Talk:2005 New Zealand election funding controversy

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2005 New Zealand election funding controversy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

2005 New Zealand election funding controversy was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 27, 2010	Good article nominee	Not listed

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

New Zealand: Politics Mid‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the New Zealand politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

2005 New Zealand election funding controversy was the New Zealand collaboration from 11 September, to 12 October 2006. For details on how the article improved, see the NZC history

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Bias?[edit]

It appears to me this article is currently heavily biased against Labour and also doesn't explain the issues very well. It makes no mention of National's accidental overspending on TV advertising (and their controversial attempts to legitimise payments). The Exclusive Brethen issue is also not mentioned at all (even though it wasn't illlegal, it has been a part of controversy). The Don Brash article does mention the Exclusive Brethen issue in some detail and perhaps we cane copy it from there but it misses some points. For example, it mentions union advertising in support of Labour however it fails to mention, as was raised in the Herald recently that the union advertising was counted as part of Labour election spending, whereas the EB spending as it was not in direct support of National (even if that was obviously who it intended to support) did not count towards their spending (and the evidence suggests EB ask National for help to make sure it would not). Even Winston Peters vs. Bob Clarkson surely merits some mention here... Also, I think we need to address the issue of previous elections in greater detail since it's apparently Labour allegation that there is no real difference between their use of funds this time and their, National's and other parties use of funds in previous year (other then the fact that National didn't do it this time around so they are able to make a fuss which they couldn't previously). Indeed it doesn't even mention National's paying back of the $10k they 'misspent'. Finally, while the article does briefly mention the other parties , it doesn't really make it clear enough IMHO that the other parties appear to support Labours side and/or have largely done the same thing. Nil Einne 06:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Nil Einne. This article is currently the New Zealand Collaboration of the Fortnight. You are encouraged to expand the article (as it is quite new) to include everything you mentioned. This would make the article no longer biased. Cheers. --Roue2 07:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Roue2 says, the article needs to be expanded. If you could make a start at addressing these issues, that would be great.-gadfium 08:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources[edit]

This article needs more referencing, especially for figures and who said what and when. Given the complexity of the issue, primary sources like press statements would be better than secondary reporting, which people from all sides have accused of missing the point in one way or another. Something like this: "in response to the Auditor General's report, Party X announced y (cite press release/hansard/news report). According to figures released in x report, party y spent this amount (cite report). Things like the Electoral Commission's data and the Auditor's report should be referenced here. --Tirana 04:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subheadings[edit]

Suggest breaking it down by the type of funding controversy rather than the party responsible - so Use of Parliamentary Funding, Exceeding Spending Limits, "Third Party" campaigning, Sleaze Allegations, Conditional Donations etc. That approach seems to be more informative and less likely to turn into an inter-party POV-fest.--Tirana 04:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Completely OT[edit]

But does anyone know what happens with the $5 the Maori Party overpaid? Can they ask for it back? Nil Einne 18:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

$the money they paid includes GST, the $48 figure excludes GST. I think. --Midnighttonight remind to go do uni work! 19:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National party advertising[edit]

Is the paragraph on a National billboard about beaches relevant to this article? How National funding their advertising is certainly relevant, but the content of the ads might be better dealt with at New_Zealand_general_election,_2005#Controversies.-gadfium 04:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This section on the advertising refereeing to the “Beeches-Kiwi-Iwi” billboard is certainly relevant on two counts.

First, a section on “sleaze” exists on this page presumably because of the name calling and malevolent accusations resulting from the election spending controversies. In many people’s opinion this billboards count as "sleaze" at best and legal libel at worst - given the amount of people that wrote into the Advertising Standards Authority on this billboard.

Second, a great deal of money was clearly spent on these (perhaps hundreds of) billboards that were up well before the “official “election occurred. So far no one in the NZ media has tackled this issue.

Although the trust funds that reportedly filled Nationals coffers to pay for these billboards were “legal”, I am personally not clear on the legality of such electioneering before the official start of the election. However, I do know that they were libellous- if one accepts the legal definition of the word “libel”, “a false and malicious published statement that damages somebody’s reputation”. National the party of the right (of translational and local corporations, social conservatism, business and the large landholding farming community) presumably had greater access to significant private money than the centre left Labour or the Greens.

The “Beeches-Kiw-Iwi” billboard (as were many other billboards) was inaccurate, false and malicious in any sense of the definition as explained in the article. It also was racist to an extent that would have put George Bush to shame. However the Broadcast Standards Authority chair disagreed. He, like Auditor General is appointed and has final say. In my opinion, and the opinion of many of the complainants his logic was Kafkaesque at best. He, a corporate lawyer, may well have had an agenda. Nobody knows, and NZ’s corporate media will not investigate.

Labour may have overspent according to the narrow definition of the Auditor General (who had no qualms about the same spending in the previous election), but their pledge card unlike National’s billboards and the Exclusive Brethren pamphlets did not contain “false and malicious published statements”.

Don Brash originally lied about his meeting with the Exclusive Brethren. Later when cornered, he admitted to a meeting with the sect about the pamphlets. He denied that he knew the content. No one knows what was actually said in this meeting since no minutes exist, but Brash’ credibility was damaged by the original lie.

The Exclusive Brethren pamphlets were even more outrageously false and malicious than the billboards and may well have cost the Greens enough seats to govern with Labour. Ron Daniels co-leader of the Greens died suddenly, according to the opinion of doctors, of an exceedingly rare heart disease soon after this controversy began, perhaps due to the stress of this audacious smear tactic. He was livid.

BTW, I also think a new topic should be begun on bias in the New Zealand media. After more than 20 years at observing media bias, I have rarely seen such smear tactics than that which the media has waged on Labour. (I did not vote for them.)

Bunkley 22:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a section on sleaze, but that is entirely on the fallout from this spending controversy. The National billboards were part of their election campaign, and were not in my opinion any nastier than election campaigns normally get in New Zealand. I believe the content of the National billboards should be covered at the New Zealand general election, 2005 article, not here. The content of the Exclusive Brethren pamphlets is somewhat more relevant here since they have been a focus of the Labour Party counter-attack when Labour was challenged about the validity of its spending. Still, this article has not gone into detail on the content of those pamphlets either.-gadfium 05:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Gadfium - this article is on the spending controversy around the election, not New Zealand politics in general, and it's not the place to add opinions about media bias, which to me seem more like original research than something we can cite here. It's still got huge amounts of POV and is sorely lacking in references. I know this is a contentious subject and is currently sending politicians into new levels of hyperbole, but this is an encyclopedia and should stick to the verifiable. --Tirana 20:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- The billboards certainly were controversial, and part of the spending controversy around the election, though the media played it down. They were sleazier than any campaign I have seen in 30 years of observing elections...and they were false and malicious in any definition of the words.

The supposed “opinions” cited above are backed by ample references. Why on earth would the lies present in the EB pamphlet be construed as “opinion”. One merely has to look at the written stated policy and look at what the EB wrote and see clear discrepancies inflammatory and malicious language sued to defame a political party. If a pamphlet appeared by some rogue union in most everyone’s mailbox preceding the election stating that The National Parry has policies reminiscent of the Nazi Party and planned to install US nuclear weapons on NZ soil, do really believe that the media would be as complacent?

The bias of the media is "provable "- e.g. see media expert Thompson on Scoop in yet another related smear tactic by NZ’s media’s mantra on “our high taxes” (in the world's third lowest taxed Nation - a fact cleverly omitted by NZ’s corporate media)...Or you might look at the essay by Robert McChesney media professor at the University of Illinois Champaign-Urbana who stated accurately that "In short, the rulers of New Zealand's media system could squeeze into a closet."http://www.thenation.com/doc/19991129/mcchesney/3 )

Indeed Clarke is right about the media floating rumours as fact. For instance Stuff recently came out with an article that stated as fact alleged “bribe” with the Maori Party to join a coalition with Labour. "The offer was made through a third party, and a legal expert said today the police should investigate because, in his opinion, it clearly fell within the Crimes Act definition of bribery and corruption….The offer was revealed as political parties remain embroiled in an election spending row” after several weeks of investigation it became clear that NO such action took place. This was yet another bit of libel by a “reputable” news organization against Labour.

Chris Trotter wrote in 20-Oct-06 Dominion Post that “The auditor general's office and the news media had both become important adjuncts to the Opposition's campaign to destroy Labour's political reputation.” (However he also pointed to numerous “cock-ups” by Labour...and failed to mention them seemingly in an effort to also destroy Labour's political reputation!)

As I admitted, the empirically acknowledged gross bias of NZ’s media does need a separate entry, and is noted only when relevant on this article. Bunkley 03:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not about the content of the National Party advertising. It isn't relevant here. Nor is it about media bias. You don't need to persuade us that the advertising was or wasn't effective, or ethical, or how many telephone boxes the media heads can squeeze into. You are asked to explain why it is relevant to an article on funding of the election campaign, and so far I don't believe you've said much more than the advertising must have been expensive.-gadfium 04:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh...It is relevant because this is an article on the election funding. The billboards were well funded by National. Nobody knows where the significant amount of money National spent on this advertising came from. No other party came close to the amount of advertising National paid for. Many of their Adverts (especially their billboards) were controversial, unethical (sleazy), and in the opinion of many, illegally libellous (albeit not tested in court). That this did not receive much media attention is a testimony to the bias of the corporate media, not the empirical facts. Bunkley 19:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the paragraph about the content of a billboard. The para about the funding, I've left. Please try to find a citation for that para as requested.-gadfium 20:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will find the articles as soon as my teaching quiets down –perhaps this weekend. In the mean time one can ponder how much a many dozens, perhaps hundreds of billboards might cost for a few months in the major centres. Significant - one might reasonable assume.Bunkley 08:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bunkley - the article is about the funding controversy, not about whether the adverts were negative, unethical etc. The information is more relevant to the 2005 election page. However, also remember WP:NPOV. --Midnighttonight remind to go do uni work! 20:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The adverts were not only unethical but libellous in the opinion of many...and yes this is an opinion based on the definition of libel...that is “a false and malicious published statement that damages somebody’s reputation”.

Now this may considered normal politics to you - but not for many people. Also a category of sleaze exists...perhaps this should go in this section? As far as WP:NPOVis considered...well you tell me what is "neutral". Were the media and the auditor-general “neutral”? Without their actions, this discussion would not take place and the article would not exist. I think that the facts tell that they were not. Bunkley 08:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, then there's verifiable material you can cite in support of your argument, rather than relying on original research. It doesn't matter if everyone on the planet agrees with your argument, if you can't verify it or cite it, it doesn't belong here. If you want to argue that Poster X is libellous, you'll pretty much need to cite a legal opinion or judgement, or say that Politician Y described the poster as libellous. Our own opinions, no matter how widely shared, are insufficient. This article, unfortunately, is not a very good example of how these principles should operate. --Tirana 00:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I described the billboard as controversial in an article on controversy in spending on the 2005 election ...not libel. What was said: that the billboard caused "a mild furore", and “generated a significant amount of complaints on the basis of race baiting” is all true. I can scan and post a letter from the ASA, if you need more evidence. The libel suggestion, you are right; it should be left out until evidence is secured. Fair enough - asking for the evidence. As mentioned I will come back with some sources, then will you agree?

While we are at it, I think it is reasonable to find a source for the phrase (that is stated as fact): “despite three warnings since 2003 that such spending would be illegal” in the “labour section. No cites were provided. The only reference I could find to this allegation (at Google, the Herald, or Scoop) was a right wing blog, Kiwi Blog – hardly a reputable source. It may be true, or it may be a yet another sleazey smear tactic, but please we need some evidence.

What was taken out - beacuse "It doesn't matter if everyone on the planet agrees with your argument": "One billboard in particular caused a mild furor. On this billboard, the word “Beaches” adjacent to the word "Iwi” was placed over a presumably enhanced picture of a frenzied Helen Clarke, next to the word “Kiwi” next to a smiling Don Brash. (http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/images/Iwi%20Kiwi%20Billboard.JPG) The implication, in playing the race card, was that Labour (supposedly in the pockets of Maori) would give New Zealand beaches to them in Foreshore and Seabed legislation, an absurd and irrational assumption since the Maori party which formed to protest Labour’s Foreshore and Seabed legislation has sided with National more than Labour. This billboard generated a significant amount of complaints on the basis of race baiting and libel to the Advertising Standards Authority – all rejected by the Chair, a corporate lawyer.

Bunkley 07:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your point about "despite three warnings", and I'm sorely tempted to go on a rampage with {{Fact}} tags to highlight that and a number of other offenders. The stuff about the ASA etc - "frenzied", "playing the race card", "in the pockets", "absurd", and "irrational" are POV and contain too much analysis, or original research. Leave it to noting the complaints to the ASA (and I think also the Human Rights Commission), the response, leave out the fact that the Chair's a corporate lawyer, and stick it in New_Zealand_general_election,_2005#Controversies. This article's about funding, not tactics. --Tirana 08:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, this article is about the funding controversy (controversies). However tactics which include “sleaze” (presumably unethical) tactics are clearly a party of the controversy and rightly included.

The complaints about the billboards to the ASA were numerous and well documented by the ASA. Their letters as a source should not be considered as original research original researchin my opinion. Indeed such a source is far more accurate than much on this site which are simply internet links. On review, however I do agree that the wording is inflammatory and should have been toned down and/or omitted. "Seemingly playing the race card" was the first and most popular complaint of many made towards the ASA regarding the billboard in question as dcoumented by their letters. The fact that the Chair is an appointed corporate lawyer might indicate his predisposition and what many believed was bias towards National. It is important for people to know the background of the person who decides such a politically sensitive case, but perhaps it is also equally important to keep that under warps to avoid controversy.

That said I will leave this alone until we can find more –perhaps for the alternative article.

Otherwise the latest editing job on this article is fantastic - and much needed! Thank you. Bunkley 22:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can't call someone biased solely because of their previous job. Offices like that, it's assumed that people are capable of carrying out their job according to the law, regardless of their personal political views. And there's no evidence whatsoever that this guy's personal political views lie in any particular direction. "Might indicate" isn't good enough. It's just as invalid as the argument run by the anti film festival people that because the Chief Censor is gay, he can't do his job fairly. --Tirana 03:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right, one is generally not considered biased solely because of their previous job...for the most part… But say, if one were previously a National supporter and were originally appointed by National, then s/he could be construed as interpreting the “law” according to his/her own personal bias.

As we know bias in legal systems happens all the time. For example, as we saw in the 2000 USA election, it was the Supreme Court who ultimately decided the election. A majority of the judges were appointed by Republicans, and two had direct conflicts of interest with the Bush family. Many legal minds considered the election stolen. See: (“…THAT THIS ELECTION WAS STOLEN UNDER COLOR OF LAW?” http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010101&s=schwartz)

In my opinion the ASA chair’s judgement was highly biased towards National… because it was irrational. This billboard was at least as racist as the infamous Willie Horton ad that the Bush (1) campaign put forth in the USA in 1988. It was not only racist, but was inaccurate, false and malicious. However, in the opinion of others (the National Party supporters) it was not; they said the billboard in question was too vague to be prejudicial (though this was not the argument of the ASA chair). Bunkley 06:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Debate in Parliament[edit]

Anyone else listening to it? Wow, major debate. Nasty. Up to the Committee stage. --Midnighttonight remind to go do uni work! 21:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Hansard might be a useful source when it's written up. --Tirana 01:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More ideas for improvements[edit]

I've had a go but didn't get quite as far as I would have liked before the brain shut down and the refs kept breaking - I think the article needs more about where the Solicitor General's report came into things, National's response to the spending findings (such as when they started using the "corruption" term - Kiwiblog used it the same day as either Brash or Brownlee on National radio, I think), points of view from the minor parties - Peters' lawsuit, Rodney Hide's interview with Keith Ng. Then the whole thing segues into the personal allegations, the role of funding in Brash's leadership bid ("No Brash, no cash" must be citable somewhere, I've read it in papers often enough). There's a few polls out now that can be cited as evidence of the impact the whole thing has had on support, and now the Parliamentary Services Commission is meeting to discuss interim spending rules. --Tirana 20:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Scandals" attributed to Labour have appeared nearly every day almost like clockwork in the media that might have effected support. As mentioned in the sleaze section most were either unsubstantiated - or they were absurdly petty, with the possible exception of the alleged quid pro quo hiring of cheap labour by Phillip Field.

The Colmar Brunton One's last poll showed National racing ahead of Labour (as usual with Colmar Brunton One). However, two other polls, UMR and Roy Morgan, showed Labour and National neck to neck with Labour gaining points. http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2006/4095/. Most of National's support appears to have come out of Act, NZ First and United, not Labour or the Greens.

According to the Listener, "new research” from UCLA showed that the Colmar Brunton One polls showed a “level of National support for each of the 26 polling months after the election, with the difference once reaching as high as 9.5%." The Colmar Brunton One polls were much farther off than any other polls in the last two National elections – always in favour of National. Bunkley 07:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Trotter op ed[edit]

I think there's a place in this article for citing opinions expressed by commentators and the like (as opposed to inserting our own), whether or not they're neutral. If someone wants to add a bit from Matthew Hooton or someone to balance it out, that's good too. Something that's clearly marked as opinion shouldn't be deleted. I've added blockquotes to clarify that the paragraphs attributed to Chris Trotter are separate from the article itself. I'm assuming it is accurate and not a paraphrase, because I can't find a URL to support it.--Tirana 20:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a colon to show that the following paragraph was a quote, and made it clear that he was a left wing commentator, rather than an impartial observer. I also added a response. I don't believe either are really appropriate. Trotters especially doesn't actually say anything substantive, its just an opinionated rant. I have serious doubts about its encyclopaedic value. Ham21 07:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ham21. Trotter's opinion adds nothing to the article.-gadfium 07:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's good to have the full range of responses to the issue, even if they're clumsy. The "Rex" piece on [Public Address is more cogently argued than Trotter - it seems to make the same point and at least it's possible to cite it with an URL, but I don't think an anonymous writer on the internet is as good a source as a published journalist. Not sure if the response quote Ham included is on point - Chris Trotter isn't a representative of a political party. Perhaps we could take them all out for now until a clear cogent description of the range of responses to the issue can be written. --Tirana 08:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All this rant about “opinion” is absurd. We are not talking about provable axioms, but the colour of the law. Indeed it is fair to say that the Auditor-General only had an “opinion”; he allowed similar (supposed) over spending in previous elections. In fact many respected legal “opinions” in NZ thought that he was wrong. Some believe that he was fighting National’s battle, with the end result of the much sought after tax cuts for the top 11%. We do need a range of views, and I believe that all sorts of counter examples and counter opinions from reputable sources are necessary to help flesh out this complex and controversial event.

I removed “left-wing”. Please can someone tell me who is an “impartial observer”? Such a being does not exist, which is why all points of views are necessary. I agree, a whole range of responses are necessary. I personally do not see much evidence that Trotter as an op ed reporter for the Dominion Post as “left wing” simply because they choose to call the article “From the Left”. I believe that it is far more convincing that most NZ reporters have a right wing bias – and the Dominion Post might as well have a banner “from the right”, but his may be explained in a future article. Trotter does, however, have an educated alternative point of view and is as reliable as any of the sources quoted in this article. If we take Trotter out, then I believe that we should question the Herald sources (and indeed this whole article).Bunkley 07:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bunkley, Chris Trotter writes for a number of publications, not just the Dom Post (most of what I've found of his is in the Sunday Star Times). Whether or not you think he's left wing, he describes himself as such, which we should take as read. Jim Evans, however, does not describe himself as anything other than a Professor of Law - he's got a legal view that may or may not be coloured by politics, and whether or not you or others believe this, is irrelevant until it's citable. Given WP:Cite, this article is only ever going to be as good as its sources - we can't improve on it by adding our own original ideas. Leave it until a New Zealand Noam Chomsky appears, and cite that. --Tirana 09:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see you got there with the "right-wing" already. Ignore that part of the above rant. --Tirana 09:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tirana, I know that Chris Trotter writes for a number of publications. To the best if my knowledge he has not described himself as “left wing” (I have corresponded with him), though the DP describes his articles as “left” – which it is only in comparison to their business orientated right winged slant. (I can provide many glaring examples from “citable sources” to prove these assertion, but this is not the forum to do such. E.g. is Trotter is so “left”, why has he sided with National so often, as in the post felling of the statue of Saddam in the Iraq war…etc.)

All legal views are coloured by politics when the evidence contradictory and murky at best, and the end result has obvious political implications. It is clear that this ruling is such a case (as is the opinion of the purported retired law professor …”sourced” from an entry to a blog! BTW, his personal political opinion may easily be sourced).

If so many people disagree with the Auditor-General - and even he disagreed with his earlier opinions on spending predating the National inspired media feeding frenzy, then this controversy needs multiple opinions since it is clear that the legal opinions are far from definitive. This is the reason that all sensible alternative opinions are essential for this article including those by the respected political analyst Chris Trotter.Bunkley 19:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Third party campaigning[edit]

I think this whole section needs a bit of NPOVing, for example:

Soon after, it was revealed that members of the Exclusive Brethren Church had funded the pamphlet and members of the church had distributed them to most mailboxes in the country preceding the election including, it was alleged, after the legal deadline on election night. The National party and its leader Don Brash initially denied knowing about the pamphlets, but Brash later admitted that he had met with the Brethren four times where they discussed the pamphlet. Brash said that he had no control over the content of the pamphlets.

Saying stuff was "revealed" is bit melodramatic (I've been pinged for this phrase myself) I edited out the 2nd "reveal", but I'd like a fact check on this section. I've also changed Hagar's "document" to "claims" -as that's what the cite stated, and Hagar has been criticized from both sides for using anon sources and disputed claims, as in corngate and this book. << armon >> 01:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, did he he admit that he discussed the pamphlet specifically, or that he met them discussing the campaign in general? That may also be incorrect. << armon >> 01:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-I (and others) will soon re-edit with many of Hager’s findings and "claims" which color this scandal quite differently. (In --fact the Auditor-General merely "claimed” that the parties overspent. His evidence is as reliable as Hager’s who sources were within the National party as well as the major media.)210.55.124.16 08:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but that's a lot of crap. The Auditor-General holds a public office for which he is to "audit" matters of public record. Hagar has stolen emails (which we have no way of knowing haven't been altered, or even read by the recipient) and "anonymous sources" (which may or may not exist) with which he's drawn his inferences. Hagar may be right, he may be wrong, but his "claims" are nothing like the same level of "reliability" as those of the AG. <<-armon->> 21:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The revisions made were NOT “crap”.

....Sorry, but much of what Hager wrote is a serious and reputable study by one of the country’s best journalists. It is verifiable and newsworthy, and worthy of the encyclopedia –in fact more worthy than 50% of the pro National rubbish on this site. The emails in fact have been verified. Other verifiable media sources have also been included (such as Brash’s series of lies in his knowledge of the EB leaflets. This book indeed likely caused don Brash to step down, as stated in the Star Times.

Simply because it has been so devastating to National, it appears that National foot soldiers are deleting what is now in the public record, for their own deceitful propaganda purposes. THIS STAYS (albeit the revisions could, and will use some editing). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.11.118 (talk • contribs • WHOIS) 09:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

>Sarah Basse 04:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)I do think that what many considered the disgraceful (and controversial) billboard campaign should be cited. I had copied an earlier entry. It may be edited, but I believe that as a whole it should remain intact.[reply]

Sarah Basse 05:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)I am unclear why the Hager and Star Times sources and quotes keep getting deleted. They are certainly as valid as other sources in this article.[reply]

Sarah Basse 05:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)IThey were deleted again. Why?[reply]

mykuhl The Hager quote is gramatically incorrect, and doesn't add anything. I'm not sure why it is there, except to try and score points. In context it is nonsensical. I am going to attempt to clean it up, but it doesn't fit well. —Preceding comment was added at 03:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Billboards[edit]

What does the content of the billboards have to do with the election funding controversy? The billboards were a part of the 2005 election campaign, and I've seen no reference to them (apart from here) since. Please do not add that paragraph again to this article without coming to a consensus on the talk page. It might be appropriate to add the paragraph to New Zealand general election, 2005#controversies, but you would have to clean it up considerably.-gadfium 04:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we had been over this before. All the discussion before 30 October was wiped from the article on 1 November. I've restored it. See the section #National party advertising above.-gadfium 04:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Basse 05:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)First NOTHING on this page has been reached by consensus.[reply]

Second "we" have not been over this before.

The billboards were a part of the 2005 election campaign. They were controversial and remain as controversial as spending, sleaze and other elements of the election that are on the page. The quotes/sources are at least as “reputable’ as others provided on this page.

Why are you trying to obstruct this element of the election controversy?

Exactly. They were part of the 2005 election campaign. They are not part of the spending controversy.-gadfium 08:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

\ Sarah Basse 10:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)They are as much about the controversy –or more correctly, controversies - as ANY of the election material in this article. All refer to the election in 2005, gadfium. Gadfium it is clear that you are trying to obstruct the truth. There may be legal implications.[reply]

I am not trying to obscure the truth. I suggest you read our policy pages on no personal attacks and no legal threats before you continue.-gadfium 22:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the billboards don't really have any merit in this article. Also we should mention Prebble's reply. Yes I agree, it's clear he's trying to confuse the issue and there is a clear difference between what the EB did and union funding. However instead of removing it, what we should do is include a response from a reliable source. I know the difference between the union funding and EB has been discussed previous to the latest flare-up, hopefully it has also been discussed somewhere relation to the latest flare-up. Nil Einne 15:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be deleted since it is clearly a red herring (illogical politicking) until a response is available online. Responses do exist, but unfortunately I do not have the sources at the moment. Sarah’s argument makes sense to me.

I also feel that the billboard controversy was certainly an election controversy (though not “the” controversy in a narrow sense as defined by gadfium) with an entire chapter (including many documented sources) revealed in Hager’s new book. Dr. James Southerland 03:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and there's the section on New Zealand general election, 2005#controversies which it could fit into, unless it's about how the billboards were funded. It may be when the whole mess settles down a bit that we need a different way to show how the various controversies blur together and separate, but at this stage, there does seem to be a discrete issue over how the election was funded, on all sides, which is separate from what parties said and did in the campaign. The sleaze thing is borderline, but since it exploded in amongst the parliamentary debate about spending, well after the campaign itself, it's better here than anywhere else.

I'm pretty sure Hager quotes Susan Wood interviewing Don Brash on EB vs union funding, and makes the point that union funding is open, if anyone wants a citation to that point. --Tirana 08:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polls[edit]

I took out–the One poll by the National hit squad on this article. "New research by UCLA PhD student Rob Salmond has compared the first 26 monthly polls run by Colmar Brunton since the 2002 elections, with the 14 done over the same period by TNS on behalf of TV3 and the 28 by UMR Research on behalf of the National Business Review. Salmond found the Colmar Brunton poll "provides consistently and significantly higher estimates of the National Party's support than either of the other two polls". Comparisons showed the Colmar Brunton poll had estimated the highest or equal-highest level of National support for each of the 26 polling months after the election, with the difference once reaching as high as 9.5%." http://www.nzlistener.co.nz/default,3770.sm

The One Brunton poll is not reliable. They have been consistently off.

Other polls at the same time showed Labour and National neck and neck. http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2006/4095/ A TV 3 poll (TV3 was far closer than the One poll during the last elections) around the same time showed Labour ahead 4 November 2006. Labour’s rating has remained within 2 points consistently. BTW is appears that the Greens have taken up the slack with 7-8.5% which with the other minor parties polling below 5%, would allow them to govern with Labour.Sarah Basse 10:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is merit to remove the polls. Rather we should report the claimed inconsistency. This might be best under the 2005 Election article. Alternatively it may merit a seperate article. Nil Einne 15:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case all polls should be used, not one that has been proven to be highly inaccurate - and biased towards National. This bias should also be explained if using this poll as well...unless you are intent on propaganda.Sarah Basse 20:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC) Until then, it will remained ommitted.[reply]

Sarah, please also read assume good faith. Accusing other editors of being intent on propaganda, or foot soldiers for the National Party, is not acceptable. There are many editors who have reverted your edits or disagreed with you or Bunkley on this talk page. Many of them are long-standing Wikipedia editors, and all are committed to the principles of the Wikipedia Neutral point of view.-gadfium 22:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah is blocked for 24 hours. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting how Sarah's and Bunkley's well documented - and sourced additions have all been deleted. Why?

Not all the writing was deleted...just most. The Hager book which according to many media sources (e.g. Star Times) caused the leader of National to resign should be big news. Instead most of Sarah’s additions on Hager’s book have been deleted including documented references to John Key and new information that has been revealed about the Kiwi/Iwi signs.

Why are these deleted if not partisan bias?

What is to prevent a “war” of deletion between Sarah and gadfium (whose arguments are groundless in my opinion?

All presented National in a less than satisfactory light.

The "many editors" have still not provided a satisfactory answer. -- Unsigned comment by User 203.211.74.244

Not all the writing was deleted...just most. The Hager book which according to many media sources (e.g. Star Times) caused the leader of National to resign should be big news. Instead most of Sarah’s additions on Hager’s book have been deleted including documented references to John Key and new information that has been revealed about the Kiwi/Iwi signs.

Why are these deleted if not partisan bias?

What is to prevent a “war” of deletion between Sarah and gadfium (whose arguments are groundless in my opinion? Dr. James Southerland 03:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the one poll the only one cited? It is absolutely true that Their polls have been grossly in favour of National according to the Listener link as well as a simple survey of past election polls. Two other polls showed Labour and National at 40% each. A poll a week later showed Labour ahead. This selective use of (badly sourced) information is most certainly partisan and not neutral. Dr. James Southerland 04:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between Exclusive Brethren leaflets and Union advertising[edit]

Bunkley 02:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC) Vital differences exist between union funding and the Exclusive Brethren leaflets.[reply]

One, the unions did not accuse National with over 10 documented lies; they did not accuse National’s policies of being reminiscent of Nazi policies or that they were arming NZ with nuclear weapons. Really, can you for a second imagine the outcry if they had? The analogy holds.

Second, the unions disclosed who were funding the advertisements. The Exclusive Brethren hid their sponsorship from the public. They also hid their politcal affiliations with National.

Third, section 221 of the Electoral Act requires that such advertising must be approved by the party secretary. The union adverts were. The EB/National pamphlets were not.

I agree. I am starting a new heading and deleting the quote for now. I copyied and edited Sarrah's response. I hope this is OK? (though I would like to hear other opinions, please.) Simply because a politician can be quoted in a lie does not mean that his opinion should put on the encyclopaedia as “fact”. In addition new revelations in the Hager book easily debunk equivalency between union advertising and the EB.210.55.123.150 19:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)210.55.123.150 19:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Bunkley 19:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the Greens' http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0611/S00520.htm request deleted? 210.55.123.150 19:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Bunkley 19:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An NPOV, verifiable way of addressing the EB vs Union funding would be to say that "when questioned on the pamphlets, Don Brash compared it to union-funded advertising supporting Labour. Interviewer Susan Wood responded that such funding was open, approved by the Party Secretary and counted within Labour's spending limit, whereas the EB funding was not,"(presuming that's accurate) and use the same cite that Nicky Hager does. Whether or not either is a "lie", it's verifiable fact that that discussion occurred. Then you can leave the reader to decide for him or herself. --Tirana 08:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it would be a way of presenting POV in an ostensibly NPOV manner anyway. <<-armon->> 11:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This quote is a compromise, but let's put it in. Do you have a source?

I added the statement below (since some center left voters seem to have switched to the Greens) – and few commentators mention this fact that the centrist and right wing minor parties are all mostly well below the 5% mark in most polls http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/14047 and http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2006/4095/Bunkley 02:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

..."which explains why he (Brash) didn't know who produced the pamphlets". According to Hager, he did know. I took this out since it is speculation.Bunkley 02:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a quote, it's my own muddled recollections from a bit somewhere in the middle of The Hollow Men. Rather than digging that up and citing it properly, I think in hindsight it's better to let the main actors speak for themselves. That whole 3rd party section was full of repetition, meandering and redundancy, so I've tried to trim it to a more coherent story - pamphlets appeared, this is what they looked like, this is who funded them, this is how people responded, these are the political implications, and this is the backstory for them. --Tirana 03:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks...good editing jobBunkley 22:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hollow Men[edit]

I found this article , which appears fairly 'neutral'...and illuminating. http://www.listener.co.nz/issue/3475/features/7721/seeds_of_unease.html;jsessionid=02579B6827FEE2C70E18675D1302327F

Also Hager's book discusses many issues including billboards and 'legal' spending that might be mentioned? Bunkley 22:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Third party campaigning" section[edit]

The first two paragraphs of this section really need their grammar detangling. I made a start but realised that—not knowing any of the details of this topic—I was in too much danger of changing the meaning. almost-instinct 23:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:2005 New Zealand election funding controversy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nikki♥311 20:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to inform the editors of this article that I am failing it due to the presence of cleanup and expansion banners. However, I am going to include a list of suggestions to help improve the article:

Per WP:LEAD, the lead for this article should be approximately three paragraphs that summarize all the main points of the article.
File:PledgeCard.jpg needs a non-free use rationale for this article.
"Darnton's lawsuit" needs to be updated and the tag removed.
Citation needed tags need to be addressed.
"Overhaul of election funding laws" needs to be expanded and the tag removed.

The article can be renominated at a later date. Thanks and good luck. Nikki♥311 20:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]