Pamphleteering

8:33 Apr 14, 2008 69

Audrey Young has herself <a href="
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10503960" target="_blank">a good scoop in the Herald this morning: in a conference workshop addressed on Saturday by Labour Party president, "delegates were advised to distribute pamphlets on KiwiSaver produced by the Inland Revenue Department and on Working for Families produced by Work and Income."

Young's story is based on "confidential strategy notes" handed out by Williams, which she says advised delegates to hand out the information leaflets whilst noting that National voted against both policies. This is not unlawful in itself, and the material is not political, but if information pamphlets were to be used as core campaign material it would not look good.

But it would have been handy for readers to have seen the notes, or at least to have a verbatim quote in the story.

An NZPA story <a href="
http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=21263&cid=15&cname=Politics" target="_blank">also mentions the workshop, but less in the context of a machiavellian plan for the public purse than an effort to stay the right side of Labour's own defective electoral finance law. It says the law "follows general confusion among the parties over its provisions, including Labour's president Mike Williams saying the law was in need of a 'shake down' ahead of the election."

Labour is the only party so far to have committed a clear, if minor, breach of the Electoral Finance Act, and it is facing a significant campaign of litigation from National, which is seeking judicial reviews of the Electoral Commission's decisions not to prosecute Labour's breach (it didn't list the name of the promoter on a leaflet which it now says will be declared as part of its campaign budget) and that the EPMU can register as a third party under the act.

Bill English gloated to NZPA: Labour was so confused about its own law that "Our understanding is they've had to clean out their electorate offices of all promotional material and they will have to start again."

In Young's story, English takes a different view: "It confirms Labour's strategy, which has been to use the Electoral Finance Act to shut the critics up and use the resources of Government to broadcast its message with no competing views."

So it's cock-up versus conspiracy again; a scramble for something safe to hand out versus a cunning plan. It would be a good idea for Williams to speak up today and, ideally, release the notes himself. And he might even find it expedient to vent his own frustrations with the Electoral Finance Act …

Update: The Herald's story has just been updated with the following:

Helen Clark this morning reiterated that explanatory pamphlets produced by Government departments were not election advertising.
"Things that government departments put out, are not - underline not - campaign material," she said on TVNZ's Breakfast programme.
"Things government departments put out should be in every MPs' office electorate office, regardless of what party they are in, because the whole point of an electorate office is to be the interface, the link, between the MP and what government programmes are about."
However Helen Clark said on Newstalk ZB she would advise her MPs and their staff not to hand out the materials in a campaigning way, which some legal experts believe could fall foul of the Act.

--
Late-breaking announcement:

The people at Portable Film Festival of Melbourne, Australia, have been kind enough to bring their latest guest to New Zealand. That's Ezra Cooperstein, "chief evangelist" for Current TV, the Al Gore-founded citizen journalism and user-generated content network. He's speaking at a free symposium at the Auckland Town Hall, 6pm tonight.

The event is free, but I gather that it's a good idea to email rsvp@portablefilmfestival.com with "CURRENT NZ" in the subject line to let them know you're coming. I think this will be worth the effort.

69 responses to this post

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last

Craig Ranapia, 09:11 Apr 14, 2008

This is not unlawful in itself, and the material is not political, but if information pamphlets were to be used as core campaign material it would not look good.
I'm not so sure that "The material is not political" -- though to get all Bill Clinton for a moment, it may well depend on what your definition of 'political' is. As I've said elsewhere, my last visit to Sydney was just as the NSW state election campaign was kicking into high gear. Was it entirely coincidental that print, radio and television was awash in ostensibly apolitical (and remarkably uninformative) 'public information' campaigns that just happened to revolve around hot button issues like public transport, water and so forth? And before I get dismissed as engaging in Labour-bashing, its not as if the Coalition doesn't have form in playing exactly the same game at both state and federal levels.
This might not be unlawful, but you've got to ask whether the spirit of public service neutrality is told to go screw more often than we like to admit.

North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report
John Morrison, 09:15 Apr 14, 2008

Clark on Breakfast this morning says these department-generated pamphlets, explaining Kiwisaver, WFF or whatever, should be held by all electorate offices and given to anybody who wants one. Is it really electioneering when activists hand these pamphlets out?

Cromwell • Since Nov 2006 • 85 posts Report
Steve Withers, 09:24 Apr 14, 2008

The issue of government information pamphlets is a frought one. Last year I spent 6 months in Canada working for the pro-MMP side of the electoral reform referendum held there on October10th, 2007. The electoral finance laws in Canada are very tight and make our own government's new law look somewhat laissez-faire.
The body that recommended a change to a form of MMP, the Ontario Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform, brought down it's final report on May 15th, with a recommendation that a referendum on changing the voting system be held about 20 weeks later, in October. They produced a set of documents including a pamphlet, a more complete 20 page booklet and a full, 274-page technical manual with chapter and verse on everything they did. These documents were the official output from the deliberative process that the government had set up to impartially assess how elections were conducted in Ontario.
The government of the province of Ontario committed to make these documents available to all citizens, but drew the line short of delivering them to every home as had been done in 2005 in British Columbia for their earlier referendum on chaing that province's voting system. Instead, you had to ask for them and they would be sent to you. But you first had to know to ask for them and the government, who really didn't want MMP, wasn't telling.
Pro-MMP campaigners immediately ordered 500,000 copies of the pamphlets and began distributing to every home and at any and all public events they could attend.
Anti-MMP folk then declared this to be "unfair" and said the documents were "biased". In mid-August, the Ontario Government withdrew the documents from print and effectively suppressed them. The "official" infomration campaign conducted by Electins Ontario then refused to use them as they were deemed to be "advocacy material" for one side.
That decision was as bizarre as declaring a jury's guilty verdict against a defendant, based on the evidence presented, as "biased" and contrary to the interests of the accused...and quashing the verdict.
Instead, the official information campaign merely told people they had a "Big Decision" to make and proceeded to not tell them anything about why they were being asked to make it. The recommendation for reform was effectively suppressed and the public left none the wiser.
My view, based on that sorry experience if cynical manipulation by government in withholding information, is that if there is a public document available for the PURPOSE of informing the puvlic about something the government is doing then that document should be available to actually do the job. Argue, if you like, about hwat is in it, but don't go down the path of effectively suppressing public information because someone actually thinks people should know about it and does something to spread message.

Auckland • Since Mar 2008 • 312 posts Report
Craig Ranapia, 09:24 Apr 14, 2008

Clark on Breakfast this morning says these department-generated pamphlets, explaining Kiwisaver, WFF or whatever, should be held by all electorate offices and given to anybody who wants one.
John, I saw that and Clark was being too cute for words. (And, as usual, Paul Henry was too wrapped up in his cloud of self-regard to ask the obvious follow up.) Someone who's been an MP for twenty-seven years should be aware that electorate offices aren't campaign HQs or party branch offices. In my experience, the overwhelming majority of electorate agents do understand that church and state separation.

North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report
Rich of Observationz, 09:27 Apr 14, 2008

These are (presumably) factual pamphlets.
Surely National activists will also want to hand them out and explain why Kiwisaver is bad and they want to scrap it. Same for the extra week's holiday, Working for Families, interest-free student loans, etc.

Back in Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 5550 posts Report
Russell Brown, 09:27 Apr 14, 2008

Clark on Breakfast this morning says these department-generated pamphlets, explaining Kiwisaver, WFF or whatever, should be held by all electorate offices and given to anybody who wants one. Is it really electioneering when activists hand these pamphlets out?
I've just updated the post to reflect that and comments on Newstalk ZB, as per the Herald's updated story.
I think you're right in principle -- and electorate offices do function as citizens' advice bureaux in that way -- but activists and electorate offices will want to be very bloody careful about how they put the material in people's hands. Sigh ...

Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report
Craig Ranapia, 09:29 Apr 14, 2008

BTW, John, I've lived in electorates where the incumbent MPs have been from across the political spectrum -- from Steve Maharey to Wayne Mapp. I certainly hope any constituent who goes to their MP's office looking for advice or support can do so without a party political broadcast.

North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report
Tom Semmens, 09:35 Apr 14, 2008

The use of the phrase "not unlawful" pisses me off. Why doesn't the Herald say, "Is perfectly legal"? Loaded language from Audrey Young designed to implant the impression of illegality. Why am I not surprised?
Meanwhile, in some real news that we should be celebrating, child poverty is FINALLY falling in New Zealand. This is almost certainly because of Working For Families, a policy loathed by the selfish right and one almost certainly going to be targeted for extinction by National so nice, deserving people with big Toyota Landcruisers can get their tax cut.
And I see today John "me to' Key has announced National won't be out-bidding Labour on tax cuts, won't be bulk funding schools (Alan Peachy won't comment, trouble at the mill for Mr. Key on that one methinks...), and won't be selling state assets just now. But they don't want the re-purchase the railways and they would have allowed Auckland Airport to be sold to a bunch of ticket clippers from Canada. What is National now? "Vote National cos, ummm, its time for a change and we'll be just the same only somehow better".

Sevilla, Espana • Since Nov 2006 • 2217 posts Report
Steve Withers, 09:39 Apr 14, 2008

Craig: MPs do hold stocks of publicly available, government information that may be useful to constituents. An MP - list or local - is a representative of voters as well as being a party-affiliated politician. The offices I have been in all contain government information of some sort. Some more than others.

Auckland • Since Mar 2008 • 312 posts Report
Kyle Matthews, 09:39 Apr 14, 2008

This is not unlawful in itself, and the material is not political, but if information pamphlets were to be used as core campaign material it would not look good.
I really hate the way political parties use our money through government departments to basically advertise themselves. I can't remember if the Kiwisaver and WFF leaflets do that, but I clearly remember National's empty operating theatre TV adverts, and Labour have done stuff along those lines as well. It's just dishonest.
I'm tempted to suggest that all large advertising campaigns from government departments should be checked by an independent commission to make sure that that it's actually needed and unbiased.

Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report
Russell Brown, 09:41 Apr 14, 2008

The use of the phrase "not unlawful" pisses me off. Why doesn't the Herald say, "Is perfectly legal"? Loaded language from Audrey Young designed to implant the impression of illegality. Why am I not surprised?
To be fair, the door to interpretation has been left open by the EFA's lack of clarity.
Although, again, there's a bit too much that's not in the story: it would have be nice to see an actual quote attributed to one of the "legal experts".

Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report
Craig Ranapia, 09:43 Apr 14, 2008

The use of the phrase "not unlawful" pisses me off. Why doesn't the Herald say, "Is perfectly legal"? Loaded language from Audrey Young designed to implant the impression of illegality. Why am I not surprised?
I don't particularly like double negatives either -- they're an inelegant and confusing construction. But if clumsy prose is proof of political bias, you've got to wonder when Audrey Young is going to describe what side she's coming down on. To paraphrase Freud -- sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and a clunky sentence is just a clunky sentence.

North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report
Russell Brown, 09:44 Apr 14, 2008

but I clearly remember National's empty operating theatre TV adverts
They were scandalous, and I think it took Amanda Millar a while to recover from the impact on her credibility from appearing in them. I might be wrong, but I can't recall Labour doing anything quite that bad.

Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report
Steve Withers, 09:53 Apr 14, 2008

Agree about the "legal experts". Last year, in Canada, I saw that sort of thing first hand. The "legal experts" was used as a front for grumpy editors with a view instructing a junior reporter's word processor. Or so a journalist told me by way of explaining some bizarre (and anonymous) legal opinions in a few of her stories on the very same issue: the use of government pamphlets by people who advocate those policies. How bizzare! It can't be illegal to use government information to support their policies. Agreed it is more problematic if you're one of the parties in government. Would we have the same issue if it were NZ First distributing a government document for a policy it had advanced? Would it be the same if National distributed a government document as an example of what it thought of as bad policy?
I honestly don't think you can frame a law that would deal with this in a way fair to all other than to ask each voter to make up their own minds based on the evidence. There appears to be little enough of that and it should be encouraged.

Auckland • Since Mar 2008 • 312 posts Report
Craig Ranapia, 09:54 Apr 14, 2008

Craig: MPs do hold stocks of publicly available, government information that may be useful to constituents. An MP - list or local - is a representative of voters as well as being a party-affiliated politician. The offices I have been in all contain government information of some sort. Some more than others.
Steve:
I'll err on the side of generosity, and assume you're not willfully missing my point. I've worked (briefly) for an MP, and seen people come through the doors who've been in a real state -- issues with WINZ, the health system, their immigration status, domestic violence, child support. You name it. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with electorate agents providing relevant information and assistance. But if I've got to explain the difference between an electorate office and a campaign HQ -- and why vulnerable constituents need a party political broadcast like like a spare arsehole in the middle of their foreheads -- you're never going to get it.

North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report
Steve Withers, 09:55 Apr 14, 2008

Craig: You finally got through to me. Thanks for persisting. :-) I agree.

Auckland • Since Mar 2008 • 312 posts Report
Kyle Matthews, 09:57 Apr 14, 2008

They were scandalous, and I think it took Amanda Millar a while to recover from the impact on her credibility from appearing in them. I might be wrong, but I can't recall Labour doing anything quite that bad.
No, not that bad. But they're still quite happy to head down the same track.

Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report
Russell Brown, 09:57 Apr 14, 2008

and why vulnerable constituents need a party political broadcast like like a spare arsehole in the middle of their foreheads
Eeewww.

Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report
Kyle Matthews, 10:01 Apr 14, 2008

and why vulnerable constituents need a party political broadcast like like a spare arsehole in the middle of their foreheads
I'm going to happily interpret 'spare arsehole' as meaning that some people have already got one arsehole in their head. Which seems appropriate when discussing politics, we just probably wouldn't agree on exactly which politicians :)

Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report
John Morrison, 10:08 Apr 14, 2008

Yes I agree the EFA is a dog's breakfast, but any Electoral Finance Act would be because there is too much at stake and too many smart lawyers around. To me, complete state funding is cleanest solution.
What is National now? "Vote National cos, ummm, its time for a change and we'll be just the same only somehow better".
At least Labour has policy pamphlets to hand out! 6 months before an election and National's bus ticket seems to be just blowin' in the wind. They can't even release something uncontentious as say, their Art & Culture policy. What have they been doing for the last 9 years other than being lazy?

Cromwell • Since Nov 2006 • 85 posts Report
Craig Ranapia, 10:21 Apr 14, 2008

Kyle:
We might agree more than you might think, considering one of my favourite movies is David Cronenber's adaptation of Naked Lunch which contains this enchanting and definitely NSFW monologue.
It's Bill Burroughs' world, people. We're just living in it.

North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report
Russell Brown, 10:26 Apr 14, 2008

They can't even release something uncontentious as say, their Art & Culture policy.
Which is weird, because they have the most convincing spokesman I can recall them having in that portfolio, in Chris Finlayson. He certainly seemed to have plenty of ideas when he got the job a year ago.

Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report
A S, 11:03 Apr 14, 2008

What gets me the most with this, and something that no-one else has mentioned, is the potential impact this sort of thing will have on the public sector.
The public service is supposed to be apolitical, so that it can fulfil its purpose of faithfully serving whatever government the public elects, without the need for doing wasteful and counterproductive things like sacking the top tier of the public service after every election and replacing them with a new batch of political appointees.
I completely fail to see how any political party (of any stripe) that purports to have the interests of NZ at heart can think it is a good idea to try and further its own ends and potentially undermine the concept of a neutral public service.
Talk to a few career public servants off the record about whether they think the public sector is still a-political and you might notice a sense of disquiet that we should probably be paying some attention to.
With the shoddily drafted mess that is the EFA, any attempt by any party in electioneering mode to try to use info (created by departments to inform the public of entitlements or key information) as replacements for election material, is short sighted, dodgy and does both the public, and the public service a massive dis-service.

Wellington • Since Nov 2007 • 269 posts Report
Paul Williams, 12:04 Apr 14, 2008

The public service is supposed to be apolitical, so that it can fulfil its purpose of faithfully serving whatever government the public elects, without the need for doing wasteful and counterproductive things like sacking the top tier of the public service after every election and replacing them with a new batch of political appointees.
I'm far from convinced that the NZ public service is particularly political. I agree there's been a few stupid mistakes and interventions, however overall I see no evidence of public sector independence being structurally compromised.
I agree with the earlier comments about National's clever avoidance of policy itself. Labour will campaign on WFF, Kiwibank/saver etc but I've still got no idea what National will do beyond cut taxes (in line with Labour too)!

Sydney • Since Nov 2006 • 2273 posts Report
Idiot Savant, 12:10 Apr 14, 2008

I agree with the earlier comments about National's clever avoidance of policy itself. Labour will campaign on WFF, Kiwibank/saver etc but I've still got no idea what National will do beyond cut taxes (in line with Labour too)!
Not be Labour.
What's scary is that they think that's enough.

Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1717 posts Report