Skip to content

EPMU appears to think it is above the law


invisible hit counter


Stuff has an item on National’s court case over the Electoral Commission’s decision on registration of the EPMU as a third party under the EFA.

Adam thinks the EC was wrong. He has no problem with the EPMU campaigning, but under the EFA he thinks they cannot. The problem is not union campaigns, but the wording of the EFA.

Further, just like the Shawn Tan case, Adam considers the EPMU is being arrogant when it states:-

The EPMU, which was named as the second defendant in the case, did not appear in court today, saying it was not going to waste more energy in a time-consuming legal battle.

Mr Little has said the EPMU will run an advertising campaign in the lead up to the election regardless of any decisions regarding its third party status.

This smacks of the union believing that it is above the law. It is not.

The EFA is a badly drafted and unduly draconian law, but it is the law and as such must be followed, even if the EPMU does not agree with decisions which may be reached by the courts and/or the Electroal Commission..

  1. adamsmith1922 permalink*
    01/09/2008 11:41

    Yes I will.

    Not just because they should not flout the law, but I have very considerable objections to what both Sensible Sentencing Trust and Family First advocate.


  2. Govich permalink
    01/09/2008 11:24

    NZPA wasn’t quoting Little, they were repeating what they thought he’d said in other media.

    The EPMU has always said it would campaign regardless of the outcome of National’s challenge because the union’s campaign is aimed at its members and is focused on the issues. NZPA mistook that to mean the union would run an advertising campaign in defiance of the law.

    I take it you’ll be attacking Family First and Sensible Sentencing for declaring they will openly flout the law?


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: