Written By: - Date published: 6:53 pm, July 23rd, 2008 - 53 comments
Categories: business, election funding, workers' rights -
Tags: ema, kiwisaver
The Employers and Manufacturers Association’s advertising campaign to defend the ability of employers to make workers pay their own Kiwisaver employer contribution while pocketing the taxpayer subsidy is the most hamfisted and transparently cynical piece of PR I’ve seen in some time.
It’s outragous that the EMA should claim it’s standing up for workers’ rights when it is really just trying to protect bad employers. But it’s not surprising. This is, after all, an organisation that has opposed every single gain made by working people in the last nine years and has an industrial arm that helps employers dismiss their workers and cut their pay.
It’s, therefore, no surprise that the EMA has had to resort to running an expensive advertising campaign (they can’t actually mobilise any workers in favour of their cause) and the media have seen it for the blatantly cynical PR move it is.
What’s more, this whole embarrassing exercise may be in breach of the Electoral Finance Act. I’ve just had a tip-off from a reader who has laid a complaint with the Electoral Commission this afternoon.
It turns out the EMA has failed to register as a third party, which means it has an election spending limit of $12,000. Today’s ad was a half page full colour in the Herald, putting it at around $15,000 according to a recent rate card and pushing the EMA well over their legal spending limit. The ad also entangles the New Zealand Herald, which is in breach for publishing it.
Judging by the text at the bottom of the advertisement it appears the EMA knew this would be the case all along but thought they could get around the law by passing it off as issues advertising, which is exempt under the Act. A quick look at section 5 of the Act shows this is not the case. It’s expected the same ad will appear in the Dominion Post tomorrow morning, at a cost of around $8,500. This ad will also be in breach of the EFA, as will the Dominion Post.
Deliberate attempts to breach electoral law and a cynical attack on workers – is this the best the EMA can do? Crappy ad design too.
[On a related note, if you haven't heard it already Alasdair Thompson lost the plot up against Trevor Mallard today on Morning Report. I never thought I'd see dear old Geoff have to turn someone's mic off before, but Alasdair's behaviour sure warranted it.]
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
These guys are truly pathetic. What Alasdair is arguing is that they want employers to be able give a pay rise of, say, 4%. Employees can then choose to put this into kiwisaver or not. So apparently it’s taking workers’ rights away by refusing to contribute to their superannuation, even though there is a credit paid to employers, that they will pocket if these scum got their way.
How is it taking away workers’ rights by making employers pay for pay rises out of ther own money, and funding kiwisaver from the employer credit? I understand that it will be a burden in the future, but this ad is just a plain lie.
Honestly, I know it’s not easy being en employer, but these guys don’t do anyone any favours, they simply reinforce the concept of the nasty, greedy and lying employer out to screw workers for an extra buck.
It’s hardly unexpected that there would be a few punches and kicks thrown by employers given the unscrupulous way this was dumped on them (ffs, who on earth would want to employ anyone these days – not me thats for sure).
And, the rough and ready nature of this punch and kick indicates some heavy resentment I would surmise.
[btw, missed the morning report skirmish, but sounds like Mallard may have laid his best on him (Mallard's best of course being typical politician bullshit)]
VTO, Mallard called Thompson a thief.
too many pink gins, expense account hotels, restaurant food and bad air in jets have made their brains go soft
By the way Steve, I’m glad you posted on this. Could you please explain what would be contributed to the ad by publication of Alisdair Thompson’s home address on the ad and on the Elections New Zealand website?
well if he wants to play politics then he must be accountable for his actions…thats the law.
Hey blar – it’s the law. I guess you don’t understand that. Oh and blar? This doesn’t say “authorised by” and that means it would have even been illegal under the ’93 electoral act that National brought in. Given you weren’t even born then I guess you’ve got an excuse for being such a dumbarse…
vto – the tax credit pays for all of the cost of the employer contribution for the first two years for workers earning less than $55k. So for the first two years while employers are getting more than 4% of an (above average earning) worker they are only paying 3% – that seems like a pretty good easing in period to me. Perhaps if they don’t like it they can f*ck off to Aussie and pay their workers 9%.
Honestly the next thing you lot will be bitching about is how we lose all our bright young things across the tasman. Cry me a river tards…
Blar. It has been part of electoral law since before the EFA that political parties must have authorisation – name and address – on their ads. That was extended to third parties after National and the Exclusive Brethern trid to run a secret campaign in which leaflets were distributed attacking Labour and the Greens dishonestly with a fake name as authorisation.
So lump it or leave it ay robinsos?
Well, that is exactly the way it feels.
And that is exactly why Clark is gone.
Good one.
hey vto…exactly why are you in business? to make a profit by employing people or to test yourself against laws made by political parties you dont like?. I dont believe you are in business at all but just repeating some anti worker tripe prepared by a pr firm. am I right?
Not that its any of your biz winnie-lover, but I’m in business to pay for a roof over our heads etc. I dont employ people currently for obvious reasons, as stated from time to time. PR firm? you’re the tripe brain.
Sod you illiterate tard, why don’t you read the bottom of the ad? Specifically, the part that says “authorised by”
Steve, I’m aware it is the law. What I asked was your opinion on why the democratic process is strengthened by forcing people to put their home addresses on advertisements as opposed to any other form of physical address.
Shit blar – you’re right! Gotta be a first time for everything I guess…
The home address was probably a bit of overkill but I guess they just wanted to sure the chinless scarf wearers couldn’t play the same fake address game again.
I’d say the biggest breach here is the spending limit one though – especially if they run another. I guess they could try to argue it’s an issues ad… I wonder what DPF will have to say about this?
I’ll put my house on it that this ad is not in breach of the EFA. But, at the moment, my house ain’t worth much!!
I’m picking that the EMA would have had legal advice on this and I’m also picking Peter Kiely would have played a role in it too, whether he would have been legal advisor or not. Peter knows electoral law inside out and back to front; the EMA won’t be in breach.
But I’ve been wrong before. Back in 1979 I think!
I doubt that this ad is in breach of the EFA – perhaps Steve you can advise how it is in breach!.
dave. read the post. If you are not a registered third party you can’t spend more than $12K on electoral advertising – this ad costs more than $12K and is clearly an election ad.
A gold roof vto?
I just clicked! That dude in black is supposed to be Trevor Mallard eh?
dave,
From the Electoral Finance Act:
So if the ad looks like 5(1)a (which it does) and not like anything in 5(2) (which it doesn’t) then it’s an election advertisement, and covered by the spend rules in 63:
So, in short, it looks like an election advertisement as defined in 5 and it seems unlikely that it cost less than the limits set in 63(3)d.
P.S. I can’t indent the damned legislation, it might be easier to read from the link.
Tane. I guess so. I love how, not being able to get out an actual protest, they have placards in the ad.
It’s the worst political ad since that one by Boscawen ‘Answer My Questions Prime Minister!’
“Why won’t you write back to me?!” – Boscawen, the jilted lover. Those were great ads, SP.
What’s truly awful about this one is that in no way does it explain what’s happening, it doesn’t even mention the law change by name. Can’t imagine it is money well spent. Maybe they were desperate to get in on the anti-EFA action and this was the best they could come up with after one shandy too many a couple of nights ago.
Anyway I suggest everyone that disagrees with the ad places a call to the people who published it tomorrow.
IMHO it’s not an election ad. It doesn’t call on people to vote, or to support parties based on particular policies. Rather, it pretty explicitly calls on them to lobby politicians (and politicians of all parties). Calling it an election ad would also run counter to the clear Parliamentary intent that this sort of material should not be included. But OTOH, I am not the Electoral Commission; if you want a definitive answer, you’d have to complain.
I/S,
Hm… I think the thing that pushed it over for me was the “Mallard” stuff, if it was “Stop the Attack on Workers” I’d be more comfortable with it.
How explicit does the “vote for” or “vote against” message need to be?
Someone got another link for the Morning Report stuff? Link doesn’t work for me.
Following the truckies lead eh. I guess is the second attempt by a National aligned special interest group this election year to gather public support by deception played off against manufactured popular opinion. Pity we don’t have any real journalism, if people knew they were being taken as fools, having their ignorance exploited, this kind of thing would backfire and do more harm than good for them.
(edit: looks like theres a problem at the other end of that link, I went to the site and waded through the menus to find it and it came up with the same error)
I have to say, after reading the ad, and the legislation, it certainly seems in breach. It’s strongly advocating against Mallard, and sounds like it cost more than $12,000. Sounds pretty clear cut.
Also, the interview is also available for free on iTunes.
Clint – thanks for making it clear you think free speech stops at $12,000.
Anita: well, it’s whether a reasonable person would regard it as advocating a vote for a specific party or candidate or a certain type of party or candidate. And IMHO, the first thing any reasonable person would note is that it is primarily directed at encouraging people to contact their MPs and lobby against government policy. The primary purpose isn’t electoral, and any electoral message is implicit and very much secondary.
Throw in the BORA, and I very much doubt that any court would rule that this is an election advertisement. MPs specifically rejected a clause which covered issue advertising, and for good reason: they wanted this sort of advertising to continue. The staff at the Standard may be uncomfortable with that, but that’s free speech for you. Meanwhile, they may want to consider that in this post they are confirming every fear of the lunatic right about the EFA, and specifically attempting to use the law to threaten and chill political speech they don’t agree with – making the job of those of us who support reasonable limits on the “right” of the rich to buy elections that much harder. Thanks, guys.
[Tane: I/S. None of us are paid or directed by anyone to write here. We do so in our own time in our own individual capacities. Don't refer to us as 'staff' - I personally resent it.
For the record, none of us I'm aware of has a problem with issues advertising. The question is where it crosses the line into election advertising.
I also reject the idea that the right should not have their deliberate breaches of the law held up to scrutiny, especially in a case like this where if the EMA had simply registered as a third party the ad would have been okay.]
I think once they start referring to MPs it de facto becomes an election advertisment.
If they said , Save the Whales, fill out our petition, or donate to our cause then that would be an issues advertisement in election year.
As well the comment about the interference is well and truely getting away from any issue about Kiwisaver on its own
But once they start referring to MPs, they seem to be campaigning for or against those people listed. Especially Mallard.
Funny , laying a complaint, seems to be stiffling free speech NOW. But not during all the other compliants laid by Farrar and the national Party
I dont see where it encourages anyone to vote (for or against). Seems to be lobbying on a specific issue
You would have to have a heart of stone to read this without smiling.
…”most hamfisted and transparently cynical piece of PR I’ve seen in some time.”
Praise indeed, Steve!
djp its not the ‘voting for or against’ thats the problem its the campaigning for or against
I/S,
I was interested by the lobbying list; given that a couple of the people on the list have already come out against the amendment it felt a little constructed.
If the equivalent ad was run by Forest and Bird as “Stop Key’s Attacks on National Parks” with a list of party leaders to ring, would it count as an election ad?
Would it make a difference if the election was closer? If the EMA were to run this ad three weeks before the election (ignoring, for a moment, the fact amendment will be passed by then), would it be more election ad-ish then?
The answers are simple , if you want to ‘campaign’ then register as a third party, which increases your spending limit and get on with it.
if you want stop the local community house from closing down or take up the myriad of local , national or international issues you can talk till cows come home about the ins and outs of it.
BUt campaign for or against an MP , then you are caught by the election advertisement rules.
Whether this is in breach of the EFA or not it will be nice to get some clarification of the law. I’m sure there will be a lot of third parties and lobby groups (from the left and the right) who will be keen to see what the outcome of this complaint is.