Written By: - Date published: 4:02 pm, April 8th, 2008 - 80 comments
Categories: election funding -
Tags: election funding
Annette King has hit back at National in the House today, producing two items of electoral advertising from them, neither of which is authorised.
The first of these is a promotional pamphlet for John Key, the second is their 2005 Broadcasting policy – still available for download on their website, which bears the slogan “Party Vote National”.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
When it comes to websites, unless the authorisation is in the template and thus viewable on every page it needs to be printed on each published election advertisement. When it is electronically published the server cost and the labour cost need to be included in the party’s return. If content does not fit the description of an election advertisement it does not need to be authorised or included in the return. Anything with “Party Vote National” on it certainly falls into the category of an election advertisement unless it is contained in an established periodical as editorial content.
It’s a funny old law.
“It’s a funny old law.”
Heh that’s one way of putting it.
Randal I agree
From the Nat’s website
We believe this will be achieved by building a society based on the following values:
• Loyalty to our country, its democratic principles and our Sovereign
as Head of State
• National and personal security
• Equal citizenship and equal opportunity
• Individual freedom and choice
• Personal responsibility
• Competitive enterprise and rewards for achievement
• Limited government
• Strong families and caring communities
• Sustainable development of our environment
this is clearly slightly creepy and will only appeal to the most base prejudices and bigotry of the greedy and the cliques who like to dominate for pleasure and extort for profit
I would also have thought that a 2005 policy document archived in PDF form on a website might be overlooked given Annette Kings referral to the “Law of Common Sense” given that a law drafted in 2007 probably cant be applied to a document written in 2005?
Steve
if Annette King was pointing out the absurdity of the EC view, why did she not say that instead of saying she supported the EC’s view of the law
probably because she doesnt know if she supports the ECs view of a law that she does not understand, and to state support for the ECs view would be tantamount to showing ignorance of her stated position if chanllenged on it.
Yeh, individual freedom and choice is such a creepy concept – to collective thinkers.
HS – I do find some of those lines a bit creepy when their subtext is taken into account. For example Equal citizenship and equal opportunity is a line that grew out of Orewa and used to dog-whistle racial discontent and Individual freedom and choice has been synonymous with privatising social services since it was first used in the 1980′s.
Speaking of which captcha is “besieged colleges”, a foreshadowing of the nat’s education policy perhaps?
IB
Nice spin – however I’m afraid your comments are about as partisan as someone on a right blog taking offence at the Labour party charter.
If you’re looking for racial discontent I’d go no further than NZ First (I note Winston is also not supporting the FTA with China – bizarre !)
If you’re alluding to the Nat’s privatising 2dary education I can’t really see it myself.
all_your_base
And what about Annette (I can appoint my mates to DHB’s) King? How bizarre for an adult to take the child’s approach that even though Labour have broken their own law they will still point at National and scream like a baby They did it too.
What a complete waste of space – the woman is sad example of what happens when a person with little intellect is given far too much power.
Occasional Observer
Why would they, just because they say others must have it is no reason for them to do the same. Just remember that Labour make the laws for others to follow, Labour are above all that shit. Move on!
Ok – off topic but….regarding the content of National’s broadcasting policy – the charter model isn’t working, sorry Steve. Anything made with charter money gets screened off-peak because it attracts no advertising and therefore is simply wasted. We need a real public broadcaster in New Zealand – anything else is probably doomed to ineffectually straddle the twin imperatives of being intelligent/niche orientated and attracting ad revenue. TVNZ might be getting govt funding, as National claims but it also has to make money for the government. The whole situation is oxymoronic.
Judging from what I’ve seen in the film and TV industry here, National’s plan to redistribute charter money through NZOA will make bugger-all difference to quality programming, since NZOA is required to give money to projects that are going to attract big audiences (hence funding of things like New Zealand Idol from public funds), and I can’t see that changing under a right government who will hardly be looking to nationalise broadcasting. We need a properly funded, genuinely public avenue for moving-image programming that isn’t dumbed down, and actual budgets that are not 2/3 or less the size of those in other western countries. National’s plan for “quality” shows little grasp of the realities of broadcasting in New Zealand.
Annette King is a liar who misled Parliamnet is a sad and esperate effort to deflect attention from Labour’s own rorting of the EFA. This is the second time that this has happened in quick succession (the first being Cullen Lying about the DVD that has not been distributed this year.
Are right wing bloggers going to have to spend the year showing up Labour’s Lies.
Surprise surprise surprise.
Noone has a clue what this act, the most terrible piece of legislation in New Zealand history, covers.
Labour was warned, warned and warned about 100 more times that the result of pushing this through, against the across the board opposition, and without the proper consultation needed for such an important law, would be this confusion.
This argument will continue until the election with breaches coming left right and centre. And who can we blame for the shambles.
The Labour Party.
And Crown Law.
Oh boohoo – how many of you actually have any experience of working with the EFA? That’s right. None. The truth is the EFA is fine to work within – the problem is the expectations of vexatious litigation. From morons like Davey. PR hacks don’t like it because it means you have to log and account for anything that may be classed as an election advertisment and I say “may” ‘cos you’re not maintaining records of what is distinct campaigning but of what might be challenged as such by the shit-stirrers that want to take us back to the good old days of anonymous trusts and hidden spending.
The EFA is new law and is thus open to interpretation. If you are a left-wing organisation or party you will need to take care to log everything (including an explanation of your interpretation). If you are a right-wing organisation or party you are unlikely to be challenged because the challenges come from the right. And that’s because teh payoff for discrediting the EFA is for the right and the right (and specifically the big money behind National) have embarked on an extremely cynical campaign to turn the testing of new law into the exploitation of new law for political gain.
What amazes me is that all the rightie chumps who are frothing over this will never have to work with it. You have been sucked into abetting a campaign that is designed to undermine legislation that lets you know who is behind political campaigns aimed at getting your vote for control of your country. Campaigning to keep yourselves in the dark. What good little house-slaves.
Robinsod
Attacking the messenger ( Davey ) is not undermining the truth that the Electoral Commission found that Labour had broken the law. This subtle reality seems to have evaded you. The attack from the right (and the reasoned voices of the Human Rights commission etc) was well established before this law passed, Labour were warned and they pushed it through. Now there are consequences being paid so how about you bite down on it, get a handle on the shooting the messenger behaviour and take your Ritalin.
You don’t get it Burt – I don’t care that Labour broke the law. That’s their problem and it’s let you know they were using public money for the “makes the difference” booklet – what’s your problem with that? Would you rather have not known?
And by the way burt the HRC criticised the first draft of the bill but were happy with the version that went through – by dragging them into it all you’re doing is perpetuating Davey’s lies…
Clearly you have fallen for Labour’s spin over the Electoral Finance Bill Robinsod. The HRC didn’t say they were happy with the Bill. They said they believed that the changes made between the first and second versions were an improvement. That’s not the same thing. http://www.hrc.co.nz/home/hrc/newsandissues/statementontheelectoralfinancebill.php
Given the HRC said that Bill was inherently flawed, was a dramatic assault on freedom of speech, and should be withdrawn; and that they continued to criticise the Bill throughout the process, you can hardly say that they were “happy with the version that went through” Robinsod.
I notice that you don’t address the main point of my comment, OO – how about you tell me why it’s a bad thing the EFA has forced transparency over the booklet?
Oh, and to claim by implication (as Burt has done) that the HRC attacked the final version of is simply wrong. Your link shows that the HRC was “pleased” with the changes from the original but not happy about it not going back for further consultation. At no point in your link do they say the “Bill was inherently flawed, was a dramatic assault on freedom of speech, and should be withdrawn”. I suggest that if you’re gonna post links then you should make sure they back up your point bro.
Robinsod,
you appear to have as much knowledge of the EFA as Annette King. Less, in fact. Which is not much. Particularly as you are the only person in the country who believes that the EFA is fine to work within. Even Annette King doesnt believe that, despite repeatedly advocating for it while saying it parliament that Labour Party did not bring in the Act to regulate other parties in this House, but to address what she thought was rorting fronm Natinal
whose rorting now? Labour, of course. Always was.
The EFA hasn’t forced transparency over the booklet, Robinsod. Labour spent $800,000 of public money last election on the pledge card. That spending was unlawful. Labour has since introduced provisions allowing parties to spend taxpayers money for “parliamentary purposes” which also, conveniently, turn out to be election advertisements. That is not transparency. That is public funding of political parties by stealth.
The HRC initially said that the Bill was inherently flawed, was a dramatic assault on free speech, and should be withdrawn. They never retracted those views. When the second version of the Bill came out, the HRC said that they were pleased that some areas had been addressed, but others hadn’t.
Yes, you are correct that the HRC was concerned that the Bill did not go back to select committee. But that was not their only concern. They remained concerned that the spending limits for third party organisations were too low, and that there was no rationale, or advice, to support extending the election period from three to eleven months. The latter is a critical point, and never went away.
The only thing that appears clear from the this thread is that Labour supporters favour the EFA for one major reason.
That in relative terms the EFA advantages National over Labour.
Dave – Firstly, you are a moron. Secondly – I have had had no problem with the EFA and the nature of my consultancy business is such that I regularly have to work within the EFA and and maintain contact with the EC. I suspect I know a hell of a lot more about it than you do.
Thirdly – I note you also fail to address my question so I’ll reiterate it (you being a bit slow and all):
Why is it a bad thing the EFA has forced transparency over the booklet?
The only thing that appears clear from the this thread is that Labour supporters favour the EFA for one major reason.
That in relative terms the EFA advantages National over Labour.
In what way, HS?
OOps meant it the other way around – sorry early surgery this morning …… need more coffee
Ok – in what way does it favour Labour over National then?
I suspect I know a hell of a lot more about it than you do.
Okay. lets see, answer this without looking at the Act:
How much money does a third party have to spend before appointing an auditor?
Nah sorry Dave – you can answer my question first (you even misdirect like a moron):
Why is it a bad thing the EFA has forced transparency over the booklet?
IrishBill says: ‘Sod you can make your point without the abuse. In light of your recent banning, you should certainly think about doing so.
Sorry Irish, point taken.
Hello? Hello righties? Hello? It’s just one little question. Not too hard to answer, surely? Hello?
RS
Just to finsh off this post as it’s going no where I refer you back to my comment way above in relation to the forced transaparency over the booklet.
1. Have these people (parliament, Crown Law etc) nothing better to do ?
2. Is the legislation so poorly conceived that we’re going to have no choice but to have crown resources put into reviewing this mindless cak from now until well after the election ?
Robinsod.
The EFA favours an incumbent government by enabling Govt Departments to announce Government Policies unencumbered by spending limits.
Lets take Working for Families for example. The Government Announced WFF with wonderful ad’s showing middle class families living wonderful lives where Dad summons daughter to dinner via text even though she is 10 feet from dad. Ha ha, very jovial.
Given that WFF is a Labour policy, and that the announcement of that policy is done in such a way as to make voters favourably view the policy, then there is a benefit to Labour, without affecting the spending limit.
Opposition parties, responding to such advertising in election year, are subject to spending limits.
slightyrighty. WfF is a new Government policy. People who are eligible for assistance have a right to know about such policies, that gives Government departments a duty to advertise.
I don’t see you complaining that Police recruiting ads are political advertising because of the 1000 new cops.
Do you also oppose the smear-test ads, also related to Labour policy?
HS – that’s not an answer. Electoral law is some of the most important law on teh books. It requires a lot of testing and resource to make sure everyone know where they stand. I take it you would rather not know who was paying for the booklet and consequently a lot of other materials put out by Labour and other parties?