Written By: - Date published: 9:33 am, August 26th, 2008 - 58 comments
Categories: same old national, transport -
Tags: booths, roads, toll, transport, williamson
He just doesn’t give up does he? Maurice Williamson was spotted this morning still trying to sell his toll booth idea to Auckland motorists. Spy photos below.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
I don’t get it. Is this an attempt at self employment?
I don’t see the authorising statment on that?
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.
Wonder what the people sitting in traffic thought ?
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.
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
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?
SP,
I know I’m about to look stupid, but…
Which bit of the EFA exempts satire?
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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)?
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.
Personally- I like his moxy. and his point.
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 ]
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
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.
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.
“…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…
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).
“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.
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?
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.
Felix, Tui billboard in Tauranga, “when Winston says no, he means no. Yeah right”.
I see. So what would be the difference if it were a tv ad rather than a billboard ad?
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…
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.
… and they couldn’t even be arsed properly painting over the labels on the box!
Phil- paint takes time to dry.
Tim could you conceive of the person behind the mask being a green party supporter?
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.
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.
‘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.