Back when I blogged at Sir Humphrey's, I had a look at the EB's brochure and investigated the points they made. Some of my material was lost (long story), but I'll work over the next few days to post here whatever I can find. For the record.
[Largely from Sir Humphrey's - 10 September 2005, with minor updates]
The Exclusive Brethren (EB) exercised their democratic right to print political brochures. Unfortunately, they bucked the trend and rather than blasting National Policy, they came out with a brochure criticising the Greens. They made 15 points, and provided an assessment of the environmental impact the Greens have had on our Flora and Fauna in the wake of a Labour-Led government.
The Greens were quick to brand the brochure as a "campaign of lies". Jeanette Fitzsimons, Greens Co-Leader also referred to the brochure as 50% outright lies and 50% gross exaggerations. Other pro-Green commenters and main stream media seemed to accept that this "cult" had lied, and I had seen nothing from our investigative reporters spelling out the content of the EB Brochure. I had a look for myself, to see if what they had said were indeed "all lies".
My findings were that 15 of the 16 points were absolutely fair comment to make with regard to the Green policy. Points 4,5, and 8 were debatable as to the exact numbers and costs, but that is standard fare for politics. There was one point only I could see no justification for the assertion, or any reason they may have had to hold that opinion. Just one.
For Jeanette to brand their brochure a "campaign of lies", "half full" of "outright lies" is in itself, a gross exaggeration. In an election where we have Ross Wilson, head of CTU saying "National will fund tax cuts with workers lives", and Labour allegedly sending "eviction notices" to State Housing tenants to show a vote for National is a vote for eviction, the opinions expressed in the Exclusive Brethren brochures are mild, and with as much foundation. For example, the Greens can hardly claim its a lie they don't support the Kyoto Protocol. Their opinion is the tax payers will not be paying the billion dollars per year in Kyoto taxes, because they will convince Labour or National to turn it around just in time. We'll see. In the meantime, do the Greens support Kyoto? Absolutely.
I list the main points put forward by the EB Brochure, and my verdict - if the Green's are guilty of the claims made by the EB or if they are innocent of the charges against them. Please accept a one line summary is not always a clear explanation. It is backed up by detail. Click on each link (the highlighted word Guilty or Innocent against each item) to learn what my research uncovered.
1: Introduce a capital gains tax on family homes.
The Greens recommended this in their Eco-Tax Submission to parliament 2001. They quoted from that document as recently as 5 Sep 2005. Lets assume they mean what they say. Guilty!
2: Increase petrol and diesel taxes.
Greens want to remove tax exemptions on diesel, and add a Kyoto tax. Prices up and Guilty!
3: Introduce a carbon tax, and putting power prices up.
Greens are in favour of carbon taxes, and it is arguable power prices will increase. Guilty!
4: Support Kyoto Protocol - the billion dollar bungle
Kyoto = Greens. Guilty!
5: Add 4 more ministries and [...] more bureaucrats
The Greens plan to grow the government - Guilty.
6: Cut defence spending by 50% and disarm our forces
Take the words of Keith Locke, and the sums offered by Jeanette Fitzsimons, it looks that way. They have no defence and are found - Guilty.
7: Ban the building of new prisons and teach criminals art
Once again, Green Policy. Guilty.
8: Spend roading money on uneconomic and novel public transport schemes
Underground rail is novel and expensive. Maybe not as much as roads? Its a good debate. On the Guilty Train.
9: Block construction of vital new roads with tortuous RMA regulations.
The Greens support the RMA. It's tortuous. Some parties want it gutted.Guilty by association.
10: Push high country farmers off their lease-hold land.
All they want to do is raise farm rents...and they complain about State Housing: Within range of Guilty
11: Permit right-to-roam over property.
They support public access over private property. Guilty.
Note: Right-to-roam is a phrase meaning access private property without owners permission.
12: Decriminalise illegal drugs - like cannabis.
Like cannabis? You mean hash, skunk, and marijuana? Guilty man.
13: Offer financial assistance to cannabis growers for alternative employment.
I could find no specific policy for this, just a line from their Drug Law Reform Policy that offered assistance, but not specifically financial. Clean and Innocent.
14: Create rainbow communities. Legalise Adoption for Same Sex Couples.
Create? No, just support/encourage. But the rest is true, and we'd be quibbling. Guilty.
15: Voted against including the right to own Property in the NZ Bill of Rights
Other countries might need it, but NZ doesn't the Greens say. That explains why they have a right to be Guilty.
16: Support Labour, who are destroying/not maintaining the environment
With declining numbers of Kiwi, Hector Dolphins and wetlands, they have a point. Its Labour's fault, but they are Guilty.
Greens version of the Rebuttal (by Jeanette Fitzsimons)
The thrust of this rebuttal was to label anything that was basically true a "half truth". There were 7 of those, and one point she fully conceded, and one she ignored, making 9 out of 16 points in the region of "OK, they have a point, but we can explain". That really destroys their credibility in attacking the brochure the way they have done. This is NO WORSE than the Greens own style of politicking seen in their press releases and website.
Of the other 7 points that Jeanette labeled "outright lies", I agreed with her on one of those points. That is, I agreed their interpretation was perhaps too liberal, but not that they were caught in a lie. [Source].
The substance of rebuttal on the other 6 would seem to be in splitting hairs on the numbers, or debating the actual effect of the policy, except the point on halving Defence Spending [source], where I catch Jeanette's rebuttal as, ironically, looking like a lie.
I found very little substance in the Green blog on their costings, which makes it harder to form an opinion one way or the other [Update: I may have found data I was looking for, I'll update when I get a chance]. That's why I submit it is very reasonable to bring these points to debate. The Greens have responded with "gross exaggerations"
The Greens campaign on being a straight up and refreshingly honest party with the importance of the environment as the underpinning of all human prosperity. Acting in an arrogant manner and labeling the EB brochure a "campaign of lies" from a "cult group" does not demonstrate any discernible difference from Labour. They would do well to embrace criticism in a more positive light. The Hector Dolphin, the Kiwi, our forests and lakes may be depending upon it.
Well, that's my opinion.
Side Topic: International Green Conspiracy
Update (November 2007)
For the record! Back in 2005, the Greens and NZ Labour began a campaign of concerted vilification of the Exclusive Brethren (EB), in response to the publication of an anti-Green brochure by a group of 7 business men connected with the EB. It became an even bigger issue of course, with several other twists to the story I will cover (rehash) in due course.
The press effectively gave tens of thousands of dollars of "free" coverage to the Greens and Labour, as the moral outrage expressed by these parties made good news. Sadly, I can recall no news service offering a balanced review of the contents of the EB brochure, nor any comparisons to gutter politics style brochures from Labour at the time. They simply regurgitated the sound bites from the Greens and Labour.
As NZ Labour push through a series of anti-democratic legislation that deeply affects our right to promote an opinion, whilst providing them with more tax paid funding, I find myself wondering how sophisticated parties and unions will get at manufacturing debate so as to give themselves free exposure of their opinions, even as it becomes illegal to spend more than three or four full page advertisements for up to a year before an election.
Some of their justification for this legislation has referred to the EB, and insisting they do not have the right to spend money to voice an opinion. This stance, whilst understandable, is not sound for people who place great importance on freedom of speech. I hope to cover this argument too in due course.
[Largely from Sir Humphrey's - 10 September 2005, with minor updates]
The Exclusive Brethren (EB) exercised their democratic right to print political brochures. Unfortunately, they bucked the trend and rather than blasting National Policy, they came out with a brochure criticising the Greens. They made 15 points, and provided an assessment of the environmental impact the Greens have had on our Flora and Fauna in the wake of a Labour-Led government.
The Greens were quick to brand the brochure as a "campaign of lies". Jeanette Fitzsimons, Greens Co-Leader also referred to the brochure as 50% outright lies and 50% gross exaggerations. Other pro-Green commenters and main stream media seemed to accept that this "cult" had lied, and I had seen nothing from our investigative reporters spelling out the content of the EB Brochure. I had a look for myself, to see if what they had said were indeed "all lies".
My findings were that 15 of the 16 points were absolutely fair comment to make with regard to the Green policy. Points 4,5, and 8 were debatable as to the exact numbers and costs, but that is standard fare for politics. There was one point only I could see no justification for the assertion, or any reason they may have had to hold that opinion. Just one.
For Jeanette to brand their brochure a "campaign of lies", "half full" of "outright lies" is in itself, a gross exaggeration. In an election where we have Ross Wilson, head of CTU saying "National will fund tax cuts with workers lives", and Labour allegedly sending "eviction notices" to State Housing tenants to show a vote for National is a vote for eviction, the opinions expressed in the Exclusive Brethren brochures are mild, and with as much foundation. For example, the Greens can hardly claim its a lie they don't support the Kyoto Protocol. Their opinion is the tax payers will not be paying the billion dollars per year in Kyoto taxes, because they will convince Labour or National to turn it around just in time. We'll see. In the meantime, do the Greens support Kyoto? Absolutely.
I list the main points put forward by the EB Brochure, and my verdict - if the Green's are guilty of the claims made by the EB or if they are innocent of the charges against them. Please accept a one line summary is not always a clear explanation. It is backed up by detail. Click on each link (the highlighted word Guilty or Innocent against each item) to learn what my research uncovered.
1: Introduce a capital gains tax on family homes.
The Greens recommended this in their Eco-Tax Submission to parliament 2001. They quoted from that document as recently as 5 Sep 2005. Lets assume they mean what they say. Guilty!
2: Increase petrol and diesel taxes.
Greens want to remove tax exemptions on diesel, and add a Kyoto tax. Prices up and Guilty!
3: Introduce a carbon tax, and putting power prices up.
Greens are in favour of carbon taxes, and it is arguable power prices will increase. Guilty!
4: Support Kyoto Protocol - the billion dollar bungle
Kyoto = Greens. Guilty!
5: Add 4 more ministries and [...] more bureaucrats
The Greens plan to grow the government - Guilty.
6: Cut defence spending by 50% and disarm our forces
Take the words of Keith Locke, and the sums offered by Jeanette Fitzsimons, it looks that way. They have no defence and are found - Guilty.
7: Ban the building of new prisons and teach criminals art
Once again, Green Policy. Guilty.
8: Spend roading money on uneconomic and novel public transport schemes
Underground rail is novel and expensive. Maybe not as much as roads? Its a good debate. On the Guilty Train.
9: Block construction of vital new roads with tortuous RMA regulations.
The Greens support the RMA. It's tortuous. Some parties want it gutted.Guilty by association.
10: Push high country farmers off their lease-hold land.
All they want to do is raise farm rents...and they complain about State Housing: Within range of Guilty
11: Permit right-to-roam over property.
They support public access over private property. Guilty.
Note: Right-to-roam is a phrase meaning access private property without owners permission.
12: Decriminalise illegal drugs - like cannabis.
Like cannabis? You mean hash, skunk, and marijuana? Guilty man.
13: Offer financial assistance to cannabis growers for alternative employment.
I could find no specific policy for this, just a line from their Drug Law Reform Policy that offered assistance, but not specifically financial. Clean and Innocent.
14: Create rainbow communities. Legalise Adoption for Same Sex Couples.
Create? No, just support/encourage. But the rest is true, and we'd be quibbling. Guilty.
15: Voted against including the right to own Property in the NZ Bill of Rights
Other countries might need it, but NZ doesn't the Greens say. That explains why they have a right to be Guilty.
16: Support Labour, who are destroying/not maintaining the environment
With declining numbers of Kiwi, Hector Dolphins and wetlands, they have a point. Its Labour's fault, but they are Guilty.
Greens version of the Rebuttal (by Jeanette Fitzsimons)
The thrust of this rebuttal was to label anything that was basically true a "half truth". There were 7 of those, and one point she fully conceded, and one she ignored, making 9 out of 16 points in the region of "OK, they have a point, but we can explain". That really destroys their credibility in attacking the brochure the way they have done. This is NO WORSE than the Greens own style of politicking seen in their press releases and website.
Of the other 7 points that Jeanette labeled "outright lies", I agreed with her on one of those points. That is, I agreed their interpretation was perhaps too liberal, but not that they were caught in a lie. [Source].
The substance of rebuttal on the other 6 would seem to be in splitting hairs on the numbers, or debating the actual effect of the policy, except the point on halving Defence Spending [source], where I catch Jeanette's rebuttal as, ironically, looking like a lie.
I found very little substance in the Green blog on their costings, which makes it harder to form an opinion one way or the other [Update: I may have found data I was looking for, I'll update when I get a chance]. That's why I submit it is very reasonable to bring these points to debate. The Greens have responded with "gross exaggerations"
The Greens campaign on being a straight up and refreshingly honest party with the importance of the environment as the underpinning of all human prosperity. Acting in an arrogant manner and labeling the EB brochure a "campaign of lies" from a "cult group" does not demonstrate any discernible difference from Labour. They would do well to embrace criticism in a more positive light. The Hector Dolphin, the Kiwi, our forests and lakes may be depending upon it.
Well, that's my opinion.
Side Topic: International Green Conspiracy
Update (November 2007)
For the record! Back in 2005, the Greens and NZ Labour began a campaign of concerted vilification of the Exclusive Brethren (EB), in response to the publication of an anti-Green brochure by a group of 7 business men connected with the EB. It became an even bigger issue of course, with several other twists to the story I will cover (rehash) in due course.
The press effectively gave tens of thousands of dollars of "free" coverage to the Greens and Labour, as the moral outrage expressed by these parties made good news. Sadly, I can recall no news service offering a balanced review of the contents of the EB brochure, nor any comparisons to gutter politics style brochures from Labour at the time. They simply regurgitated the sound bites from the Greens and Labour.
As NZ Labour push through a series of anti-democratic legislation that deeply affects our right to promote an opinion, whilst providing them with more tax paid funding, I find myself wondering how sophisticated parties and unions will get at manufacturing debate so as to give themselves free exposure of their opinions, even as it becomes illegal to spend more than three or four full page advertisements for up to a year before an election.
Some of their justification for this legislation has referred to the EB, and insisting they do not have the right to spend money to voice an opinion. This stance, whilst understandable, is not sound for people who place great importance on freedom of speech. I hope to cover this argument too in due course.