Stockagents Leaflet - It’s Unlawful
Today the Stockagents held their final “Save the Saleyards” Rally in Woodland Grove. Naturally I was not invited to attend, I’m an evil Greenie who wants to avoid the City of Wodonga taking on new debt. I went down to High St anyway.
Leafleting a short distance from the protest gathering, I received the usual array of hostility, as well as a few copies of the long awaited stock agents campaign leaflet (pictured above). It will arrive in Wodonga letterboxes during the coming week.
There are a few things that need to be said about it:
The most obvious is that it fails to comply with electoral law.
- The recommendation that voters “Vote 1 to 9 according to your preference” is borderline, it could be seen as misleading voters on how to cast a correct vote (ie. number every box, not just nine).
- The authorisation does not comply with the electoral act. Authorisations need to list the person who authorised the leaflet, and a physical address at which they can be found. The VEC is quite explicit about the fact that a PO box is insufficient. This leaflet lists the “Albury Wodonga Stock Agents Association Inc” as the authorising person, and then gives their PO box.
These are probably just honest mistakes, but none the less they make the continued distribution of this leaflet unlawful.
Even more embarrassing to the stock agents association has to be the fact that not all the candidates they recommend actually support them!
One candidate on that list has explicitly told me, in the presence of other candidates, that he does not agree with the tactics or position of the Stock agents association.
Another of the candidates has told me, and other candidates, that the primary reason he is running is to feed preferences to Lisa Mahood, a councillor who voted for the sale and relocation of the Saleyards.
A third candidate does not state that explicitly, but as a member of the Labor Party, that is what he is doing.
Then there is the small matter of the people who financed the leaflet. Look at the logos at the bottom of the leaflet, these businesses have a vested financial interest in ensuring that the ratepayers of Wodonga continue to subsidise a saleyards.
I am fed up. The self interested campaign of the Stock Agents Association has been an annoying distraction from the real issues of this campaign.
Related posts:
- Response to Stock Agents Association Last week the Albury Wodonga Stock Agents Association mailed a...
- Campaigning on Facebook Today I was having morning tea with a couple...
- Ratepayers Association to host Candidates Forum I have just received an invitation from the Wodonga Ratepayers...
- Campaign Launches A “Campaign Launch” can be a funny thing. Notionally candidates...
- Public Forum Reminder Tomorrow night (Thursday the 13th) will see a public forum...
It certainly looks illegal to me, Kieran. And as for the corporate logos, whjt a blatant example of self-interest that is. I can’t imagine too many voters being sucked in by this kind of approach and I’d think the candidates on that list have done themselves a disservice by not distancing themselves from this
bunch of rednecksgroup of misguided stock agents et al.Ray Dixon, Bright
Sounds like sour grapes to me.
Hey! I haven’t lost yet!
That is the weakest attempt at trolling I have ever read. LOL you’re obviously just parrotting a phrase that you think will insult. All you’ve managed is to demonstrate your ignorance of both Aesop’s fable and electoral law.
Go back and read the Aesop fable you are quoting and I think you’ll find your first error.
The message inherent in the phrase ’sour grapes’ is identifying where someone is denying a desire for an unattainable goal.
I hardly think Kieran had any desire to woo the stock agents that printed that pamphlet, or gain their endorsement. If he had and was left of the list of candidates mentioned in the pamphlet, then ’sour grapes’ might have been contextual.
Your second error is obviously your utter ignorance of electoral law. When I had one of these pamphlets thrust upon me, the first thing I did was check to see which wanker was actually prepared to put their name to it.
The answer - no one.
All the best Kieran, sorry to rant in on site… but sometimes the useless comments irritate me.
Matt.
I like the idea that there is enough room for everyone’s comments and opinions, but trolling? Give me a break! Has anyone asked the group for a comment re failure to endorse? I know of at least one other candidate who slipped up and his was a genuine mistake.
So give the high horse a rest, Matt.
I know why they didn’t endorse me, I made it absolutely clear to them on more than one occasion that I did not agree with their position and I disliked their tactics.
I like to see citizens get out there and make their voice heard. I hate it when a group of businessmen (that is what the Stock Agents Association is) implies that candidates can agree with their stance or face the consequences. It really gets my hackles up.
I am not the only challenging candidate who acted in a less than worshipful manner with the Stock Agents association came a knocking.
JR’s no “troll”, Matt. He might have a different opinion to you (and me sometimes) but he’s a regular around these parts.
I have to say though, that I agree 100% with Kieran’s position on this. Any group that tries to coerce candidates on such a self-interest issue is not worth the time of day.
Kieran,
Just to set the record straight, I have no definite views on the re-location of saleyards, other than personal concerns for increased debts @ a time when our debt load is already significant. AND council appear not to be able to sell LOGIC @ this time.
I just ask you to put yourself in the shoes of the “Save the saleyards committee”. They asked all candidates for their position and you chose to answer the way you did. I consider it fair that only those who answered in favour of their campaign goal were given the opportunity to address the rally on Saturday.
Why should you consider yourself to have a right to speak at the rally when your answer to their request was a “no brainer”? Why the hackles?
It’s a free country and just because these people had already received your answer AND you had already published it on your website, you plainly do not agree with them and this was their rally, not yours.
And, Ray, where’s the coercion?
I didn’t. I don’t know where you’ve gotten that from JR.
Well OK JR, maybe “coerce” is too strong a word.
Perhaps I should have said, “Any group that tries to use such heavy-handed tactics on such a self-interest issue is not worth the time of day.”. (They just sound too much like ‘Save Bright’ to me!)
Anyway, their flyer is OK now. I’ve fixed it:
http://alpineopinion.wordpress.com/files/2008/11/wodongastockyards.jpg
QUOTE “One candidate on that list has explicitly told me, in the presence of other candidates, that he does not agree with the tactics or position of the Stock agents association.” END QUOTE
That makes him/her a very, very two faced individual, Kieran. Give me a name and I’ll make sure that it’s last on my vote.
QUOTE “Another of the candidates has told me, and other candidates, that the primary reason he is running is to feed preferences to Lisa Mahood, a councillor who voted for the sale and relocation of the Saleyards.” END QUOTE
The plot thickens, another dishonest candidate.
QUOTE “A third candidate does not state that explicitly, but as a member of the Labor Party, that is what he is doing.” END QUOTE
That makes it three in a row.
QUOTE “Even more embarrassing to the stock agents association has to be the fact that not all the candidates they recommend actually support them!” END QUOTE
How does that embarrass the Stock Agents, Kieran? More like embarrassments for the candidates, IF you’re game to name them! Come on Kieran, put up!
QUOTE “I didn’t. I don’t know where you’ve gotten that from JR.” END QUOTE
Sure sounded like it to me, Kieran. You were left off because of your view and it raised your hackles.
All I can do is insist that you are wrong. I did not expect, nor did I attempt, to speak at the Stockagents rally. Obviously it was a rally to “save” the saleyards, a position I have never subscribed too.
Had you been on the receiving end of the Stockagents “lobbying” you might agree with me that they have been less than honest, less than transparent, and less than friendly.
Sorry, no. It’s for purely selfish reasons, at this point in time I am a candidate, not a reporter. I have to look to my own interests, namely, I might have to work with these people after the election.
When I was planning this campaign with my running mate, Dennis Black, we agreed that there was one thing we didn’t want to do. We didn’t want to get bogged down on the Saleyards issue, it’s a distraction from the real issues of this campaign.
That is why I will not be lodging a formal complaint with the VEC about this leaflet (even though it’s authorisation does not meet the requirements).
I fear that I am breaking my promise to Dennis with this thread! As such, I ask that we call this to a close and move on.
You have my word, Kieran.
Well, look at this way. At least you’ve got a lively campaign over there in Wodonga. Over here in Alpine it’s really a non-event and there are just no big issues - even silly ones.
About the only ‘interesting’ topic is how many votes Ray ‘the goat man’ Dyer might get. Some say he’s a real chance. It figures.
? saleyards make a profit. It made a net profit around $730,000 in 07/08 for the council. It’s probably the only community asset that makes a profit isn’t it?
You seem to have changed your mind on the saleyards, what happened?
Re the profits: It makes an average $400 000 (more in hard drought years due to farmers offloading stock). It does need an upgrade. Seeking private money to avoid more public debt is a good move. But it is regrettable that council didn’t do more to involve stakeholders in the decision, this is something I would have done differently.
My position on the issue has been consistent.
As I said to the Stock Agents Association, I stand where I stand on this issue, if you don’t like it, that’s fine, vote for someone else.
(Of course, candidate’s aren’t meant to be that honest, we’re meant to dodge and weave in an attempt to win every last vote.)
My concern is that we haven’t received true comparison figures, the true benefit/cost of ALL the listed viable options. It’s regrettable that council didn’t listen to the many stakeholders that responded.
A mixed option seemed to have been picked and run with. I haven’t found anything yet which lists what the actual financial, social and environmental benefits will be.
As a Green you should look at the DSE site regarding flood plains, ground water etc, I would think the Barnawartha site would be of more a concern than Bandianna, especially with a large feedlot.
(Yes i am the wife of Edward Foulston just to clarify/confirm, I’ve been reading masses of information and doing my own research. Amazing what you learn and still learning.)