pm

    Felix, Tui billboard in Tauranga, “when Winston says no, he means no. Yeah right”.
27. Felix 27

    26 August 2008 at 12:28 pm

    I see. So what would be the difference if it were a tv ad rather than a billboard ad?
28. Phil 28

    26 August 2008 at 12:38 pm

    Whoever the prankster is, they clearly know f*ck all about design. The text is inconsistent, and the dark-writing-on-dark-background is a big no-no.

    If s/he going to take the time out of her/his day to make a statement, at least do it with some artistic flair…
29. Tim Ellis 29

    26 August 2008 at 12:41 pm

    LP, I may have this wrong but as I understand it the EFA says that anybody who makes an election advertisement, for or against a candidate or party, must have a promoter’s statement, irrespective of the cost. The cost issue seems to go to whether the third party must register with the electoral commission, in which case it is illegal.

    Matthew you are perfectly capable of engaging in constructive debate with people without resorting to calling them liars. Can I prove this person defended the EFA? No, of course not. Do I even know who this person is? Again, no idea and I don’t care. Do I honestly believe this person is almost certainly a Labour Party activist? Yes.

    This was a political stunt. It wasn’t street theatre or performance art. I think that anybody who says that a guy with no political affiliations decided as an act of theatre, to create this stunt, and that somebody magically walked by with a camera, took photos, and sent those photos immediately to the Standard, the very morning after the news broke… Come now, just because the evidence is circumstantial doesn’t mean a jury wouldn’t convict on it.

    So I don’t think I’m being unreasonable in assuming this is a Labour Party activist behind this stunt. Next, you ask whether I have any evidence that this person personally defended the EFA. No I don’t, and I don’t think I need to have evidence. I said that the same people who defended the EFA (i.e., the Labour Party, the Greens, NZ First, Progressives) are the ones going around and breaking it. Because I firmly believe this stunt was not the spontaneous act of an individual, but a coordinated stunt by a group of people with connections to the Labour Party. Were they instructed by Helen Clark to do this? Hell, I don’t know, probably not. Were they under the direction of the Labour leadership or strategy team? Probably not.

    But I don’t think I’m making an unreasonable leap here. Nicky Hager would write a whole conspiracy book on much looser circumstance.
30. Phil 30

    26 August 2008 at 12:42 pm

    … and they couldn’t even be arsed properly painting over the labels on the box!
31. principessa 31

    26 August 2008 at 12:53 pm

    Phil- paint takes time to dry.
32. Felix 32

    26 August 2008 at 12:56 pm

    Tim could you conceive of the person behind the mask being a green party supporter?
33. Savage 33

    26 August 2008 at 12:57 pm

    Links to the Labour Party? Its not only the Labour Party that thinks that Maurice is a plonker. It could be an upset National supporter, NZ First, The Greens or absolutely anyone. I’m sure the list of suspects could read like the electoral roll.

    I’m also suspicious about possible links to Al Qaeda.
34. Edosan 34

    26 August 2008 at 12:57 pm

    Felix:

    Actually, it’s only for TV and Radio shows, adverts are excluded, that there seems to be a caveat for satire. All advertisements on any medium that create the impression that you should or should not vote for a party or candidate seem to be classed as political ads.

    I just pointed that out to say that in this instance, there is no exclusion for satire that Steve claimed.
35. Rocket Boy 35

    26 August 2008 at 12:59 pm

    ‘I’d call this an election advertisement as defined by the EFA. It has National written on it. In context it is obviously an encouragement to not vote National.’

    How is this an encouragement not to vote National? Maurice Williamson was on Agenda bursting out of his skin with enthusiasm about toll roads and how people would be happy to pay $50 per week for a quicker ride to work.

    This guy is getting the message out for Maurice and it should be counted as a pro National Party ad.
36. lprent 36

    26 August 2008 at 1:14 pm

    TE: You could be correct – I don’t know enough for certain. My memory from earlier in the year was that you didn’t have to put authorizing statements unless you were going beyond the cost limits. Someone can probably clarify.

    This site is covered by the specific exclusion for blogs in the EFA and because each poster does their posts individually. I must have a look to see if a decision by the electoral commission has been made on the subject of multi-poster blogs yet. However it only costs $160/month and everyones spare time – in my case right now time while I wait for this [expletive deleted] code to compile in gcc on linux in a VirtualBox.

    [update: Looks like the complaints by various people are still awaiting legal advice. http://www.elections.org.nz/news/ ]
37. Matthew Pilott 37

    26 August 2008 at 1:16 pm

    Tim, your detailed and explanation and multiple disclaimers make that sentence make some sense (although I really challenge your assumptions), but at the end of the day if you’re going to use throwaway lines like that with no context you get the response such lines deserve.

    Instead of “” it doesn’t change the fact that the very same group of left wing activists who defended the passing of the EFA are now going about and breaking it.’

    You’ve gone with: I assume that this person is a Labour activist because I can’t believe that anyone who doesn’t like National might dislike the for a reason apart from support of Labour.

    Furthermore, I believe that the Labour Party is a singluar and monolithic entity, and that if the Party supports something, each and every member, activist, voter and person who has had a left-wing thought must wholeheartedly support said idea.

    Furthermore, it is impossible to concieve that someone would paint a box blue, without the collusion of levels of the Labour party that were responsible for the advent of the EFA.

    Thus, the man in a blue box is an EFA supporter and secretive colluder with multiple Labour Party contacts.

    Pity the photo isn’t in high def, you’d se H1’s phone number in his pocket I reckon.

    Not a big leap? I don’t know which is worse, making a careless throwaway line (which could be construed as insisting that those involved with this site supported the EFA but are happy to break it), or constructing a detailed and solidly thought through assessment that has less credibility than the first.

    Either way, it’s not a sensible comment to make.
38. Edosan 38

    26 August 2008 at 1:22 pm

    it’s also important to realise that intent doesn’t matter, only the impression that it creates. therefore even if this guy wasn’t intending to turn voters off National it clearly could create the impression that he was.
39. The Jester 39

    26 August 2008 at 1:26 pm

    Good point Rocket Boy

    I don’t see why it couldn’t quite easily be a pro National supported. It does not defame National in any way. It is merely a way of actually promoting what Maurice was talking about on Agenda.
40. coge 40

    26 August 2008 at 1:32 pm

    OK, I think I understand know. The guy in the blue box is a product of the knowledge economy.
41. Policy Parrot 41

    26 August 2008 at 1:40 pm

    BTW – The only reason why National is perceived as having a “secret” agenda is that; everytime it is caught telling the truth, it denies it.

    However, Maurice should at least be commended on this point. At least he, unlike the rest of National, has enough courage to also care about the issue of toll booths, rather than just voting booths.
42. Jasper 42

    26 August 2008 at 4:17 pm

    I’ve been told that the EFA is the reason that Facelift isn’t on this year due to the confusion around satire and non ridiculisation of Politicians.

    Shame… at least pranks like this go some way to lightening the political environment.

    BTW: On facelift, anyone seen ‘Dead Ringers’ on UKTV? Hilarious.

    and on another note, my captcha said “Public Muzzle”

    coincidence?
43. Tim Ellis 43

    26 August 2008 at 4:55 pm

    Interesting points, Matthew, and I used hyperbole, as no doubt you often do, in leaping to my conclusions that the failure to have a promoter’s statement was illegal under the EFA, and that it was a labour party activist involved in the stunt, rather than an activist from any other political party, or merely a street theatre artist. The fact that it happened the day after it was the issue for the government, had a photographer ready to take the pictures, and arrived with the Standard within minutes of it taking place, says to me it was a coordinated effort with a genuine political motive, most likely to be connected to the Labour Party.

    I don’t ask you to agree with that assumption, although in stating it I do expect that many people, particularly from the right, would assume that it’s reasonable. But it raises an interesting issue as to what political parties should take responsibility for. I will try to be concise, and I’m not always good at it.

    Let’s say a small group of enthusiastic National Party supporters decide on their own that they’re going to run an attack campaign against Helen Clark. The senior National Party finds out about who the people are, their connections to the National Party, and wink wink, the senior party does nothing about it. Should the National Party take responsibility for that? Because that sounds a lot like what happened to the exclusive brethren saga a few years ago. I think the Nats were stupidly naive to do anything other than nip it in the bud, if they had the authority to do so. The fact they didn’t was a big failure and caused a lot of embarrassment and cost National probably two or three percent in the polls. It probably lost the Nats the election. So you would say, yes, on that basis, National should take responsibility for not distancing themselves from the EBs at the outset.

    It’s my view that National should take responsiblity, and has taken responsibility, for the EBs conduct in 2005. They paid the price for it electorally. Do you think by the same measure that the Labour Party should take responsibility for the actions of over-enthusiastic members, supporters, and officers breaking the law as well?

    I don’t like to put words in people’s mouths, but you can argue, yes, but there’s no evidence that the person here was a Labour Party activist. That’s true. There isn’t. Not yet. But there wasn’t immediately any evidence of real connections between National and the EBs last time, either. That only came out after some time. The EBs initially misled about who they were. Labour and the Greens didn’t believe the EBs responses then, because they were deliberately being obscure about their identity.

    Isn’t it the case that two of the key purposes of the electoral finance act is to identify who is funding whom and who is campaigning on behalf of whom, rather than running secretive, anonymous campaigns? And if there is a duty for National to take responsibility for everyone campaigning on their behalf, isn’t there also a duty for the Labour Party to establish that these people are not part of them, rather than simply saying they don’t know who the people involved are? Furthermore, haven’t the admissions from various young Labour activists that they know who the people behind stunts like this, and the secret recordings, are, suggest that it would be very easy for Labour to find out if it is one of their own?

    I think after the EBs fiasco last time, it just isn’t credible anymore for a political party to say they don’t know if any secret, parallel campaigning has any links to them, because they haven’t inquired. I think political parties have a duty to make those inquiries, particularly when it’s clear that those campaigns are going on.

    I’m not saying that standing on a busy road with effectively a “don’t vote National” sign around your neck is of the level of what the exclusive brethren did in 2005. But that isn’t the point. The point is that the EFA specifically outlaws anybody from engaging in anonymous campaigning like this, and sets the bar at zero. It wouldn’t be hard for the Standard to independently verify, through its close Labour Party connections, whether this person is a Labour Party activist. If I read what SP says above, instead he’s repeated an anonymous third party source saying that the person isn’t a financial member. In my mind, that isn’t an adequate response.
44. george 44

    26 August 2008 at 5:31 pm

    I am dumbfounded.A person standing on the side of the road wearing a box is now likened to the exclusive bretheren 1.5 million dollar campaign.
    The issue here is NOT the efa it is Nationals SECRETE agenda.Tolling is a BIG issue.I don’t know about you but having to spend $50 dollars a week plus based on Nationals spokesperson on transport ,makes a real problem for me.Is anyone going to debate that?
45. Anita 45

    26 August 2008 at 5:51 pm

    Tim Ellis,

    Many thoughts!! 🙂

    1) I’m never sure why the left is seen as a cohesive group. Many, for example, are not connected with Labour, don’t support Labour, are deeply disappointed in Labour, and believe that the only thing worse than a Labour led government is a National led government.

    2) If some people decide to set up a small group to campaign on the election and all or some are members of a political party (or some other group) that doesn’t mean their campaign is a part of that party’s (or group’s) campaign. There are issues here of whether it is a separate campaign, but it’s not necessarily the same campaign.

    3) The EFA allows 3rd parties to campaign for or against parties or candidates. Those campaigns are not (and must not be) co-ordinated by or with the party or candidate, and the party or candidate has no responsibility for them.

    4) Even if we believe the National Party line on the Exclusive Brethren, it still hurt them. It is entirely possible a bunch of young enthusiastic lefties could run a pro Labour/Green/Progressive/Alliance/Workers’ Party campaign which would hurt one or more of those parties. Such is life. That doesn’t mean the party gets to control the radical group, but it does get to be nervous about it 🙂

    5) The EFA is about transparency, of money and voice. If the man in the cardboard box had stuck something on his box to say who he was (or who one of his mates’ was if they were willing to take responsibility for him) then we’d be sweet; his campaign would be transparent, he would be standing up for something he believes in.

    6) NZ is small, but it’s not that small. The man in the box may belong to one of the same organisations as me, he might even be related to me, but I have no idea who he is – it would take some effort for me to find out who he is, and I have no desire to do so. Why should SP? Or anyone at The Standard? Or anyone at the Labour Party?

    7) I think it’s very very cool that some guy somewhere (and his mate with the camera) are actually doing something. If more people acted on what they believe in (and comments in blogs really don’t count) we would be a much better country.
46. Bill 46

    26 August 2008 at 5:52 pm

    Getting cars off the road = good thing.

    On that premise, a $50 toll would work wonders. If a worker doesn’t want to wear the $50, then s/he can of course demand the $50 from their employer during collective bargaining as a ring fenced claim apart from pay negotiations. Then catch the bus and save a packet!

    More seriously, whenever a move is made away from individualised transport, it is the poorer who are going to be whacked first. There WILL be a two tier transport system before too long.

    And avoidance/denial as in toothache and dentist will not change the outcome.

    So toll charges simply result in the inevitable arriving sooner rather than later.
47. Anita 47

    26 August 2008 at 5:54 pm

    george,

    I think likening people to the Exclusive Brethren is the new black. One of my happiest moments of last year was being likening to the Exclusive Brethren in parliament 🙂

    (I should say that one of the reasons for my joy is that it reminded me of the strength and courage of one of my great grandmothers, who is the reason I’m not EB. It reminded me that individuals have enormous power to bring about change).
48. Dean 48

    26 August 2008 at 10:36 pm

    SP:

    “It’s your right to get your knickers in a twist over technical breachs of the law if you like. Why not take it to the EC and waste their time too?”

    Love your work. If at first they bring up a point you find hard to defend, seeek to denegrate and humiliate them. Don’t ever address his point – that is to say, if someone believes it’s all in humour then it’s exempt from the EFA – let’s just point fingers and laugh like a child in a preschool.

    In your opinion, is Bryce a chinless scarf wearer? Is he in fact a hater and/or a wrecker?

    captcha: “the apology”. Oh, only if it were so.
49. Quoth the Raven 49

    26 August 2008 at 11:15 pm

    Does anybody know if Jasper is right about Facelift?
50. lprent 50

    26 August 2008 at 11:16 pm

    Tim Ellis:

    And if there is a duty for National to take responsibility for everyone campaigning on their behalf, isn’t there also a duty for the Labour Party to establish that these people are not part of them, rather than simply saying they don’t know who the people involved are?

    Wrong from what I understand.

    There is no such requirement for parties to be responsible for 3rd parties. It is the 3rd parties that are responsible to the EC/police.

    There is a requirement for the parties to govern their own activities and of their people doing it as part of the organization. Effectively if the ‘party’ is in effective control of the activities or is paying for the activities.

    It has no real control of members acting of their own accord and not as part of the parties activities. Therefore it is not responsible for them. This is in exactly the same manner that I’m a member of southern cross, but they are not responsible for my political activities.

    There is a requirement for the people acting as a 3rd party in the election to comply with the ERA or face prosecution.

    If however, the EC decides that a 3rd party is effectively acting as part of, or directly on behalf of party – then they can add the allocation to the parties election expenses. Bearing in mind the level of collusion between the EB and the Nat’s last election this might have been the case if it was repeated this election.

    However there are a number of exemptions, in particular for news media and blogs. This is there to allow free and fair comment.

    Basically you’re incorrect. There is no requirement for either party to be responsible for activists unless they are directly acting on the parties behalf and under their control. It is actually the Electoral Commissions responsibility or police, (and ultimately the courts on charging or appeal) to make those determinations. They will do so after they receive a complaint.
51. Andrew 51

    27 August 2008 at 12:14 am

    I think some people are missing the point. User pays is exactly that. If you dont want to pay the toll, then drive on the old road. All the old existing roads will be toll free. If you want to drive on the shiney new expressway, then you will have to pay for that privilige.

    As it is, with the 10c petrol tax, everyone in the auckland area pays the same whether they use the roads or not. So the masses pay for the few that use the roads. That’s not very fair now is it?

    Living in england i do a lot of driving around europe. France has thousands of miles of toll roads and they are marvelous! you pay 3 – 10 euros (depending on the length) and you get to travel at 130kph with no police to be seen anywhere, and you get to where you are going in half the time. A month ago i did 2,500 miles around france in 10 days, some times we used the slow roads, sometimes the toll roads.

    Not that it will happen in my lifetime but wouldn’t it be nice to have a 4 lane expressway from auckland to wellington (as well as SH1 for people that didnt want to pay). This would NEVER happen if we had only tax revenue to pay for roading. Just because Maurice said that ‘some’ people would be prepared to pay up to $50 a week to drive on toll roads, didnt mean that he implied that ALL people will have to pay $50 to drive on roads.

    Labour is (or was) scoping out public opinion for a $6 a day congestion charge for driving in Aucklnd. After living in London for 4 years i would say stay well away from that! It costs £8 pounds a day to drive in London and the congestion is just as bad as before it was introduced. The congestion has just moved from the center of town to outside the zone. It’s great at producing revenue though.

    It’s just another spin campain from Labour to frighten people that are not smart enough to think for themselves. Even Labour are looking seriously at PPP’s and the use of toll roads, where is the vast media hysteria on that headline?!?!?
52. The Jester 52

    27 August 2008 at 8:58 am

    Do you really think people are going to be happy to drive through Greenhithe to get to work in the mornings form the shore? From what I understand there are discussions around tolling both the harbour bridge and an underground tunnel. Where is my other option if I live on the shore?
    And let’s also remember there are a lot of jobs out there where a car is actually a necessity of a job, and has to be taken to work every day.
53. Phil 53

    27 August 2008 at 9:33 am

    “And let’s also remember there are a lot of jobs out there where a car is actually a necessity of a job, and has to be taken to work every day.”

    Then it would be paid for by the employer?
54. lprent 54

    27 August 2008 at 9:49 am

    Andrew:

    User pays is exactly that. If you dont want to pay the toll, then drive on the old road.

    Wrong – I think you haven’t read Maurice’s comments. Try Granny Herald.

    Asked about a statement he made on Television One’s Agenda programme that tolls would be imposed only on new roads, he said exceptions might be needed for projects such as another Waitemata Harbour crossing.

    Charging tolls on a tunnel under the harbour while keeping the harbour bridge toll-free would lead to a “dreadful distortion” in traffic, against which he believed even Labour would make an exception.

    In effect what he is saying is that there will be PPP’s or tolls that are not viable unless everyone pays. In which case why bother with the tolls? It will be simpler and cheaper to just get the funding with regional or national taxation.

    Incidentally, this has been the effect of PPP’s elsewhere that I’ve looked at. They usually require that alternate access routes are also ‘blocked’ to be viable or the taxpayers wind up paying through those interesting codicils.
55. Edosan 55

    27 August 2008 at 9:59 am

    Quoth: Facelift isn’t an advertisement, so I really doubt it. Read the exceptions on the link Steve provided.
56. lukas 56

    27 August 2008 at 10:11 am

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/4669955a6160.html

    ahhh irony

    captcha- embossing shipley- what’s she got to do with this?
57. The Jester 57

    27 August 2008 at 10:33 am

    Phil – I would hope it was paid for by the employer….I can’t imagine them all jumping at the opportunity to give their employees more money. It would turn all employers against the tolling idea if they had to fork out more money (potentially $2600/yr) for their employees.
58. george 58

    27 August 2008 at 12:58 pm

    Lucas
    What is the irony?National voted against ppp in the house.What is important is that national has yet again kicked their own spokesman for telling the truth.There is transparency as regards tolls from labour as you can see with the Pohoi extension.Get with the game.Truth will always out.

Links to post

1. More humour at Williamson’s expense « g.blog: posted on 26 August 2008 at 12:00 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS