Rob Hamill launches ‘Proud to be Green’ billboards
Was that Rob Hamill and Jeanette Fitzsimons I saw in a cherry-picker on Newton Road this afternoon?
Hamill is probably best known for smashing the world record for the Atlantic Rowing Race in 1997. I never knew he supported the Greens. Seems he and Jeanette were putting the last staples into one of several ‘Proud to be Green‘ billboards going up in cities today.
Apparently Rob Hamill said this afternoon:
I know from being a rower just how much pressure our rivers, lakes and oceans are under. We need a Green voice in Parliament. As human beings living on this planet we have a choice to change our ways and protect our world or put our future at risk. We have an incredible opportunity in New Zealand to show the world how to live sustainably. We’ve led the world with votes for women and nuclear free and we can do it again.
March 8th, 2008 at 5:31 am
Cant quite see the total billboard but on what is shown there is no “authorised by” statment on show nor a residential address as required under the EFA.
Oversight or is it on the bit not in the photo?
March 8th, 2008 at 9:44 am
>>“authorised by� statment
And would one have to hire a crane in order to see it?
March 8th, 2008 at 10:34 am
If not on billboard perhaps it is OK as the poster is a statement, not actually electioneering?
March 8th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Who are the Green party members that donated for these billboards?
I thought the Greens were against anonymous donations.
March 8th, 2008 at 10:51 am
joy
Could the same not apply to an EB flyer?
March 8th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Of course not BluePeter, the only “posters” or billboards that will not fall foul of the EFB are the ones pushing left wing parties.
Honestly, where the hell have you been for the last eight months?
March 8th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Quite right, Big Bro.
I clearly neglected to apply the the “Law Of Common Sense: (King, 2007) in this instance. Phew, eh….
March 8th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Why don’t you guys get a room..
First you SPECULATE that there’s some secret, not even asking whether the speculation is true and then you fantasize about how the law will only be applied to one side of the debate… which insults the ERB and the police as well.
If you have NOTHING then say nothing.
BJ
March 8th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
We’re only doing our bit to prevent anonymous big money buying elections….
March 8th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Still waiting to hear about the authorisation.
Also, I think I read somewhere that those cranes use petrol.
Maybe I’m wrong, but wouldn’t it have been more environmentally friendly to just use a ladder?
March 8th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Well they make *me* want to stop smoking.
March 8th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
I just saw some high-res images of the billboard designs (not photos of the actual billboards though)…
Unfortunately they list the green party office on the terrace which is NOT a residential address and so the billboards break the EFA.
No comment frog?
March 8th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
More from our EFA overlords….
“The Electoral Commission is considering whether Labour Party secretary Mike Smith broke the law by not putting his home address on a CD of a party campaign song. Commission chief executive Helena Catt said the CD would be studied at the next meeting in April and, if found to be election advertising, commissioners might refer it to police.”
March 8th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Nice billboards, much better than last elections.
March 8th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
The authorisation is hard to read on the low resolution photo above, but it’s fairly clear on a six metre billboard.
March 8th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Mouldwarp saidL Well they make *me* want to stop smoking.
No probs about smoking, Mouldy, that’s a lifestyle decision, and as long as it doesn’t affect anyone else, it’s yours.
But transpose a letter, and it becomes “Well they make *me* want to stop smaking“.
Then I would have a problem, because violence against children is so uncool!
March 9th, 2008 at 12:00 am
thanks frog, but unfortunately it is an insufficient authorisation.
the EFA is very clear that it must be a residential address!
March 9th, 2008 at 4:21 am
As for who specifically paid for the billboard- I don’t believe the EFA requires parties to line up specific donations with specific expenses, just to declare large donations
March 9th, 2008 at 7:19 am
Somehow I can’t imagine that the wording requires that of ads authorized by a party…. as opposed to a third party. It might. Stupidity seems to be the rule rather than the exception in parliament, but do you have the specifics of the wording handy?
BJ
March 9th, 2008 at 10:25 am
on the high res image, top left corner:
“Authorised by Jon Field, 16 Cambridge Tce, Wellington”
March 9th, 2008 at 10:25 am
http://www.greens.org.nz/campaigns/proud/
March 9th, 2008 at 11:22 am
frog (and alicia),
have any of you actually read the EFA?
it must be the RESIDENTIAL address of the agent:
—————————
4: Interpretation
(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—
address means,—
(a) in relation to an individual, the full address of the place where that person usually lives:
(b) in relation to a body corporate or unincorporated, the full address of its principal place of business or head office
—————————
so does a) or b) apply? well lets look:
—————————
63: Election advertisements not to be published in regulated period unless certain conditions met”
No promoter may, during a regulated period, publish, or cause or permit to be published, any election advertisement unless—
(a) the advertisement contains a statement that sets out the name and address of the promoter of the advertisement; and
(b) the promoter is entitled to promote the advertisement.
—————————
So now you might say, ah but the promoter is the party, not the candidate so the party’s office is the right address… but you’d be wrong and you should have read the act…
—————————
For the purposes of subsection (2)(b), a promoter is entitled to promote an election advertisement if the promoter is—
(a) the financial agent of a party, but only if the advertisement is a party advertisement promoted by, or on behalf of, that party; or
(b) the financial agent of a candidate, but only if the advertisement is a candidate advertisement promoted by, or on behalf of, 1 or more candidates; or
(c) the financial agent of a third party
—————————
and there you go, the promoter is the AGENT, meaning that the agent’s address is required. and because the agent is an individual, the address must be residential.
thanks for breaking the law guys…
March 9th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
petermcc
You may have misread the law. “The promoter is the financial agent of the party” does not imply that the promoter is or must be an individual.
This appears to be a common conception of the opposing side, but I’d definitely prefer that someone with a law degree to read it and explain it than to hear this repeated again and again.
I am quite sure that a party corporate address is sufficient for a party advertisement.
BJ
March 9th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Yep, if it wasn’t suppose to be the individuals address then “agency” would have been the word but it’s not….the word used above is “AGENT”
So if English was correct(which would be a first..) then it seems the Greens have joined LAbour in breaching the rules in the EFA…only NZ First to go…
Whateva the case it was never going to make a scrap of difference in the promotion of National(hey look at John Key, he’s now eating properly! never mind that most of the population can’t afford to..) by the concentrated news media, the solution to which being DSC broadcasting policy, fine print not neccessary.
DSC 08.
March 9th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Even
The legal profession has its own set of definitions. I am only a little familiar with the conceptual contortions required to strain at gnats and swallow camels, but I regard the usage in what petermcc quotes as being a legal way of telling you that any corporate body can use the corporate addresses.
I’d be a bit surprised if something that basic were still wrong… but only a little bit. My perception of parliamentarians is that they aren’t doing what they are paid to do. They left a lot of work for the ERB.
BJ
March 9th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
BJ
It is not speculation, the whole purpose of the EFB is to stifle the rights ability to speak out.
March 9th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
BTW
When can we expect to see a list of the people who donated money for these posters and billboards?
March 9th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
No BB,… the whole purpose of the EFB is to stifle “big money’s” ability to speak out.
Which might be the “right” in some cases but there is nothing in the law about “right” and “left”. It is entirely about money and its ability to influence elections. If the right relies more heavily on its ability to buy good advertising than on its ability to come up with good policies and good ideas then it has a problem.
The problem is not however, the EFB.
BJ
March 9th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
BB, I donated $100 this weekend. I won’t have to appear on the donors list unless I donate another $900.01 The disclosure rule applies only to donations in excess of $1000.
I may eventually have to disclose a name and address, because I also pay an automatic payment to the Party, but for now it can be Toad of Toad Hall, 42 Willowbank Drive, Toadsville.
March 9th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
bj
With respect that is rubbish, the unions spend “big money” and not a word is said.
Owen Glen spends “big money” so we give the sod a gong and a diplomatic position.
This is not about big money and it never will be, this is all about the lefts desire to control free speech and freedom in general.
Already in NZ we are told how to think and what to think, now you want to stop (and have done so for a short time) people spending their money the way they want to.
March 9th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Toad
You should publish a complete list, after all you chaps are the ones who supported this disgusting and undemocratic bill, you should be seen to be whiter than white.
Or are the rules different for those from the left?
March 9th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
BB
The new rules put a spike in the anonymous donations. Hopefully it will work. It wasn’t my preferred method but it has a chance.
The OLD rules pitted big money against big money. The Union’s money vs the Industrialist’s money. The point of the exercise will be made more clear in this election when both the Unions and the Industrialists have to abide by the new rules.
You can’t compare what was the case, which included big money from both sides (and don’t EVEN begin to tell me that the Union expenditures weren’t mentioned by DPF et.al. ). with what the new law will do. Not valid. Will the Unions (which were always up front about donating) be stifled? No more or less than the other donors to other parties.
The competing claims of “favoritism” in media coverage and in financial resourcing are symptoms of the trouble that comes of letting the money talk in the first place.
I don’t know who is telling you how to think and what to think. I haven’t noticed anyone telling me how to think. It’s clearly not a very effective campaign if it exists…
What I have noticed is some laws that restrict how I act. Smoking in the pub, using Marijuana, S59 repeal. There are a lot of things involved here, but they haven’t once tried to tell me what to think.
respectfully
BJ
[[ who reckons that anyone who tells you what OR how to think will get an earful of something
]]
March 9th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
BB - I, and the Green Party, are complying with the existing law.
I know you are not happy with that law. Nor am I, but for different reasons. But t is, IMO, betterthan what we had before.
I’m not setting out to hide anything, I just don’t think I need to publicly disclose details that I’m not legally required to disclose.
If you want to know how much I’ve spent supporting the Greens since the EFA came into force, BB, then publish an email address I can contact you through on froglog. I’ll then tell you personally, provided you agree to not publish that information.
Same goes for others, I’m not a wealthy person, so have nothing to hide. I make my small donations to the Greens when I feel I can afford it. FF sake, my AP is only $20 a week.
Anyone else eho may want to contribute to the Green coffers, go to http://www.greens.org.nz/office/donate.htm.
March 10th, 2008 at 7:23 am
Toad
I will also donate to the Greens (and give you both of my votes) as soon as you get this bloody govt to do something about pigs in crates and battery hens.
For gods sake you managed to twist their arm over the disgusting smacking bill and given that you caved into them over the EFB the sods owe you one.
I will not accept the lame excuse that you are waiting for the bill to be drawn from the ballot, get Clark to make it govt business, if you threatened to withdraw support she will make it happen.
Now is the best chance you have to get this through, should you not make the 5% threshold next time around we both know that neither of the main parities will do anything about it.
There you go, a $1000 donation (Anonymous of course) and two votes, that should be enough to get things going.
March 10th, 2008 at 7:36 am
BB,
There is no way any political party will accept your donation with those terms attached.
Add a few noughts to your figure and what would you like, NZ representative in Monaco? A gong?
We bemoan political donations in return for friendly policy decisions.
Yours is one, and while not large, it would still be corruption on the part of the Greens if they were to accept it.
March 10th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
I have to agree with BigBro above.
Have the Greens achieved anything significant with regards to the environment?
You have the balance of power and we still have pigs in crates and battery hens.
I honestly think that a vote for the greens is a waste as you seem more interested in non environmental issues.
March 10th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
fwwog, everyone love green now ,look even Rodney attending green classes, fwwog the next election will be about by the remaining NZ assets, so far we have not been able to convince Key that he could lose this election on this issue alone, but we will fwwog we will convince him and then Bill have to take the rap, but yous in opposition soon unless yous move now fwwog
March 10th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
peterquixote - in case you haven’t noticed, fwwog actually in opposition now, Greens no part of government, but still achieving heaps.
March 11th, 2008 at 8:56 am
I don’t think ‘abstaining on confidence and supply issues’ constitutes “the balance of power” AndrewE. Look up ‘green achievements’ I guess.
I too would like a lot more ‘environmental’ success, but I don’t think it’s possible to hold a major party to ransom like that…
March 11th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
I looked up green achievements and there appear to be bugger all after 8 years. There are plenty of non environmental achievements but have you achieved any MAJOR environmental goals?
It worries me as I like the idea of being green.
March 11th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
AndrewE
Sadly most of the Green party will tell you that their biggest achievement has been to keep the left in power.
It used to be about Green issues, these days it is about “social justice” and hard left political goals.
March 11th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
yawn … cracked record time again from BB.
I doubt you can find a single Green who will tell you that that has been our biggest achievement, let alone most of them.
Plus it’s not true, we are not keeping the govt in power, United Future and NZ First are. Not to mention that the govt are not left anyway.
March 11th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Hmm, in case any readers want to make their own minds up about the number, importance and topic of the Green Party’s achievements in Parliament:
http://www.greens.org.nz/about/achievements.htm
To my mind, the list of achievements is impressive, and composed of a wide range of issues that defy a simplistic environmental issue vs social justice issue categorisation. But, hey make your own mind up.
March 12th, 2008 at 8:52 am
Gosh. Pinkos!
March 13th, 2008 at 4:57 am
“We are proud to be the voice in Parliament for sustainability, justice, peace and democracy. And we are proud that other well-known New Zealanders support us,â€? says Jeanette Fitzsimons, Green Party Co-Leader. …”
“Locke delighted by Crown’s terrorism decision”
http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/PR11368.html
Why the need for all those weapons?
http://newzeal.blogspot.com/
If the (allegedly) “Green Party” really was Green (as in concerned about the environment) it wouldn’t link its progress to the base values and opinions of Kieth Locke, Sue Bradford and Meteria Turie. Despite “frog week” nothing changes.
March 13th, 2008 at 8:38 am
The Green party has linked the fortunes of its sustainability policies to the favorite chestnuts of a bunch of (unpopular) radicals. It’s called deception.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watermelon
March 13th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Not-being-prosecuted-for-terrorism-because-they-aren’t-terrorists shock! We will see a very diverse group in the docks at some stage, should be interesting.