The Unravelling of the Electoral Finance ACT

In response to the many erroneous claims that have been made regarding Rodney Hide's feeling towards my complaint against his yellow jacket, here is an excerpt from Hansard today...

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Can the Minister advise whether the ACT Party has requested that the repeal bill contains a retrospective provision to annul the ACT Party supporter’s complaint about the Hi-de-Hi! jacket that has caused the Hon Rodney Hide to be embarrassed and has led him to concede that the public had a right to be furious about what was nothing more than a stunt?

Hon SIMON POWER: I can advise the member that I have no knowledge of such a request.

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is a requirement under the Standing Orders that questions are to be factually accurate. I was furious, but I was not furious with the supporter of the ACT Party—I love them all. I was furious about that crazy law that Lianne Dalziel and the Green Party passed.

- Excerpt from Hansard, 16 December 2008, Question 9

Even if the Electoral Commission were to fine ACT up to the maximum of $50,000, it would be worth it. The public has been able to see just how pedantic and restricting the Electoral Finance Act is, to freedom of speech in election year.

Electoral Commission Targetting ACT

The Electoral Commission has ruled that Rodney Hide's yellow jacket jacket was potentially in breach of the Electoral Finance Act and has passed the matter on to the police. If the police decide to prosecute Mr. Hide, he will face a fine of up to $10,000, while the ACT Party will also face a fine of up to $40,000. What I find intriguing, is that the Electoral Commission has ignored all the other complaints that I have submitted regarding possible breaches of the Electoral Finance Act by other political parties. Below is a short summary of each of these complaints.

1. Greens campaign website carries no authorisation statement - 26 August 08
The Green Party's (now defunct) campaign website address was www.votegreen.org.nz. For a screen-shot of the website, click here (as at 11:30pm, 25 August). It is very clear from this screenshot that there was no authorisation statement on the website - which, is encouraging people to vote "for or against" a political party. The response from the Electoral Commission can be summed up in this extract from an email I received, "...the url [www.votegreen.org.nz] did not appear on the page itself, and indeed would only have appeared in the address bar (which you control, not the Green Party) when you typed it in." Such a response is very subjective; the matter deserved further investigation rather than simply a *clever* answer from the Commission.

2. National campaign video - 10 October 08
The Electoral Finance Act states that authorisation statements must be visible and readable. The authorisation statement at the end of National's latest campaign video on YouTube did carry an authorisation statement at the end, but it was very fuzzy, and impossible to read, and thus breached the act. The response from the Commission read,

"We have considered the YouTube page and note that while the promoter statement on the video was blurry, did think that it was just readable, at least on the monitors we are using. In addition, at the top of the page on which the video appears is a National Party banner with an eminently readable promoter statement (a copy of which I attach). This would conclude the matter from our perspective."

This response ignores the fact that on the page for viewing the video, there is no authorisation statement. As for the statement being "just readable", that is pathetic.

3. Labour Online advert - 10 October 08
The Labour Party purchased a package of Google adverts - one of the most common adverts you will see online. The breach is detailed here at the Don't Vote Labour blog. In this instance, Labour has placed a Google Ad which promotes the Labour party, and yet carries no authorisation statement. The Commission's response to this complaint was,

"As you will be aware, the Electoral Commission's primary focus in its role of overseeing political party advertising in election year is assisting participants to comply with their obligations under the law. As you point out, Labour Party google ads now contain promoter statements. In light of this we will not be taking further action on this matter."

It would be better if the Commission would tell us what is really going on. They are in fact, assisting participants to comply with the law - so long as they are not the ACT Party. I have made more than just the three complaints listed above. However the Commission has demonstrated incredible leniancy with these other parties, offering trite reasons as to why they had decided not to pursue what were quite obviously potential breaches of the new Electoral Finance Act.

Herald of Lies

I need to respond to the false reporting in the Herald over the issue of my complaint to the Electoral Commission about Rodney Hide's yellow jacket.

1. The Herald claims that Mr. Hide and I planned my complaint to the Electoral Commission together. "Act leader Rodney Hide's indignation at the Electoral Finance Act is nothing but a jacket jack-up." - 5 Nov 08. This claim is completely without founding, and categorically untrue. Both Mr. Hide and I have told the media that neither of us spoke to the other about the complaint at any stage. Further, I did not discuss the complaint with any member of the ACT party until the story came out in the Dominion Post on 5 November. Interesting to note that the then Prime Minister Helen Clark was quick to misrepresent the incident, claiming that it was a "stitch-up" and saying, "Act complained wanting their name to be kept out of it, so that they could create a fuss around the Electoral Finance Act." - 5 Nov 08.
I emailed the editor of the Herald, asking him why the Herald was not being truthful. All he could say was "Thanks for your email. We stand by our story". He had no answer as to why his newspaper had lied about myself and Mr. Hide.

2. Following the news of the Electoral Commission handing the case over to the Police, the Herald states that I "proudly posed in photos with a yellow-coated Mr Hide and posted them on the internet." - 4 Dec 08. The Herald is certainly doing its best to live up to its maxim, "never let the truth get in the way of a good story". It may seem inconsequential, however the Herald has intentionally spun this sentence in order to make me appear ridiculous. Fact is, I posted one photo of myself and Mr. Hide on my blog (not multiple photos as the Herald states) - and who's to say that I "proudly posed" with him?
It is also unprofessional, and potentially unlawful of the Herald to not only take the photo from my blog and post it on their website, but also to neglect to reference its source.

It would appear as if the Herald is quite willing to sacrifice truth for the sake of a sensational story, and in doing so, are attempting to compete with the tabloids.

Don't Delay for a Minute

Ah, good to be back blogging again.  Had my last exam at the cruel hour of 9:30am this morning, so good to get that out of the way - just in time to catch the tail end of the election campaign...


Sometimes Cry
by Poor Old Lu

don't delay for a minute
cause if you do i'll know you're too far into it
i mean the world around us
the world around

to keep your head above water
to be humble amidst tears and laughter
sometimes we need to hide
sometimes cry

run away
far away
to Yahweh
He's my hideaway

*star-studded-super-step*
yeah, you've turned around again
well i can feel it inside
in His side

and i'll tell you what He sees
but first i must fall down on my own knees
let me hold your hand
holding our hands

i need to lower my head
i don't know if i can
i've been so lost
i don't know if i can
i really have to fall
i don't know if i can
i'll say it again
i don't know if i can

and now we're losing time
no, we can't say we never got a sign
the love is all around us
and it surrounds us.

That's one of my favourite songs by Poor Old Lu.

enjoying some fish and chips before they make them illegal.

Well, they've said that Rodney's yellow jacket is probably breaking the law.  But Rodney's going to ignore them, and heck, good on him.  Not sure if our new Act on Campus t-shirts are breaking the law, but we don't care either.  Nanny state is moving back to China on Saturday, to be followed shortly thereafter by her hideous spawn, the Electoral Finance Act.  A National/ACT government will also ensure that we dump the economy-destroying Emissions Trading Scheme - which they quizzed us on in the exam earlier today.

EFA Threatens Rodney's Wardrobe

"Act leader Rodney Hide's canary-yellow jacket has fallen foul of the Electoral Finance Act.  The Electoral Commission wrote to Mr Hide yesterday, saying that under the act the jacket might be an "election advertisement" and therefore required an authorising statement." - NZ Herald, 4 Nov 08

The article in the Herald continues... "The letter quoted the query as saying the garment that "contains the Act logo [and] the slogan 'the guts to do what's right' was worn in public by you in Newmarket and does not contain a promoter statement". The person who made the query also gave the commission a newspaper article about the jacket and two photos of Mr Hide wearing it."

Huh.  Now, who could that have been?