Written By: - Date published: 8:23 am, April 13th, 2008 - 89 comments
Categories: dpf, election funding, same old national, workers' rights -
Tags: dpf, election funding, same old national, workers' rights
National’s current attempt to stop the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union from registering as a third party pretty much proves what we all knew. They have no interest in democracy.
Rather than accept the decision of the Electoral Commission and move on they’ve decided to appeal the decision and apply for an injunction to stop the EPMU from registering until a decision is made – something that could take several months and is designed to muzzle the fifty-thousand ordinary New Zealand workers the union represents.
Interestingly David Farrar has decided to out himself as the National party operative he is by providing evidence for National’s application. The irony is of course that David’s front-group, the Free Speech Coalition, registered as a third party unchallenged despite being funded by the same group of hollow men as the National party and David having considerable ties to the Nats himself. And fair enough, the EFA was never about stopping people campaigning but about making sure they had to do so transparently.
In my opinion National have fallen for their own spin and made a bad call. Bill’s attempts to scaremonger using the dreaded word “union” over the last couple of weeks have fallen on deaf ears. And there’s a reason for that: people are not scared of unions because they are voluntary and democratic organisations that do things like fight for 800 cleaners to get the deal they need to feed their families. Unfortunately for National, Bill still thinks people believe unions are full of smoky back-rooms and mobster types. That’s a bad call and shows how out of touch with New Zealand the National Party are.
This expensive litigation tells a story and that story is one of a political party that is supported by some of New Zealand’s wealthiest people demonstrating they are willing to spend a fortune in the courts to deny working New Zealanders a voice. In a year when National needs the backing of those working people to win the election that’s just bad politics.
As an aside I’d like to point out I made the call early this year that National would spend its huge war-chest on litigation in order to get around the EFA spending cap. I really thought they’d do it smarter than this.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
…is government funded given that all members are public servants whose salaries – and union fees – are paid for by the state.
So, if you and a bunch of other people employed by private enterprise organisations form a club, that club is “funded by private business interests” – because that’s who’s paying all your salaries? I don’t think so. What you do with your salary is your business, not your employer’s.
Dave – the PSA is state funded is it?
If five public servants who were union members went to the pub would you say that their drinking session was state funded?
What if someone worked for the PSA, was a union member and then used their income to pay for New Zealand citizenship!!! That would be out and out vote buying wouldn’t it!?!
r0b: None the less National is doing its best to challenge the law and try and twist it into a shape that could be used to curtail free speech.
My point was, on the Labour Party’s previous argument, if this happened, the people’s free speech wouldn’t be curtailed, just the money they used to buy that free speech. Only you guys seem to abandon that as a defensible position when the free speech being curtailed is that which argues your position.
Billy – I was phrasing the debate in the same language that the Right has been using on this issue. Language is a two edged sword, don’t you think?
If we are agreed that the fevered language and framing of the Right on the EFA as a “free speech” issue is inappropriate, then I will happily rephrase my comment more precisely. Are we agreed?
If five public servants who were union members went to the pub would you say that their drinking session was state funded?
GIven that Ive been a public servant and a PSA member, yeah, it would be state funded, particularly if the bar tab was paid for by the employer, as it often is.
Either we’re at cross purposes r0b, or I am really dumb. What are you on about, girl?
At the great risk of labouring my point, I am saying that Labour’s argument has been that no-one’s free speech is curtailed by placing restrictions on how much money they can spend broadcasting that speech. If that is true, the EPMU’s speech is not being restricted. If it’s not true, you have to admit that free speech is being restricted by the Act (albeit, you might well say, for a greater good).
So Dave – it’s my taxes that pay your wages. The thought of you spending your time posting right-wing filth on my dime is almost enough to make me vote tory just to see your lazy stupid arse get downsized.
Billy – well done. You’ve picked up on a small rhetorical paradox. Now while you’re on a roll how about telling me whether you think people should be able to spend more than $120k to influence your vote and whether they should be able to do so in a way that means you will never know who they are or what their interest in doing so is?
‘sod, are you just going to leave that “I am really dumb” alone?
Robinsod, you child, hahahahahahahaha, you really are a loser, the best that you an hope for is to die in your sleep..
[lprent: dave: I didn't give you a license to go childish either. You were doing quite well without this comment.]
I am glad I picked up on the paradox, because, reading r0b, I thought I was missng soemthing.
The problem is that, if you restrict everyone else to $120k and then instruct your MPs on how to get the most out of the use of taxpayers’ money you are kind of leaving yourself open to the charge that you are manipulating electoral law to your best advantage.
For more, see what the below member of the rabid member of the kiwiblog right has to say:
http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2008/04/why-i-cant-support-labour.html
Dave – I’ll outlive you no worries. Especially if you continue to refuse to take your pills.
Billy – yes, yes, yes you’ve shown you can use irony now why not show you can answer my question without misdirecting.
The problem is not my answer. It is that you have asked the wrong question.
The question should be about the fairness of the electoral system. It is invalid to pick out the parts of that system which suit your argument, and scream “misdirect” every time someone points out you’re missing something.
If I am just not allowed to factor in the $47m a year that the government spends telling its story (and the fact that the government has instructed its MPs on how to use this to the best advantage of the Labour Party), then your question is unworthy of an answer. It will prove what you set out to prove, but only because it was only looking at a corner of the problem.
Whatever, Billy. I should learn not to expect a straight answer from you.
OK. But we agree I win, right?
Oh good lord. If it makes you happy then yes Billy you win. You are dead right it is indeed a good thing that National are stopping unions from campaigning. OK???
Well, at least that’s settled, then.
hmmmmmm:
You are correct as far as my reading of the act goes. But you miss the point. A lot of the provisions of the EFA are about transparency and public accountability. If you campaign, then you cannot do it covertly and you must account for the full electoral period.
We’re in April now, and as far as I can see, all major and most of the minor parties have been running some sort of campaign already. Under the old act this wouldn’t have had to be accounted for. It is probably 6-7 months to elections. This is what happened in 2005, but only the last 3 months in that campaign were accounted for, and very little was transparent.
So far it looks like the act is doing exactly what was intended. Transparancy and accountability for the full election campaign
Either we’re at cross purposes r0b, or I am really dumb. What are you on about, girl?
Cross purposes Billy, you don’t seem to be dumb. And bravo for not assuming that I’m male.
At the great risk of labouring my point, I am saying that Labour’s argument has been that no-one’s free speech is curtailed by placing restrictions on how much money they can spend broadcasting that speech.
Correct, if the restriction is $120,000.
If that is true, the EPMU’s speech is not being restricted.
Ahhh no, because the Nats are trying to set the limit for the EPMU at effectively $0, by denying them the right to register as a third party.
So, spend $120,000, free speech not curtailed. Spend $0 curtails the free speech of an organisation of 45,000 people. Spot the difference?
Now, it’s true that I am being deliberately provocative in framing this in the same language – “restricting free speech” – that the Right used in attacking the EFA (two edged sword). I’m happy to use less emotive language if we are agreed that the language used by the Right on this issue has been cynically and hysterically emotive.
But whatever language we use, it is the case that EFA doesn’t meaningfully restrict the speech of (most) individuals or organisations up to a limit of $120,000. But the Nats are trying to twist it so that it does restrict the free speech of the EPMU, and also using another legal tool, the injunction, to the same end. Shame on them.
Congratulations to the Prime Minister on doing the right thing.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10504166