Bill Ralston in HoS-the EFA, Labour and how Labour seeks to evade EFA rules, yet again

<a

Scoopit!

Bill Ralston in the HoS has a piece on Labour and it’s machinations over the EFA and publicity material from the Ministry of Social Development. Ralston notes:-

Last year, the MSD budgeted 15 million taxpayer dollars to promote, for example, the Working for Families scheme this election year.

Funny, that. Was not the EFA all about the unfair advantage that money gave the National Party. Silly me transparency is not for this government. $15 million of taxpayer money to promote this scheme for giving money to voters in an election year. Blatant hypocrisy at best. Ralston then notes:-

With this in mind, the Government last year published, at your expense, a brochure subtly called We’re Making a Difference. It is designed to tell you how good the Labour Government has been for you and, not surprisingly, the courts and Electoral Office came to the conclusion it was campaign advertising for the Labour Party under the Government’s stunningly stupid Electoral Finance Act.

Good. So that is all right then, This will count as an election expense, as it should. Ah, but as the TV promotions say, there is more, as this comment from Ralston makes clear:-

However, last week the Government started ducking and diving in Parliament about whether the brochure would be counted against Labour’s spending cap for the election. Labour Party secretary Mike Smith has been telling the Electoral Office that the breach of the act wasn’t committed by the Labour Party, it was committed by the Labour Government, or more precisely, the Prime Minister’s Office, which is entirely different, says Mr Smith.

Now Adam would like to know what is the difference between the Prime Minister’s Office, and the Labour Party, after all Helen Clark leads the Labour Party. Indeed, to the general public she is to all intents and purposes the Labour Party. So in what Alice in Dunderland scenario is there a difference?

Though per Ralston, Smith appears to admit there was an EFA breach. But it was not a Labour Party breach, but a PM Office breach. So we should accept that it does not matter.

Balderdash.

Well Ralston asks a similar question:-

Quite how the Labour Party’s Prime Minister and the Labour Government is divorced from the Labour Party is not clear, but members of the Labour Party must be wondering if this is final confirmation of what they have felt for years, the party’s parliamentary wing is a law unto itself and no longer has any connection with its rank and file.

If there is no connection between the Parliamentary Party and the Labour Party, then surely we are clearly in the realms of cloud cuckoo land or Mike Smith is an alien from a parallel universe or both. In any event, if it should prove that Smith is correct in his assertions, does that mean the Prime Minister’s office should be registered as a third party under the EFA? Why should the PM’s Office receive preferential treatment?

On what basis should the PM’s Office be able to promote policy in a manner that is clearly geared to encouraging people to vote Labour, through the use of public funds and without being subject to the EFA and within the bounds of the spending limits imposed on the Labour Party?

The Electoral Commission should be asked to rule on this. If it decides this is allowable then National should make sure everyone knows how Labour is rorting the process.

Labour has obviously learned nothing from the pledge card fiasco, other than how to be arrogant enough to come back and feed at the trough for more public money.

Then Ralston points this out:-

Under questioning from National’s Bill English, Justice Minister Annette King fudged the issue. Instead, she gave us an insight into the amazing pettiness that drives the Government’s thinking behind the Electoral Finance Act.

As many have commented the EFA is an example of vindictive pettiness from the regime. Annette King has allowed herself to become forever tarred with the EFA and the Law of Commonsense.

Apparently referring to National’s quite effective and often funny billboard campaign before the last election, she dismissed English’s questions, instead talking of “the whining and whingeing from the National Party because it cannot spend the millions of dollars that it had planned to spend on its election campaign, right up to three months before the election, pretending that it did not count as election advertising. Its billboards would have been right around New Zealand. National is not able to do that. What we get now is its whingeing and snivelling about it.”

So King seeks to justify the Labour Party spending public money and seeking to manipulate the EFA provisions because their opponent may have been intending to put up billboards.

So King thinks the government has a right to spend taxpayer money to promote itself, whilst denying the opportunity for the opposition to do likewise by putting in place discriminatory spending caps?

King of course did not answer the question.

What she is saying is that the Government rammed through an act of Parliament, put the Electoral Office to enormous expense, tied up endless amounts of police time investigating alleged breaches of the act, and further troubled the overburdened court system with litigation about the meaning of the act because Labour was worried National might put up billboards attacking the Government this election year.

What a crock of horse manure.

Ralston notes that some government departments have wised up to what Labour is up to and like the IRD have refused to play ball, but as he ruefully concludes:-

Sadly, other Government departments don’t have the same strong backbone. Just look at your TV tonight and count the commercials that carry a departmental logo as they push some marvellous initiative.

So the government takes taxpayer money to promote itself. Whilst limiting the funding available to others. A really principled and ethical stand.

The EFA really is an example of a law designed to advantage one group above another.

The media must continue to expose this foul piece of legislation and the hypocrisy of the Labour Party in this area.

Whilst this law is in force then all should comply equally and any party which breaches the EFA should be investigated by the Police. Any party – National, Labour, Greens, ACT, WInston First whoever!

Scoopit!