There are those on the far right who have a view that David Farrar is in fact in the words of one “a pinko”. Personally I have always felt that was undeserved. David has been actively involved in the National Party for decades, worked for various Nat leaders, managed the campaign of a National candidate in Wellington Central (ok, on that one looked like he was our plant) and so it goes on.
But his role in the furore over Labour’s Stop Asset Sales Campaign will fuel speculation again. The boost in interest in the campaign has been great. More people are wanting the signs, are asking about the issue, and voicing their disapproval of National’s plan to sell off the assets built up by past generations.
To be absolutely clear the signs are authorised and are able to be used for campaigning, taking into account all the relevant rules and avoiding anything that might confuse a reasonable person as to whether it was a traffic control device.
Will be sure to run the next campaign material past David.
Nice message, but bad design of signs.
I want to add my thanks to David, Cameron Slater and Cathy Odgers for their valiant efforts to help ensure Kiwis are aware that Labour’s position on the sale of state assets changed in 1991. You guys, directly, through your influence on other blogs, including I regret The Standard, and most importantly the mainstream media have helped get the public up to date on our position.
More than that the $10 and $20 donation that are flooding in through http://labour.org.nz/stopsigns has meant that not only that we don’t have to choose between bumper stickers, buttons and billboards for the next phase of the campaign. We can do all three, print hundreds more signs and stick some cash in the bank for November.
The public now know we are on the side of the angels on this issue. Anyone who hasn’t or even has already and wants to do it again can donate still donate through the link above.
I never thought I would see the General Secretary smile when talking about money.
just because Cactus Kate promotes our signs doesn’t mean we have to promote Acts. Do it on your own site. Trevor.
Trev, and Grant, those in the VRWC have had a lot of fun with the signs reminding people of all the other things Labour stands for. I think the right were frightened that Labour with no money and demoralized were going to sleep walk to their biggest election loss ever. The VRWC want a fair, yet fun election battle and fight, and frankly Labour were proving they were incapable of taking it to the Nats. So they have given you a little encouragement. Hell at 27% you guys need all the help you can get. But be warned, any breaking of the law will result in such breach of the law will result in being immediately reported to the police. true it will be more publicity for you team, so I guess that will be appreciated by Labour .
have a relaxing Easter both of you, because you have a long six-month ahead.
For what we have received from your team on this issue Monty, we are truely thankful.
Grant, the critical test is not “avoiding anything that might confuse a reasonable person”, it is whether it complies with the law or not?
A point which needs clarifying please:
IF these signs and teh campaign is sanctioned by the Party, why isn’t there a disclaimer to that effect on the sign where it will be obvious to anyone who sees it, indicating that it IS a ‘Party action’. At the moment without that disclaimer,(and the taking of responsibility by the Party by making it), the signs have no relevance as ‘Labour’ could be the name of ANY organisation. having seen some ‘literal’ clowns waving these things around alongside a road I drive down, one has to wonder.
And isn’t the Disclaimer required by law anyway?
Just a thought
Read the regulations.
To be fair if you run Kiwiblog it’s probably hard to take the point of view of a “reasonable person”.
Donating more signs now…blanket the country with them!
3.2(5) A person must not install on a road, or in or on a place visible from a road, a sign, device or object that is not a traffic control device, but that:
(a) may be mistaken for a traffic control device
13.7 Responsibilities of all persons
A person must not:
(c) mark or install, or allow to be marked or installed, on a road, or in or on a place that is visible from a road, a sign, device or object that appears to be a traffic control device but is not;
Farragoblog of course didnt dream this up while travelling around the North Island.
The unit of the party HQ that plays dirty tricks, of which he was a founding member did all the work, hes merely the empty vessel.
Funny how the legal nicecities of a political campaign worry someone who has an arrest record for his political tricks
For those of us who prefer to send a cheque, can you provide an address please Trevor.
cheques made out to NZ Labour Party, and sent to Box 784 Wellington.
As I see it the problem with these signs is that at some point in the future you will probably need to use a “Letter of the Law” type argument.
Putting them in the central reservation of a road is just making a rod for your own back.
I have read teh regulations and this is a case of strict liability…there is no reasonableness test involved.
The regulations are clear both surrounding advertising (which this is) and also in electoral law. It is illegal to have a sign or device that resembles any road control device in shape or in colour or both.
There is a reason why signs have a distinctive shape, one is so that people approaching an intersection can tell what control is in effect on traffic at other approaches to an intersection, another si so dyslexic or colour blind people can recognise the control device in effect.
It is simply untenable for Labour to claim somehow that “reasonableness” applies. It doesn’t. Signs in the shape and colour of a road control device are forbidden, End. Of. Story.
You can spin it how you like but I’d suggest you guys get a legal opinion not that of someone who has spent a lifetime in parliament and before that was a school teacher.
Monty, you mean like Rodney’s yellow jacket stunt?
I think Rodney’s Yellow Jacket proved the point about the stupidity of Labour much hated Electoral Finance Act. What Labour have been factual accuracy required comment deleted. Trevor
Anne if you want to send a cheque I suggest
New Zealand Labour Party
Level 1, Fraser House
160-162 Willis St
PO Box 784
Wellington
Phone: +64 4 384 7649
Fax: +64 4 384 8060
Labour will be extremely grateful for all donations As above. Trevor
It’s not the “reasonable persons” that I worry about when I’m driving, Grant, it’s the idiots and careless inattentive drivers. Accident statistics suggest there’s quite a lot of them. On what basis do you assume that the level of inattentive idiots on our roads is low enough that you can dismiss the risk to lives for the sake of political gain?
Sorry to disagree. Farrar is without the skerrick of doubt a true pinko!
Monty, you are totally one-eyed. You must have been terribly unhappy for 9 years.
Santi- please enlighten us with you definition of a “true pinko”.
@whale the test is whether they can be confused for road signs. Yet to find anyone stupid enough to claim they have been confused in that way Maybe you could find a volunteer amongst your followers. They could file a complaint. Get enormous publicity. Complaint dismissed – probably less publicity.
Didn’t get lawyers opinion – yeah right.
Thanks again
Tracey – I do admit I have a bias to the politics of the right, but unlike those of the left I was far from unhappy during the Clark years. True, I did dislike the Government, but also during that time I made a very reasonable income, my houses went up in value massively more than any additional tax I paid, and I generally got on with Life. What I regret now is the damage that the Labour government did to the economy – damage that is proving very difficult to undo. Damage that is costing the country $300m per week.
But now the country has woken up to this, they are determined to Keep the Nats in Government for at least two more terms while Labour chase shadows.
From comments that are circulating, it would be more accurate to say the country is waking up: they are determined to Keep this Nat Government in exile.
Oh ok ok, Hawaii would be fine.
There is no test, the rule is categoric and emphatic:
3.2(5) A person must not install on a road, or in or on a place visible from a road, a sign, device or object that is not a traffic control device, but that:
(a) may be mistaken for a traffic control device
From the back these signs MAY easily be mistaken for a traffic control device.
Electoral law even more emphatic, specifically the Electoral (Advertisements of a Specified Kind) Regulations 2005, Reg 5:
“An advertisement of a specified kind may not be erected on any road or in any place visible from a road if the advertisement of a specified kind—
(a) is similar to or the same as any traffic sign in its shape and colour; and
(b) is liable to be mistaken for a traffic sign.”
Spin it all you want, these signs beach road regulations, local body regulations and probably also the Consumer Guarantees Act.
“@whale the test is whether they can be confused for road signs. ”
That’s not what the law that was passed in 2004 says.
Do you think anyone who wants to, party, individual, or business, should be able to put up Stop sign lookalikes anywhere they like for as long as they like on any median strip or roadside apart from at a certain height at intersections?
Maybe you could find a volunteer amongst your followers. They could file a complaint…
I’m sure they pay well – ask PeteG.
Thanks for info. Trevor. Cheque in mail today.
As member of the VRWC, I want to thank the individual responsible for this well thought out, well implemented campaign. Simply brilliant, please do carry on.
Trevor
Re: Read the regulations’
At your behest I have since done so and note with interest that Rule 2 of the ‘NZ Adverting Authority Code of Ethics’ specifies as follows:
‘Truthful Presentation : Advertisements should not contain any statement or visual presentation or create an overall impression which directly or by implication, omission or ambiguity or exaggerated claim is misleading or deceptive, is likely to deceive or mislead the consumer, makes false and misleading representation, abuses the trust of the consumer or exploits his/her experience or lack of knowledge (Obvious hyperbole identifiable as such is not considered to be misleading)’
On the basis of the above, it would seem that the signs being clearly and delibrately ‘a visual presentation’ in the form of a Traffic Road Sign’ could ‘mislead the consumer’ and could be considered, because of that shape, one that ‘makes false and misleading representation’, while ‘exploiting his/her inexperience or lack of knowledge’. On the basis of that rule, it would seem that what is being displayed may actually illegal.
and Rule 11:
Advocacy Advertising: Expression of opinion in Advocacy Advertising is an essential and desirable part of the functioning of a democratic society. Therefore such opinions must be robust. However, opinion should be clearly distinguishable from factual information. THE IDENTITY OF AN ADVERTISER IN MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST OR POLITCAL ISSUE SHOULD BE CLEAR’
As these are the actual regulations which govern advertising in New Zealand, and are legally binding on ALL advertisers, irrespective of the medium/media employed, I stand by my original enquiry and ask it again :
‘IF these signs and the campaign is sanctioned by the Party, why isn’t there a disclaimer to that effect on the sign where it will be obvious to anyone who sees it, indicating that it IS a ‘Party action’. At the moment without that disclaimer,(and the taking of responsibility by the Party by making it), the signs have no relevance as ‘Labour’ could be the name of ANY organisation. having seen some ‘literal’ clowns waving these things around alongside a road I drive down, one has to wonder.
And isn’t the Disclaimer required by law anyway?’
Since evidently a Disclaimer IS actually required by law, and teh party portrays itself as being one which operates within and conforms to the laws of this country, what is going to be done to ensure that this (required) disclaimer is attached to all and any signage which is involved within the campaign?
As this is a valid question I would appreciate a considered and reasoned reply to these concerns.
Thanks.
“Will be sure to run the next campaign material past David.” Yeah, rub his nose in it!
Montybear – Demorialised? Are you bleepin kidding me?
Whaleman – The difference is that most road signs aren’t held by what are obviously activists. Any dyslexic or colour blind person is going to look at the people and see that it’s not for traffice.
LOL
I love how Trev has made Monty’s comment into a donation plug 
L A B
U R 2 
1 1 !!!!!!!!
Yee haa!
!
1991?? How convenient to change your mind when you are not in government.
and only months after the privatisation of telecom.
@Me3
As this is a valid question I would appreciate a considered and reasoned reply to these concerns
These concerns? Pull the other one.
Hard to know what is more pathetic:
1) The attempted use of traffic regulations to close down a campaign, by the people who spent the EFA debate posturing and preening about the right to free speech and the need for groups to be able to campaign about issues that matter to them, or;
2) The ridiculous display of back patting now going on as they congratulate themselves for their unsuccessful anti-campaign http://asianinvasion2006.blogspot.com/2011/04/stop-bad-social-media-campaigns.html#links
I feel sorry for anybody who confuses the Labour’s Stop Asset Sales signs as a road sign, as they’ve clearly had their frontal lobes removed.
me3 for months leading to the election in nov 2008 National said it had policies…
@Michael – excellent points!
@Todd LOL
Can you guys add paypal as a method of payment. One of the things I like about this campaign is the opportunity for voters to focus on an issue. I am against asset sales but not necessarily giving my vote to Labour… So far they are the only party to stick their hand up on this issue
I have no idea how that works but undertake to ask tech people Tuesday Tracey. Trevor
@Tracey – yeah I remember those days.
yeah Spud, dont get much more misleading that claiming they had policies.
Perhaps anybody who actually happens to stop should have their license taken as they are obviously unfit to operate a motor vehicle.
@Tracey – ” me3 for months leading to the election in nov 2008 National said it had policies…” What are Labours policies then, oh thats right we have to “wait and see” apparently. I’m also hugely interested to see if Labour are going to fleece my paypacket to pay for them. GST off veges is a policy i remember (unfunded and unpriced) and the $5000 zero tax zone (unfunded and unpriced. This is tinkering at the edges and nothing more, what spending will they reduce to save this country? If Labour has policies that benefit the average person (myself and my family) why don’t they publicise them? Or is it the medias fault that we don’t hear about them?
You know Monty, Me3 wants to take political advertising to task for being misleading. In my view almost all of it is regardless of party.
It’s your fault you dont know Labour policies to date Monty. Annette King, David Cunliffe, Clare Curran to name a few have outlined policy. I’m still waiting for your post outlining NAT pre-election promises versus what has been implemented. Afterall national’s policies mustbe blindingly obvious, if they have actually implemented them. I have found ACT’s policies, mostly implemented, and even listed them on this site before. But I cannot do the same for national, it’s like trying to catch a fart.
You keep batting the ball back to Labour as though by default that measn National have a plan. You like to remind Labour of their mistakes (now nearly 3 years since they could influence the country) yet hold National to nothing other than their rhetoric.
national are fleecing your pay packet too Monty, but because it’s not Labour you are quite happy to hand your wallet over. I’m not. I almost wish this blog had been around for a decade so I could see you railing against National every election for saying black to Labour’s white and never actually announcing their policy until their pollsters said the time was right.
Sorry, Monty, last post was to Lou.
“unsuccessful anti-campaign”
So Michael in between campaigning this weekend against penis lollies, how many signs will you erect on a roadside or stand in traffic waving?
Answer – none
Your campaign is effectively over and you now have to go think of another way to spread the asset sales message.
I think Darien’s post should have been moderated.
OFFENSIVE. DELETED.
“cheques made out to NZ Labour Party, and sent to Box 784 Wellington”
You’ve convinced me, I’ll post off a cheque this Tuesday.
Michael Wood – great comment!
Me3,
Are you sure the NZAA Code of Ethics are legally binding on all advertisers? If so, who is the prosecuting authority?
Curious minds and all…
As someone who has commented on this issue elsewhere, I thought I’d chip in my 2 cents worth on the legal niceties of all this …
(1) The question of authorisation was a misdirect by me, based on low-resolution photos of the signs. I’ve retracted and apologised over at Pundit.
(2) The Electoral (Advertisements of a Specified Kind) Regulations 2005, Reg 5 (raised by Cameron Slater above) isn’t directly relevant … this only applies in the 2 months prior to an election. What it does show, however, is that even during the height of election season political expression has to play second fiddle to road safety issues.
(3) The question of using these signs around roadways is not simply “would a ‘reasonable person’ really think it is a stop sign?” There’s also an importance in keeping the shape/colour of road signs “pure”, in that when people see a red octagon on the roadside they aren’t having to conciously think “is that really a stop sign, or just someone using the shape and colour for a different purpose?” Instead, you want an instinctive reaction … red octagon, must stop”. So the rule may be over-protective, in that it stops some signs that most people wouldn’t really think are proper stop signs so as to ensure the distinctive nature of such signs remains.
Some thoughts, anyway.
Grant,
You missed out the fact that David Farrar is also paid by that epitome of the pinko liberal left … Family First.
“Perhaps anybody who actually happens to stop should have their license taken as they are obviously unfit to operate a motor vehicle.”
But well qualified to be one of Labours 27% and silly enough to think state run liabilities are assets to any taxpayer…
“You missed out the fact that David Farrar is also paid by that epitome of the pinko liberal left … Family First.”
You have proof of That Anita? I’d be very suprised if that was true considering David’s a pro-abortion,atheistic classic liberal.