Written By: - Date published: 4:14 pm, May 21st, 2008 - 138 comments
Categories: dpf, election funding, same old national -
Tags: Electoral Commission, electoral law, epmu, national
It seems National has succeeded in the first step of its campaign to muzzle the EPMU and the fifty thousand workers it represents. Over at the bog our mate Davey is crowing about the high court win that recognises the union as a legal person for the purposes of the act. This still means that the Electoral Commission has to decide whether the union is sufficiently involved in the affairs of the Labour Party to be precluded from third-party registration or not but it certainly weakens their case.
There is going to be a lot of gloating from the right over this, but let’s be clear. Crown Law advice was that the EPMU was not a person and it’s clear as day that the EFA was never intended to exclude democratic organisations such as the EPMU from campaigning. This is a weak point of the law that has failed under heavy (and expensive) legal attack by National and it needs to be fixed.
National has repeatedly stated that it does not want the EPMU excluded from its democratic right to campaign for the rights of its members but just wanted to test the law. Given the fact that the EPMU has run aggressive and successful campaigns against National in the past, I don’t think that’s true. But if it is then I would say National better put its money where its mouth is and support an amendment to clear this issue up. I’m not holding my breath on that one.
In the meantime we’ll all just have to wait for the Electoral Commission’s decision.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
r0b:
“Parliament followed a full process of public consultation, public submissions to the select committee, modifications to the original draft, and so on. Could they have done more?”
They could have listened to the HRC. Wouldn’t that have been nice? Happily the next time the HRC passes on a recommendation you’ll be happy to ignore it too, right?
Interesting debate. I’m really surprised that I only had to intervene once, and that was just the eternal ‘sod & whale.
Keep it up. I prefer it when I only have to scan and read. I get more work done.
Lynn
rOb
I think you know the answer to that, as Dean said, against the HRC advice the bill never got a second airing and was passed under urgency.
Yes it had many amendments, all bills do – but it was passed under urgency against HRC advice to scrap it and go back to the drawing board. So why don’t we do just that, lets go back to the old bill for the election, set the date 90 or more days from now and no drama.
Now about that policy advertising…. that stuff that was illegal, done in 2005 (and probably 1999 & 2002) and retrospectively made legal, then made legal in the EFA was illegal under the previous act… OK, what now? Let me guess – Allow the unions in and “move on”.
Dean: They could have listened to the HRC. Wouldn’t that have been nice?
It’s hard to tell whether this line is based on ignorance or deliberate distortion. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it’s ignorance.
THe HRC always supported the principles of the bill. They opposed many aspects of the first draft and made a submission. In response many changes were made to the second draft, which the HRC approved of. They had some remaining comments on specific clauses which they expressed. You can see their comments
here here , and here.
In short, in no way was the HRC ignored.
I think you know the answer to that
No Burt I don’t – what’s your opinion here – was the law rammed through without consultation, or were there several amendment cycles?
Yes it had many amendments, all bills do – but it was passed under urgency against HRC advice to scrap it and go back to the drawing board.
Lots of bills get passed under urgency at the end of a year. And the HRC advice applied to the first draft, not to the second amended version, please see the HRC comments linked above. I know this is a convenient lie to push for your “National Good Labour Bad” agenda, but it is a lie Burt.
Sadly Burt the rest of your post made very little sense, so I can’t comment.
rOb
Rather than trying to polish the EFA turn some more we could force all parties to comply with the old legislation for one more round. The AG did a pretty good job of pointing out the rules of the game last time. Reckon Labour are up for it? Would be fun to see what a legal election looks like in NZ.
Yes you are correct, the HRC was certainly not ignored, just well informed advice was not taken. Refusal to accept wise counsel is usually a precursor to major f##kup’s.
And so good night. The morning shift can take over when they recover from their “Drinking Liberally” hangovers. Lucky sods sure got the better deal tonight!
rOb
I never said there was no consultation, however if you think canning the second airing after the massive response to the first one, then passing it under urgency was OK because that’s what was easiest for parliament and it’s the way it’s done, then you won’t see eye to eye on much when we discuss ethics, morals or principals. What sort of car have you got mate, Ford or Holden?
rOb
From the decision.
Now back to amendments, confidence in intentions and *cough cough* National wanting to shut down free speech? Man you guys are hard to understand. All I can draw on is my dear old granny saying “the guilty always accuse the innocent of the things that they themselves are plotting to do.”
Good night.
infused:
Well you know how it goes – like armchair generals, there are armchair politicians, and armchair activists. Ie people who are good at doing nothing while shooting their mouths off. People who don’t think about the logical consequences of what they say on other peoples lives.
I’m not one of those. I tend to actually do the things I talk about. So I form opinions from experience rather than idle chatter. That is reinforced by a rather wide range of reading and academia. It still means I get things wrong, and I get pulled up on them here by people, as Billy did earlier. That is how you learn and this place is sometimes pretty good at reinforcing learning.
But it gets pretty apparent around here who is worth while listening to and who isn’t. Now tell me again why I should be all that enthralled by your comments?
[Tane: Interestingly though, they're only targeting their critics, and one of their most effective ones at that. Where's National's test case against the Free Speech Coalition or Sensible Sentencing?]
Get real Tane, this is politics. The EFA was passed for a political purpose. If it was for some altruistic reason then the comments of the Human Rights Commission, the Law Society et. al. would have been taken into consideration.
Why on earth would the Opposition (which comes from the word “opposition”) want to test legislation on groups more likely to be its supporters?
As Ancient points out, all the EPMU has to do is, well, comply with the law. Much like the Opposition. And its supporters.
Does anyone know when the Sensible Sentencing Trust are planning to register as a third party?
hmmmmmmm
Now who was it that said on this site the EFB was a non issue and that no one really cared about it anymore ?
Non-issue HS? Heck no.
TORY FREE-SPEECH FIGHTERS DESPERATE TO MUZZLE UNION has a great resonance. Ta muchly all.
[lprent: Please don't SHOUT. It hurts my sensibilities]
Good deflection AK but I’m afraid the parties that passed this bill into Law are the real villains
Responses to last night’s comments:
Ancient Greek,
What I would have preferred was that parliament had listended to our Human Rights Commission. I found it incredible that Labour,Green,and NZ First MPs would ignore the advice and recommendations of our Human Rights Commision, particularly on the issue of free speech. I would have preferred the bill had been withdrawn and redrafted as they said it should. Failing that, if they were intent on pushing ahead with changes I would have preferred that those changes were open to a furthur round of public consultation. ( as recommended by the HRC)
When Rosslyn Noonan appeared before the select committee on 18 October she tabled a document listing four “essential ” changes to the bill. This document is still on the HRC website. One of these “essential” changes was that restrictions should not be placed on our ability to speak out for any more than three months prior to the election. In answer to Rob’s question there was more than ample time to either redraft the bill, or have a second round of public consultation and still have plenty of time for a three month restriction.
Ancient Greek, yes courts do interpret the law, but it should not be so uncertain and complex this becomes necessary on a regular basis. The Electoral Commision are quoted in the Herald yesterday as saying they do not know for sure what an “electoral adveretisement” is. How does this help to run our election with certainty?.
Take for example the case of Trevor Mallard’s car. It is easy to put an authorisation sign on this. However the real issue will be how much “cost” does TM report on his expense return. Is it just the cost of the paint job?, depreciation on the car? petrol? parking at th eairport?. The way is open for the second placed candidate in Lower Hutt to commence legal proceedings after the election unless TM takes a vey conservative view with his election expenses.
Ancient Greek referred to all the public problems coming from the left and so this some how made the Act right. We are talking about the most fundamental right of free speech and the right to participate in the electoral process. You can not asseess an Act and say because only “left ‘groups ae affectted, it is ok. It should not matter who is affectted.
With regard to “right ” groups being affected, the few ones I know have chosen not to register because of the uncertainty and have decided to change what they say in election year to ensure they do not make any “election advertisements” . So censorship is working. For example it was initally my intention to register the Freedom of Speech Trust, however after taking advice, I decided it would be simply much safer to not to make “election advertisement”. I am simply running a campaign for the repeal of the Electoral Finance Act, in the same way that Greenpeace campaigns against whaling in the southern oceans.
Robinsod asked the morning when the Sensible Sentencing Trust would register. They may not. They just make sure they do not make election advertisements.
Rob asked if I supportted National’s “attack on free speech”. I do not think National are attacking free speech. They strongly opposed the EFA which restricts the rights of people and organisations involved with a political party to be involved in the electoral process. I think the EPMU should be able to be involved,in the same way that I think the SST should be able to place “election advertisements”
Finally with regard to my case against the Attorney General the AG acts as a watchguard of our rights under the BOR. The orginal EFB provided that every New Zealander who wished to make any form of political comment in election year would first have to sign a statutory declartion. The Crown Law office thought this was acceptable. The AG thought this was acceptable. However the HRC said it ‘was a dramtic assault on two freedoms New Zealanders cherrish, the right to free speech and the right to participate as informed citizens in elections. I beleive the crown law office advice is wrong and that the AG, deputy PM Michael Cullen failed in his job. I am bringing these proceedings to challenge the precedent the Crown Law Office and the AG have created. If I win, parliament may change the law and so allow the EPMU too participate without restriction.
That’s all very interesting John but you failed to answer one key question. Do you support the National Party’s action against the EPMU’s registration as a third party even though the National party strongly argued the EFA does not breach the Bill of Rights Act as part of its case?
Irish Bill, I do not have a view I am sorry.
I have not read the decision.
It surprises me that you said ” the National Party strongly argued the EFA does not breach the Bill of Rights Act as part of its case”.
I believe the EFA does breach the BORA and that was part of our argument to the court, so I would need to understand more about their case before commenting furthur.
Oh. I would have thought that a man who has dedicated so much time and money to overturning the EFA would have been very interested in what is perhaps the most important decision made on it yet. I guess not.
This annoys me intensely. Because of this law the EPMU may be hindered from running an effective workers’ rights campaign in election year. This is a big deal. EPMU workers and activists did such a great job of rallying to defeat the 90 day bill in 2006. When was the last time we saw a union mass meeting like that? When was the last time we saw workers mobilised around political issues on such a scale?
What annoys me even more intensely is the ham-fisted way in which Labour rushed through significant changes to electoral law just before election year, when such wide-spread changes weren’t even necessary. It’s a ridiculous, incomprehensible law. The fact is that the EB’s campaign last election probably got Labour into Parliament. Voters don’t like secret big-money campaigns and turned off National because of this.
give the EPMU a GO. its their turn. If it is time to give the nats a GO then its time to give the EPMU a GO. After all they do something for their members so they should havea bigger GO than the nats who only do somethings for their own little claque while all the blusterers who line up to yell give the nats a GO get nothing but a silly grin.
Irish Bill, its a question of priorities. I am busy organsing the next provincial protest calling for the Act’s repeal. You have only just told me National do not beleive the EFA is not inconsistent with BORA.
Tim. You said this is a ridiculous and incomprehensible law. In its submission the HRC emphasised the fact that the bill was complex and was likely to lead to less, rather than more political involvement. The Human Rights Commision beleives it is important that as many people as possible should be involved in the electoral process. This was a key reason why they thought the bill should be withdrawn and redrafted. I admire the HRC and its Commissioners Rosslyn Noonan and Judy Mc Gregor standing up for our rights to be involved in the political process.
JB: Rob asked if I supportted National’s “attack on free speech’. I do not think National are attacking free speech.
How utterly and cynically predictable of you John. The EPMU are in do doubt that their rights are being attacked:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4555891a11.html
So who knows best – you or the EPMU themselves?
If you are an advocate of free speech I call on you to publicly and vigourously attack National’s attempt to deprive the EPMU of their right to advertise in this election.
If you are a cynical political hack trying to discredit the EFA for the big money types who like to try to buy elections then just ignore this comment, or carry on trying to argue that black is white.
Go on, surprise me.
“How utterly and cynically predictable of you John. The EPMU are in do doubt that their rights are being attacked.”
Rob, the EPMU and its members are free to believe what they want. Howver, the reality is that the High Cort has ruled against them and they will have to abide by the law.
Yes, the law, the same one that the Labour Party and its acolytes passed in urgency, the EFA.
Yours is another vain attempt to shoot the messenger, when in fact you should be directing your rage towards the Labour government (your political masters?).
John – I have to say I disagree with you on everything politically except perhaps the EFA (it’s only good to the extent it ended secret donations). Free speech is important so we can see precisely what abject morons Family First, the exclusive brethern and so on are.
I do find it a bit rich that the National Party is now supporting the HRC, when it spends most of its time degrading it, and even had an “anti-PC” spokesperson Wayne Mapp, who heaped fulsome criticism on the HRC. Guess when it’s minority rights under attack it’s a different kettle of fish for the National Party.
Heh,
Pwned.
Heh,
Pwned.
You mean John Boscawen? Yup.
Andrew Little is wrong, the EPMU are not being gagged. They have their right to free speech. They are actually moaning that they have their right to paid speech gagged.
Let ‘em moan. Why isnt the EPMU criticising the Crown Law for the crap advice they gave?
Rob, Yes I do believe the EPMU should be allowed to participate in the electoral process, just as I believe every other individual and organisation should be allowed to participate. Sadly however it would appear the Electoral Finance Act restricts their ability to do so, and to an extent greater than applies to many other organisations. This is the reason why I ran a campaign against the Electoral Finance Bill and why I am currently running a campaign for the repeal of the Electoral Finance Act.
Free Speech and the right to participate in the electoral process affects all New Zealanders, no matter what their political persuasion. It is no coincidence that one of the most vehement critics was Rosslyn Noonan a former trade unionist.
Tim has stated that he agrees with me on this particular issue (but he feels apparently not on most other points). I think this highlights that thinking people from both the left and right realise that the EFA is an attack on free speech. Another example is Bryce Edwards. Bryce is also a critic of the Act and is a political science lecturer at Otago University. When I rang him recently to ask if he would speak at my Tauranga Protest March he insisted on telling me first about his support of left wing politics. As it happened he was not available that weekend but would have spoken had he been free. It concerns me not that Bryce is from the “left wing”. He simply knows the Act is wrong and is prepared to say so. He can see the Act can just as easily gag left wing groups such as the EPMU as right wing groups. Either way it is wrong.
Finally Tim comments the one good thing the EFA does is to prohibit anonymous donations. This is what the supporter of the bill have trumpeted but it is also not true. There is no limit whatsoever to the number of donations of $999 I could make to any political party. If for example I wanted to donate $100,000 to the Labour Party all I need to do is to get 101 bank cheques for $999 and drop them off one at a time. Bryce Edwards makes this point in his article published recently in The New Zealand Law Journal. Similarly if I was a major corporate and had a number of subsidiary companies there is nothing to stop each subsidiary making donations of $9999. While the financial agent of the political party concerned would know of my donation there would be no need for it to be disclosed to the wider New Zealand public.
Prior to the Act being passed I had a private meeting with an MP who supported and subsequently voted for the Act. He openly acknowledged that loopholes like the above were still available and individuals who wanted to continue to make substantial anonymous donations were free to do so. So sadly Tim, you are mistaken on this issue, although i can understand why you think that is the case.
“George Darroch: fuck off. As a $14.50 an hour minimum wage worker you are dead to me. You make huge accusations about Labour and the unions but as a union member I can tell you you don’t have a clue how either organisation works. You are the reason I don’t vote green.”
All I did was state the bleedingly obvious – that the EPMU have choosen to be affiliated with Labour, and spend a lot of money supporting the party every election.
That’s their right, and they obviously feel that Labour best suits their members interests – to the extent that they deliberately stood Lynne Pillay against Laila Harre – a successful attempt to replace a staunch and consistent champion of workers rights with a useless bench-warmer. What’s Lynne Pillay done? Oh, that’s right, the Waitakere Ranges Protection Bill. Still, getting rid of the Alliance made it easy to go with those noted workers advocates, United Future.
I know all too well what poverty feels like, what low minimum wages, jobs without health and safety protection, piecework, casual work, being ripped off and screwed around by bosses, and let off for no good reason (and an unemployment benefit that barely covers rent and food). I know the value of a good union and count a number of union organisers among my friends. I also know the pain of a bad one – one that won’t back you up, doesn’t think your workplace worth organising, thinks it works for workers rather than with them, and flies it’s executive in business class (I’m not making this accusation of the EPMU but an Australian union I refuse to join), and supports a neoliberal party that doesn’t give a whit about workers in other countries.
Hmmm, I didn’t mean to be so spiteful.
I like Bryce’s take on the EPMU and Labour.
John – I didn’t know that about the EFA. I could try reading it to see whether I agree with you or not but I’m not sure I’d understand it (or anyone else would)!
George – pretty lame bagging the EPMU. You’re really just bagging 50,000 workers and the many dedicated and hard working organisers there. It’s capitalism that divides workers according to industry and so on, don’t join in the division.
Bryce’s and Chris Trotter’s takes on the EPMU come from people far removed from the front line. Maybe Bryce should spend a day as a delegate or organiser. He couldn’t handle it. It’s far easier being a malcontent political lecturer criticising from the sidelines. When was the last time he stood on a picket line or got involved in grass roots action? Where was Bryce during the EPMU coal miners’ strikes/lockout? The AA strikes? The 90 day bill rallies? Much easier to fan political divisions than support workers though isn’t it?
JB: Rob, Yes I do believe the EPMU should be allowed to participate in the electoral process, just as I believe every other individual and organisation should be allowed to participate.
Excellent – me too. I look forward to you putting your money where your mouth is, and conducting a vigourous campaign against National’s attempts to exclude the EPMU. I’d come on that march for you John.
Sadly however it would appear the Electoral Finance Act restricts their ability to do so, and to an extent greater than applies to many other organisations.
Ahh well, I guess not then. What self serving nonsense. In the opinion of the Electoral Commission (the group charged with interpreting and implementing the act) no such restriction existed. National has run an expensive and aggressive legal campaign to challenge the EC because the EC’s decision didn’t suit them. The EFA didn’t restrict the EPMU in the opinion of the EC, but National kept pushing until they got a legal result that reopened the issue.
The fact that for National this is purely an issue of suppressing free speech is made completely obvious by their use of an injunction to muzzle the EPMU. If the intent was to “clarify the law” then no injunction was needed. Injunctions don’t clarify the law, their sole purpose is to shut people up.
So here you stand John, with your “free speech” flag of convenience in tatters. If this was about free speech you would be protesting National’s actions, not giving them a free pass on the grounds that “the EFA can be read as not expressly forbiding National from suppressing the free speech of the EPMU so it must be OK for them to do so”.