Island Life by David Slack

Read Post

Island Life: Helen who?

71 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last

  • Graeme Edgeler,

    with only one TV channel

    Two. The 1975 election was in November. SPTV started in July.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 2999 posts Report Reply

  • Che Tibby,

    what fletcher b said.

    i'm not going anywhere near the "information" vs. "propanganda" issue craig, so your outrage is best directed at another. :)

    i am however willing to state my surprise at the herald running a stupid story about a cheap photo.

    the back of an envelope • Since Nov 2006 • 2026 posts Report Reply

  • A S,

    I mean, are you seriously suggesting we shouldnt have all been getting those nice little orange envelopes from the electoral office to make sure we were enrolled?

    A fairly important distinction is needed between the two examples, surely?

    The Electoral office letters are about trying to ensure compliance with a statutory requirement for eligible voters to be enrolled, whereas the other is an electioneering exercise, and has sweet FA to do with statutory requirements.

    In short, whoever is behind signing off on the marketing on this made a dumb call, same as the whole John Key - Clocks one. The result is the same, message completely lost, and lack of judgement accusations abounding.

    Someone, somewhere in the Labour party is probably (or should be at least) getting a monumental arse-kicking as we type......

    Wellington • Since Nov 2007 • 254 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    That's fine in theory.... but just like John Key's "bureaucrats" vs Labour's "essential infrastructure"... one person's "junk mail" is another's "useful and informative leaflet"

    Not, Fletcher, it seems to be quite practicable that people who want self-promotion from political parties have multiple ways to solicit said bumpf, and those who want to finance said junk mail have multiple ways to either make donations or join these parties.

    Like much else in life, it's only as complicated as you choose to make it. And I can understand why political parties want to make this issue as complicated as possible.

    If Labour choose to follow the agenda set by the Herald, more fool them. They can't win a race to the bottom.

    No, but seem to be doing quite well at the great game of "do what I say, don't say what I do." Funny that...

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 11908 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    I mean, are you seriously suggesting we shouldnt have all been getting those nice little orange envelopes from the electoral office to make sure we were enrolled?

    Fletcher, are you seriously telling me that you see no distinction to be drawn between an electoral agency trying to make sure the electoral rolls are accurate (rolls which every qualified New Zealander is required by law to be on), and political parties engaged in self-promotion?

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 11908 posts Report Reply

  • Angus Robertson,

    which is worse:
    1. downloading american photo for pamphlet, which 99.9% of electorate won't even notice origin of
    2. spending $k on getting a photoshoot done when you could have bought one from the net for $20, and saved the taxpayer a lot of money.

    Obviously 1, because now the Greens or whoever can freely run a campaign mail out showing the 99.9% of the electorate that Labour is delivering budgets tailored to (neo-conservatives, imperialistic, evil-doing) Americans, when they publish the sane family proudly standing in front of the stars and stripes.

    2 is a bunch of bull, as the taxpayers have already handed these $k to the Labour Party and there is no way any of it is ever going to be returned - it is not our money anymore it belongs to the Labour Party.

    Auckland • Since May 2007 • 984 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    I'm with Craig. I don't care where the photo came from, though obviously some people do.

    Every time I see a leaflet or pledge card or whatever funded by parliamentary services by whatever dubious distinction a political party manages to include it outside their own money, I get pissed off.

    Labour seem to be particularly bad in this area. It's making me have reflux every time I see the Labour logo on something, which is probably not the reaction they're going for.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6163 posts Report Reply

  • Rich of Observationz,

    You know a lot of people in many, many ads aren't actually Kiwis, don't you? They even sometimes dub TV ads for different markets (in the UK, they revoice ads with different regional accents for different parts of the country).

    Back in Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 4444 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    I would think all the Parliamentary parties will do this to one degree or another this year.

    Labour obviously decided it wanted to maximise any boost from the Budget, and it has broken no rule in doing so. The leaflet is properly authorised as an election advertisement and there is zero chance of the expenditure not being declared. The provenance of the photograph is a non-issue.

    But this is bloody obviously a political risk, and I suspect it will rebound on them.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 18824 posts Report Reply

  • Che Tibby,

    They even sometimes dub TV ads for different markets (in the UK, they revoice ads with different regional accents for different parts of the country).

    this is common here in nzl too. the flight centre for one (someone remind me to tell the world what fkcers those people are...)

    most of the johnson group ads are obviously ntsc-pal converted. i.e. the us of a.

    the back of an envelope • Since Nov 2006 • 2026 posts Report Reply

  • FletcherB,

    Fletcher, are you seriously telling me that you see no distinction to be drawn between an electoral agency trying to make sure the electoral rolls are accurate (rolls which every qualified New Zealander is required by law to be on), and political parties engaged in self-promotion?

    Of course I can see a distinction..... its just you said you didnt want any tax-payer funded junk mail.....

    political self promotion (at our expense) sux.
    departments fulfilling their task. clearly 100% legitamate.

    Working for families information brochure..... ????
    Labour self promotion or legitimately informing tax-payers they may be entitled to something they werent aware of?

    Some examples are greyer than others, no?

    West Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 794 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Williams,

    The provenance of the photograph is a non-issue.

    I think the provenance of the photograph is a distraction, however it's precisely this kind of distraction that you'd expect to avoid by either using an agency, who'd manage this for you, or being directly assured of the origin of any photos. Helen's not loose with details so I expect she'll be pissed off that the content is being overshadowed by the wrapping.

    Sydney • Since Nov 2006 • 2229 posts Report Reply

  • DPF,

    David: Your progress towards the dark side of the force pleases us. Without realising it, you are almost there. Take that final step and join us, my son!

    Russell said "there is zero chance of the expenditure not being declared". Yeah not like the party has a history of telling the CEO in writing they will include taxpayer funded advertising as an election expense, and then changing their mind after the election. If there is "zero" chance of the expenditure not being declared why is Labour refusing to confirm that?

    And as for the disaster that was Clocks. Well at least that was paid for by a party, not the taxpayer.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 74 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Williams,

    David, the Clocks disaster was also a quite deliberate attempt to rip-off Coldplay whereas using stockphotos requires, not avoids, a royalty.

    Sydney • Since Nov 2006 • 2229 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    If there is "zero" chance of the expenditure not being declared why is Labour refusing to confirm that?

    I thought they had. Doesn't the presence of the authorisation identify the leaflet as advertising? (Seriously, correct me if I'm wrong.)

    And Clark's office says all advertising will be declared under the spending cap.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 18824 posts Report Reply

  • FletcherB,

    And Clark's office says all advertising will be declared under the spending cap.

    Do you mean, "we will declare all our spending, as per the spending cap rules", or "we declare all our spending was under the cap, trust us."

    :) Just messing...

    West Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 794 posts Report Reply

  • DPF,

    Russell - no it doesn't. It means it is probably an election advertisement but that does not mean it is automatically an election expense as there is an exemption for spending by MPs in their capacity as an MP.

    And Clark's office have not said it will be declared - Audrey Young has blogged that she has asked five times for the cost and whether it will be included and they won't tell her.

    Paul W - I am not aware that a decision has been made as to whether the modified song infringed or not. But regardless I agree that it was a bad call to use a modified song rather than a truly original one.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 74 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Williams,

    Fair point David. I don't think the situations are the same but the consequences may be...

    Sydney • Since Nov 2006 • 2229 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler,

    I thought they had. Doesn't the presence of the authorisation identify the leaflet as advertising? (Seriously, correct me if I'm wrong.)

    No. Electoral Commission advice (and prudence) is that anything that might possibly be an election advertisement should have a promoter statement on it, just to be safe. The existence of a promoter statement is not a factual indicator that the material is an election advertisement (e.g. putting a promoter statement on a KFC ad wouldn't make it an election advertisement).

    There is also a separate question (as DPF notes) that just because something might be (or is) an election advertisement, does not mean it's cost is an election expense. There is an exemption for material published by MPs in their capacities as MPs, and Michael Cullen has stated (I believe incorrectly) that everything that is properly paid for by Parliamentary Services is exempt from the spending limit.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 2999 posts Report Reply

  • Grant McDougall,

    Grant, your comparison with Key's DVD will be valid if the leaflet has to be recalled and the photo removed. Or if they used the photo without permission. Otherwise, there's no comparison at all.

    Far call, but I meant in terms of the bad publicity it resulted in, not the actual copyright issue.

    As an aside, in the latest Otago graduate magazine law lecturer Andrew Geddis (who specialises in electoral law) slags off the EFA big-time.

    Dunedin • Since Dec 2006 • 599 posts Report Reply

  • Gary Hutchings,

    Seems like our ideal family gets around,
    They were promoting affordable housing in OZ 3 months ago :)

    http://www.facs.gov.au/internet/facsinternet.nsf/vIA/housing_affordable/$File/making_housing_affordable_again.pdf

    wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 108 posts Report Reply

  • Rich of Observationz,

    And Clark's office have not said it will be declared - Audrey Young has blogged that she has asked five times for the cost and whether it will be included and they won't tell her.

    The EFA requires a return of election spending 50 days after the final election results are declared. It does *not* require a rolling account to be given to rival parties and their supporters as the advertising appears.

    The promoter statement identifies the advertisement as possible electoral advertising. If anyone wants to monitor such advertising, they can make a list of campaigns and try and validate this against the eventual declaration - that's the point of having the statement.

    Back in Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 4444 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Williams,

    Seems like our ideal family gets around,
    They were promoting affordable housing in OZ 3 months ago :)

    It says something about the relative status of the respective Labo(u)r governments that I don't recall there being any discussion or examination of the Australian publication...

    Sydney • Since Nov 2006 • 2229 posts Report Reply

  • sagenz,

    Graeme - you nzherald comments suggest that this leaflet is effectively a political donation from Parliamentary Services to the Labour party. Surely there is a law against govt depts spending money on political donations?

    uk • Since Nov 2006 • 128 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler,

    Surely there is a law against govt depts spending money on political donations?

    The law would generally be the budget. It sets out what government money may be spent on. Money cannot be spent by government departments except in accordance with parliamentary instructions (as contained in the budget). Parliament has allowed the Parliamentary Service to spend money in a way that may also mean that that spending constitutes a donation. I know of nothing in the Electoral Finance Act (or anything else) that would preclude it.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 2999 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.