The Police have been called…
The Chief Electoral Officer, David Henry, has passed judgement on the Exclusive Brethren’s ‘Beware’ leaflet and found it wanting.
In a letter sent to Green Party campaign manager Russel Norman last week, Henry writes:
I have concluded that the leaflet does appear to promote the party vote for National. I have decided to refer the matter to the police for investigation as to whether any person has breached section 221 of the Electoral Act 1993, and if so, whether any prosecution in terms of section 221 (4) is appropriate.
And what does section 221 say? I hear you ask. The relevant bits from the Government’s legislation site:
221.Advertisements for candidates and political parties—
(1)Subject to subsections (2) and (3) of this section, no person shall publish or cause or permit to be published… [snip] any advertisement which—
[snip](b)Encourages or persuades or appears to encourage or persuade voters to vote for a party registered under Part 4 of this Act.
[snip](3)A person may publish or cause or permit to be published an advertisement of the kind described in subsection (1)(b) of this section if—
(a)The publication of that advertisement is authorised in writing by the Secretary of the party or his or her delegate; and
(b)The advertisement contains a statement setting out the true name of the person for whom or at whose direction it is published and the address of his or her place of residence or business.
(4)Subject to subsections (2) and (3) of this section, every person is guilty of an illegal practice who wilfully contravenes any provision of subsection (1) of this section.
[snip]
Short version, you can only publish material promoting a party vote for a particular party if the relevant Party Secretary has clearly authorised it. Given that the Chief Electoral Officer has now judged that the ‘Beware’ leaflet did indeed advocate a party vote for National and that it did not have National’s authorisation, someone should be in trouble.
Henry’s letter goes on:
I do not consider that section 218 applies to the leaflet. Section 218 is aimed at undue influence in the nature of physical threats that compel a person to vote or not vote in a particular manner, with acts that physically prevent a person from voting, or with the use of unlawful means. I do not think that a leaflet expressing views falls into this category, and accordingly I am not referring that aspect to the police.
Oh, well, that was worth a try. 
Rod has just put out a release on this:
Co-Leader Rod Donald says: “while I am pleased with the outcome of the complaint, there is no way this will undo the damage done to the Green Party by the leaflets during the election campaign.
“To add insult to injury, Even if the ‘full force’ of the law comes down on the Exclusive Brethren they will only face a maximum $3000 fine.
“Their prosecution will be nothing more than a slap on the wrist with a wet pamphlet for the obviously wealthy members of the church.
“In our view their underhanded behaviour should be a summary offence, which would result in a fine of up to $100,000.
“Clearly this law needs to be changed as the penalty provides little discouragement for undermining a free and fair electoral process.
“However, the real punishment for the Exclusive is that they have failed in their goal to get a National government in place probably due to the unchristian way they went about it.�
“Meanwhile we continue to try to get to the bottom of exactly how much knowledge and involvement the National Party had in this campaign.”
More to come.
October 25th, 2005 at 2:56 pm
So, if I put up a website saying “Vote Green in 2008!”, I’m breaking the law because I haven’t asked permission?
October 25th, 2005 at 3:07 pm
I agree, Repton, it seems bizzare…
October 25th, 2005 at 3:28 pm
There’s a decent enough reason that there are limits placed on electoral spending, it gives something more of a level playing field. This is a law that tries to put that into effect (if there’s nothing stopping anyone paying for advertising, there’s no way to limit electoral spending).
Clearly it’s murky, clearly the internet (as always) raises interesting questions.
But it isn’t so much about asking permission, it’s cos if the Greens did give you permission, any expenses involved would have to be filed as an electoral expense and count towards the Greens electoral spending. That’s why there’s a clause in the Act about parties not being liable unless they have connived in the publishing.
October 25th, 2005 at 4:27 pm
I wonder if the law of libel applies: stating that a party has a policy which they demonstrably do not have (such as “capital gains tax on family homes” - I still have my copy of the infamous leaflet) is an outright lie which damages the party and also the unsuccessful candidates. Their reputations suffer and though they do not stand for Parliament to gain income, they certainly lose some and their political careers are damaged.
October 25th, 2005 at 5:59 pm
The Act does not seem to put any time frame on such advertisements, which seems odd. Even if a person published a book “Why you should vote Green” that would possibly breach the law.
Elsewhere the Act says that outdoor billboards are allowed, despite other laws to the contrary, during the two months before election day. That would surely be a reasonable time during which an election is deemed to be imminent.
October 25th, 2005 at 7:02 pm
greengage - defamation law (we don’t have libel anymore in New Zealand) might apply, but the green party would have to prove financial loss, and that that loss was caused by the defamatory content in the leaflet (and seriously, how would you set about *proving* that 1700+ people didn’t vote for you because they believed .
You’d also have the problem that well, the Exclusive Brethren might be able to prove that what is alleged is substantially true (or at least that it is their honest opinion) and that would look very bad for the Greens (I can’t be bothered looking for it, but someone at Sirhumphries fisked the Green denial in the lead-up to the election and found most of the allegations had at least a modicum of truth to them)
October 25th, 2005 at 9:25 pm
Hmmm… I reckon Nandor could file. He’s the one most affected and there’s ample evidence that advertisements affect the vote, else why would there be an act in the first instance? So I think we’d be on solid enough ground IF we had a lawyer willing to put it on the line. I don’t think that the monetary damage to New Zealand from not completely implementing Green policies would be arguable… well, actually it would be way TOO arguable
There isn’t any reasonable defense for several of the statements, others could be argued, poorly, but argued. The point for Greens is whether the E.B. lied one time. Once in a pamphlet delivered to AFAIK every voter in New Zealand. Half a million dollars worth of propaganda… Lies about the other side’s policies do NOT make for a valid “contest of ideas” in the market for votes. Lies of this nature also tend to divide the population rather than bringing it together. Which is something that all of New Zealand felt during this election. I personally felt extreme rage at the persons responsible…
The damage done was more than monetary, but I think that a value can be put on it, and I think that the E.B. need to be spanked properly, not just get their hands slapped. At minimum a 10 year injunction against their involvement in politics on any level in New Zealand. Public and nasty humiliation, that gets public attention and turns their pamphleteering on its head (works to our advantage). Money isn’t the issue. The lie is the issue.
respectfully
BJ
October 25th, 2005 at 10:29 pm
Greenagage, the CGT on the family home was not an outright lie. That was taken from the Greens Eco-Tax submission, which advocates a CGT even on family homes (at time of sale). At best, its a misunderstanding, as there was no written policy statement countering their Eco tax submission, just “verbal statements” made at meetings.
And how does this compare to the “Eviction Notices” sent out by the Unions (or was it Labour directly?) Two wrongs don’t make a right, but this might explain how Labour will be cautious in toughening the laws.
October 25th, 2005 at 10:36 pm
I wonder if anyone has any comments on the anti-National pamphlets produced by the unions? Many of you obviously feel quite agrieved by the EB pamphlet against the Greens, but no mention of other ones, such as that produced by the PSA or the ads run by the EPMU. Or is it only bad if it is done by the supporters of the right?
October 26th, 2005 at 2:50 am
From a non-partisan, healthy-democracy POV, I think it’s pretty clear that the electoral act is broken, and needs fixing, in this respect.
If the EB get prosecuted for promoting National, and gets fined $3000 as a result, what’s next?
Next election, lots of attack leaflets, signed by obscure individuals. Financed by groups or individuals, tapped-up for this informal donation by a political party, careful to leave no paper trail. Perhaps careful not to explicitly call for a vote for the party, but after all, if it’s a $3000 fine we’re looking at, what the hell!
One has to tread carefully with respect to freedom of speech. But the current situation enables parties to out-source their dirty work (or overrun their legal budget) with impunity. It also allows anyone on earth with enough money, to exercise influence on NZ’s election result, with impunity (if the CIA, or the Hezbollah, were to issue a leaflet, they get a $3000 fine too!)
Obviously, all sorts of advocacy groups, including unions, need to submit to the same rules. Instinctively, the problem with the EB leaflet is not that it was anti-Green, but that it was effectively anonymous : they went to a lot of trouble to delay their exposure as the authors, because it would obviously carry a whole lot less weight if people knew where they were coming from.
Likewise, the weight that trade-union electoral material carries is constrained by the fact that they put their name on it : people will take heed of it or not, depending on what they think of the union, or of unions in general.
So there needs to be a transparency provision, and very hefty financial penalties for breaches (in terms of multiples of the assessed cost of the campaign, I would suggest).
I don’t think we can just count on parties to behave decently in this respect, as they seem to have done in the past : the fact that Brash thinks that what the EB did is just fine, is evidence that Pandora’s box is open.
Perhaps advocacy groups need to be registered, and open to public scrutiny, before they are allowed to issue propaganda during an election campaign?
October 26th, 2005 at 6:49 am
I’d also be interested in hearing Rod’s POV on the fact that Labour’s pledge card - paid for out of Clark’s PS “leader’s budget” - has also been referred to the Police by Mr. Henry. Then again, criticising that kind of spending may hit a little too close to home…
October 26th, 2005 at 9:48 am
Went back and looked for it (it’s some of sirhumphries best work), will just use one example:
From sirhumphries:
check http://sirhumphreys.blogspot.com/2005/09/exclusive-brethren-vs-greens. html
for the summary of all 15 claims (with links to detailed argument on each one)
http://sirhumphreys.blogspot.com/2005/09/outright-lies-15.html
“15: Voted against including the right to own Property in the NZ Bill of Rights
Other countries might need it, but NZ doesn’t the Greens say. That explains why they have a right to be Guilty”
From Jeanette Fitzsimons:
“Claim: the Greens voted against protecting private property rights
Status: Half-truth
Our policy:
The Greens voted against an Act Party Member’s Bill to give private property the same status as human rights - as did the Labour Party and other parties in Parliament.”
How is this only a half-truth? The claim the Brethren made was that “the Green voted against protecting private property rights”. Well they did - just because Labour did too doesn’t mean the Greens didn’t! If as Frog (and its commenters) claim this should be about the contest of ideas, and not about lies then let’s make it that.
To assert that the claim “the Greens voted against protecting private property rights” is a half-truth is a lie - the Brethren, sirhumphries, and anyone with only a small amount of time can point to the time when exactly this happened.
There *are* good reasons to vote against ACT and UF amendments adding property rights to the Bill of Rights, so why did you abandon them? Don’t call the other side names, or lie about what they’re doing - try to win the contest of ideas - say “yes, the Brethren are right, we did vote against protecting private property rights and here are the 10 reasons why it was a bad idea that would haved screwed over the country.”
October 26th, 2005 at 10:03 am
bjchip,
To suceed in an action for defamation Nandor would have to establish that the anti-green pamphlet made a false claim about him, and that people will think less of him because of it. He would have problems.
The pamphlet makes claims about green party policy, not individuals (they had the courage to play the ball, not the man, it would seem). Most of the pamphlet was substantially true, for example the claim that the Greens wanted to “Decriminalise illegal drugs like cannabis (marijuana)”. Jeanette asserts that this is a half-truth (http://www.greens.co.nz/searchdocs/other9194.html). However I do not imagine it would be difficult for anyone to prove it more likely than not that Nandor supports the decriminalisation of cannibis-like drugs.
And even if this was a lie, would anyone seriously think less of Nandor because of it? Why would they - the decriminalisation of cannibis-like drugs has much to commend it, we may disagree about whether it should happen, but it’s not a completely wacky idea by any stretch of the imagination. Moreover, everyone thought Nandor supported decriminalisation of cannibis-like drugs before the Brethren pamphlet…
October 26th, 2005 at 11:06 am
Edge
The clear implication that ALL drugs were to be decriminalized is a BLATANT misrepresentation of Green policy… no matter how cleverly the line was worded. The fact that it can be parsed to be true, but is common use for implying the collective doesn’t exonerate the writer. I didn’t get too troubled by that one, as it is largely true, but it is part and parcel of the nature of the pamphlets. It is a “Rove” job and all it creates is a rancorous division of the nation and believe me, it is NOT something you want in our politics here.
The problem for Greens is that they DO word some of their releases and policies without actually using the grey matter that fills the space between their ears. So I am no fan of some of the words…. but the “Capital Gains on your Home” well… as far as I can tell there was never ANY such statement, the most that was said was that it “would be examined”.
The point however is that as a Green I saw in that BS pamphlet at least 6 places where the people writing it deliberately and with malice aforethought misrepresented Green positions… Making me angry with religious fanatics is easy, but making me angry by misrepresenting my position on anything, which is what lying is about, is even more easy. EVERYONE hates that, and when E.B. do it or ACT , or Nats or Labour or Greens it is simply WRONG. … because it leads to demonizing the other side.
Either the voters are presented with ideas and policies honestly, or they are not. In this election there was substantial misrepresentation going on and that means that the electoral process, the competition for votes in the marketplace of ideas, was made into a competition of half-truths and misrepresentations in the advertising realm. Half truth, like the half-billboards, is worse than no information at all.
I wish voters were smart enough to see through it, hell I wish EVERYONE were smarter. I would like them to be more civilized, but the demonization of the left by the right has a long history for me, and I have no more patience with it. I am working on the Greens to render the policies and statements less provocatively, but I am also dead set against any repetition of the crap that the EB published. It WAS crap, it was an entirely misleading distortion of Green policies and some of it WAS untrue.
I am not going to argue this point anymore. I would have to get hold of another copy of the pamphlet as I used it to feed the fireplace, and the specifics aren’t the issue. The fact is that if I read something and it makes false claims about my views and I can’t even present my views in rebuttal I am going to be homicidal for a while. Really… and I don’t believe in the death penalty. You think about that. Just think about how REALLY pissed off you would be if someone misrepresented you in a similar way. It is actually worse than a monetary loss in some ways.
That’s what HAS to stop. My job (as I see it) is to put some sanity into Green presentations… not having a defense policy gave the EB a beautiful opening for simply putting the words of whatever individual Green they could find on record into play as our policy. That has to stop as well.
However, ALL the parties have to get their heads wrapped around the idea that it is the ideas that matter. If we lie about each other it will be to the detriment of NZ. We need to encompass a return of civility. This is often omitted when dealing with demons.
Green policies aren’t bad at all, most of those that exist are decent;y thought out… but there are holes and there are some really unfortunate and misleading words in some places. I am happy to defend our actual policies, but I am not willing to let them be distorted in the press or in pamphlets without answer.
In this case, a courtroom may be the place where the answer is given. That’s not up to me.
respectfully
BJ
October 26th, 2005 at 11:22 am
Craig, if you have an agenda, and want to influence the political process then trying to hide your strongly held beliefs and who you are is dishonest and misleading. The Maxim Institute has a similar problem. They try and present themselves as “independent” when they are nothing of the sort.
I understand your desire to try and distract us from this salient point. However, you will be aware that many parties use PS for sending information to electors, I received a PS stamped fax from Act during the election campaign. I don’t have a problem with this because:
1. It was clearly marked as being from Act
2. It was clear who funded the fax.
October 26th, 2005 at 11:37 am
Jeeves:
Sorry, but I have a very big problem with any political party disseminating partisan propaganda or electioneering bumpf using public money.
First, it is unfair to those who don’t have the luxury of incumbency.
Second, I believe it is a violation of the idea of freedom of political association. I choose to be a financial member of the National Party, and am quite happy to support its principles and policies through my membership subscription, voluntary labour and patronage of fundraising activities. I do not see why anyone else should be compelled to do so, through their taxes, when they may well find them to be utterly repulsive.
October 26th, 2005 at 11:45 am
Edge:
re: the Greens vote on private proprty rights.
If you (or Sir Humphries) had clicked through the link in that section of the leaflet rebuttal, you would have found a speech in the House by Mike Ward that gives ample and detailed reasons the Greens voted against the private property bill in question. Check it out - http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/speech8650.html - it wins “the contest of ideas” you’re looking for, I reckon.
Once you’ve read it, let us know if the rebuttal still ‘lies’ on that point being a half truth.
And re: cannabis decriminalisation, bjchip has largely said it, yes the Greens have called the for cannabis decrimilisation but NOT for any other drugs, thus the description of it being a ‘half truth’.
October 26th, 2005 at 11:50 am
Craig
Your last comment is at least consistent with your political views but responds only to a side show. You fail to recognise or even acknowledge the problem with the EBs dishonesty, that’s disappointing but I hope if it ever occurs in the future in favour of Labour you, in fairness, will be equally blind.
October 26th, 2005 at 11:56 am
Gazza, re the EPMU and PSA advertising.
The critical difference with the EB leaflets is that the unions clearly identified themselves and thus their interests, clearly supported Labour rather than implying it.
The issue is not public bodies supporting political parties, there’s no problem with that, its how they go about it.
October 26th, 2005 at 12:30 pm
I think the EB pamphlet did more harm than good to National. Prosecuting it should be pursued because $3000 is still some deterrent, albeit lame. There are plenty of would-be-pamphleteers who would actually find that sum daunting, although most of them are probably leftists.
Good luck pursuing a heftier punishment, but you can get carried away with that. In the end, the truth came out and it hurt National. That is a lesson for any bigger operators looking to sneakily influence politics in future.
I think pursuing anything in the pamphlet that misrepresents green views will get no traction. That is part an parcel of political propaganda, on both sides. The real issue was the sneaking around, and it bit them on the balls bigtime.
October 26th, 2005 at 12:37 pm
Jeeves:
Well, I guess the location of the sideshow depends where you’re standing. And as I’ve written precisely nothing defending this ham-fisted intervention by members of the EB (a fine distinction, but one worth making) - in fact, have said that I’m profoundly uncomfortable about any religious body fudging the line between secular partisanship & faith, including the Catholic Church of which I’m a member - I really don’t see where your allegation of *ahem* selective blindness in my right eye comes from.
If folks want to pontificate about true Christian values, how about the section of the Ten Commandments that says “Do not bear false witness against your neighbour”? I think there’s a serious debate to be had here, and I’m quite happy to give serious people a fair hearing. But I guess no party wants to talk about the tacit corruption of their partisan activities being paid for out of the public purse, because the status quo is a little too convenient for all concerned.
October 26th, 2005 at 1:39 pm
Frog, those are exactly the type of arguments for which I was looking; but that doesn’t mean that you either voted to protect private property rights, nor that you half-voted to protect private property rights.
The Greens (in the words of the EB pamphlet) “voted against protecting private property rights”. Kudos to the Greens for having had excellent reasons for so doing, but don’t call something a half-truth, when it is 100% accurate.
On drugs: I would strongly disagree that the EB pamphlet suggests the Greens want to decriminalise ALL drugs - perhaps it implies that the Greens support decriminalisation of cannibis oil, and cannibis resin, as well as marijuana (I’m not actually sure whether the Green party policy differentiates between different types of cannibis). The point I was initially trying to make was of course that if the matter came up in a defamation suit then it wouldn’t be as clear cut as some here seem to think, because the would be a very real risk (and it would be a risk) that the EB would not only plead the defence of truth, but could also win (which would look really bad for the greens)
Onto another point: quoting Frog: “The critical difference with the EB leaflets is that the unions clearly identified themselves and thus their interests, clearly supported Labour rather than implying it.”
That may be the critical point, Frog, but you don’t seem to understand what it means - it is clear endorsements without proper authorisation that are illegal in New Zealand (like the unauthorised Labour Party pledge card). If the unions had put out pamphlets supporting Labour without Labour’s permission then they (the unions) would have broken the law. It is only because the chief electoral officer consideres that some of EB pamphlets clearly support National (rather than, for example, just attack the greens) that there is a problem.
October 27th, 2005 at 10:42 am
Edge,
Re property rights: that’s like arguing that it would be true to say “National’s policy opposes marriage” because National opposes extending the legal status of marriage to include gay people. Given a vote on whether or not the legal convention of marriage should exist, National would obviously vote in favour of marriage, not against it.
The Greens didn’t vote against protecting private property rights - they voted against adding _additional_ legal protection to property rights. If there was a vote on whether or not property rights should be protected by law the Greens would obviously vote in favour of property rights, not against them.
There’s a big difference between voting against extending and increasing something - eg marriage, or property right - and simply voting against it simpliciter.
Which is why Jeanette says “half-truth”, and I’d simply say “lie”.
October 28th, 2005 at 4:17 am
Please read the following and try to then explain to me how they were so called “outright lies”. You know as well as i do that there were some truth to all of the points raised. just like the CTU slagging off National and their fictional ‘lies’ about slashing public spending as an expense of tax cuts.
http://www.michaelbassett.co.nz/articleview.php?id=111
come on greens … time to get off your high horse. you know that politics is a dirty game, both the red team and the blue team did their best to put you off the other party. it just seems that the green team and the only one’s whining about it and crying home to mummy. if you want more votes, come up with new and interesting policies. like the ‘buy nz made’ one. thats a goodie for a start.