Gav's Blog

To the Honourable Peter Dunne
p.dunne@ministers.govt.nz

Re: Copyright Act Section 92

I would just like to say thank you for publicly coming out against this poorly developed legislation. I hope you are able to attract more attention in the coming days to reinforce your message and ensure that this legislation is deferred so that a more realistic and evidential approach can be taken to the enforcement of copyright breaches.

As a photographer that produces and sells some micro-stock photographer overseas, I support the copyright. However the current structure of Section 92 and the proposed Telecommunication Carriers Forum Code of Practice are designed entirely to support an enforcement framework that only benefits large international copyright holders, and makes it expensive and difficult for a small copyright holder like myself to use the legislation for any breach in my copyright.

For a country built on small business, this is an unfair law.

Thank you again for for your public stance on this issue.

Yours sincerely,

Gavin Treadgold

To the Honourable Rodney Hide
r.hide@ministers.govt.nz

Re: URGENT Copyright Act Section 92

I bring your attention to the Copyright Act that as of February 28 2009 will introduce significant compliance costs on small businesses in New Zealand.

The new legislation effectively turns a business into an ISP and makes management for that business responsible for implementing measures to ensure that employees cannot download copyrighted material. There are two key issues here for me:

1. This introduces a new compliance cost on small business. Each small business will need to modify their firewall settings to block as many IP ports as practicable especially those ports used by file sharing software. In many firewalls, these are not blocked by default for out-going connections from within the business network. This means that each business will need to adjust the firewall for each Internet connection within their business (e.g. one for each office – in my case three). In my case this will mean flights and other travel costs associated with complying with this poorly drafted Labour legislation as well as time developing policy and process. At the same time, blocking these ports is not necessarily desirable for all businesses as they have real and legal uses, such as downloading large Linux distributions – a perfectly legitimate use of peer-to-peer file sharing technology, and one that I often use in my business. In addition, it may require further tightening of the policies of users computers to ensure that they don’t install software that is capable of breaching copyright via file-sharing – once again this increases compliance costs associated with ensuring that our business does not fall foul of the new and poorly worded law.

2. The current structure of Section 92 and the Telecommunications Carrier Forum Code of Practice is heavily geared towards large media companies. As a small part-time photographer that is making a little money selling microstock photography overseas, it is not necessarily practical for me to register and pay the registration fee associated with filing a copyright complaint under Section 92. This means that the legislation is only going to provide tools to large international copyright holders, and provide little protection for small individual copyright holders such as myself.

I am also concerned that our business Internet connection could be taken down based on accusation alone – and not after the rigour of the judicial process.

As both an MP for ACT that stands up against compliance costs for small businesses, and the Associate Minister for Commerce, I urge you to ensure that Section 92 in its current form does not go live on February 28, and that it is reviewed and wider copyright holder and Internet user stakeholder consultation is held to ensure that a fair and reasonable Copyright Act is enacted.

Yours sincerely,

Gavin Treadgold

Update 2009-02-20: And a brief reply from ACT.

ACT opposes this amendment of the Copyright Act.

It is our hope that the National Government will review the law, and strike out this clause.

regards

Sandy Grove
ACT Parliamentary Office Manager
Office of Hon Rodney Hide
WELLINGTON
Ph 04 817 6630

As with quite a few others, I have now blacked out a number of my profiles (including here with the official protest WordPress theme, Flickr, Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and Gravatar). More on this later. In the meantime visit Creative Freedom NZ for more info.

It would appear that my request for clarification around the status of the PPTA billboard that was released in early July is starting to attract some attention. This morning I was called by a reporter to discuss why I made a ‘complaint’, so I thought I should outline in my blog, under my terms, why I chose to do so.

But before I do, I would like to make one thing perfectly clear. This complaint was never anything spiteful against the PPTA. I support their message and their effort to achieve smaller class numbers. Unfortunately I cannot easily communicate this except via my blog. This was never about their message, rather it was about the Electoral Finance Act.

I first saw the billboard across the road from work the day it went up in early July. It is quite ironic to see the PPTA press release regarding the Electoral Commission’s decisions – PPTA billboard breaches EFA – Yeah Right – because this billboard in Riccarton has been a Tui advertisement for such a long time over the past few years.

My initial question was a simple and naive one, given that it is an election year, and the board was promoting education, an election year issue – shouldn’t it have had an approval address on it? So, I decided to bring a camera to work the next day and send it to the Commission for clarification.

I sent the following to the Electoral Commission via email on the 2nd of July.

Hi,

I saw an advert today, and I am interested as to whether it meets the requirements under the Electoral Finance Act.

The billboard advertisement on one of Christchurch’s busiest roads and has the Post-Primary Teachers Association logo on it and text like the following (I can get a photo tomorrow if required for clarification).

“How dense do you want them? Smaller classrooms are a no brainer”

It also has the PPTA logo on the board.

Does this count as third party advertising under the new act? It doesn’t directly indicate voting for a party, but I feel it does suggest voting for parties with a policy of smaller classroom numbers (whether right or wrong). Does the advertising need to have an authorised name on it, as I assume that it wouldn’t take many of these billboards around the country to cross a $12k threshold?

Thanks in advance for your help.

In less than 40 minutes I received a very prompt reply back.

Whether or no[t] the billboard is deemed to be an election advertisement will depend upon whether it ‘can reasonably be regarded as encouraging or persuading a vote for or against a party or parties’.  Such interpretation is made on a case by case basis at a commission meeting.

We would need a photo of the bill board in order to consider it at the next meeting.

It is the commission’s policy to publicise decisions made at its meetings.  For context, the Commission’s decisions generally include an overview of the issues raised and the name of the person(s) who raised the issues.

It is also common for the party concerned to request a copy of the query and for the Commission to release that document.

Please let me know whether you have any objection to the release of your query, including your name.

So, like it or not, I had to submit it for a formal decision to be made at the next meeting of the Commission. As I wasn’t doing it for any spiteful or malicious reasons, I had no problems with providing my name and details. I sent the images in with the following email.

I have no objection to the release of my name and query, however I just want to make it clear that this isn’t a formal complaint – rather I am interested in the ambiguity around this advertisement, and just want to bring it to the Commission’s attention. I am actually supportive of the message the advertisement is sending.

The interesting aspect I feel is that it is raising a special interest concern, and this is in advance of any of the political parties having even published their complete education policies for the 2008 election (at the brief look at Labour and National party websites esterday – most have 2005 policies still listed). At this point then, it may not be seen to be suggesting to vote for a parties that support a particular stance on education. What happens then if a party does come out with a policy that supports lowering class sizes whilst the advertisement is running – would this mean that the status of the advertisement changes?

My key questions are probably:

1. Does the cost of this advertisement count towards the $12k threshold for PPTA as it is raising a special interest issue?

2. Does the advertisement require an authorised name and address even though it is a special interest issue?

3. Is the status of the advert likely to change if a political party announces an education policy supporting lower class sizes whilst the advert is running – at which point in time the advert would then be persuading a vote for a party or parties?

I have attached two photos, and a KML file that can be opened in Google Earth to identify the position of the billboard. It was only placed at the start of this month.

I was sure when the next meeting of the Commission was go to be, so I then forgot about it, well, other than every time I saw the billboard, including the one in Wellington when I was up there last week. I assume there is another one in Auckland as well.

At one point whilst I was waiting, I found an interesting page on the Elections website that outlines the Guidance on the Value of Advertising Space. Now, assuming each billboard is say, 15 sq m, and there are three billboards, then according to the Guidance, this is costing the PPTA $270/day for three similarly sized billboards. For 31 days of advertising, this amounts to ~$8,370. We’re now 6 days into August, so I am assuming that this campaign is now at the ~$10k mark. The relevance of this is how close it is to approaching the magic $12k figure for registering as a third party – but if you’ve read the decision, you’ll know that this isn’t an issue, maybe not yet. Assuming there are 3 billboards of similar size, the $12k threshold will be hit around the middle of August.

On the first of August I received an email from the Commission advising me of the decision in advance of the release of a pile of decisions. I was happy with the decision as it stands and in light of what I have learned, agree with it. There is however the hint of a warning contained within that I find interesting.

But first, the Electoral Commission’s decision.

Subject
PPTA (Post Primary Teachers Association) billboard “How Dense do You Want Them?”.

Issues raised
Gavin Treadgold noted that as most parties have not issued their education policy that it may not be seen to be suggesting to vote for parties that support a particular stance on education.  He asks what would happen if a party came out with a policy that supports lowering class sizes whilst the advertisement is running and would the status of the advertisement change?

Statutory provisions
Section 5 of the Act defines an election advertisement to be, in summary, any form of words and/or graphics that could reasonably be regarded as encouraging or persuading voters to vote or not to vote in a particular fashion.

Comments from PPTA
In a letter of 21 July 2008, Bronwyn Cross of the PPTA said, with supporting material in substantiation, that this campaign is “business as usual” for the PPTA and ‘would have continued regardless of whether 2008 was an election year or not’.

Electoral Commission’s Determination
The Electoral Commission has considered the requirements of the Act along with the items listed as exhibits (below). In the view of the Electoral Commission the billboard states a policy position and is not presently directed at the election and therefore is not presently an election advertisement within the meaning of section 5 of the Act.
For the above reasons it is the view of the Electoral Commission that the PPTA (Post Primary Teachers Association) billboard “How Dense do You Want Them?” does not contravene the Electoral Finance Act 2007 at present.

As previously mentioned, an entirely reasonable and understandable decision. But, there is a significant but.

There is what I think is a not-so-subtle hint from the commission in the wording of the determination.

The Electoral Commission has considered the requirements of the Act along with the items listed as exhibits (below). In the view of the Electoral Commission the billboard states a policy position and is not presently directed at the election and therefore is not presently an election advertisement within the meaning of section 5 of the Act.

For the above reasons it is the view of the Electoral Commission that the PPTA (Post Primary Teachers Association) billboard “How Dense do You Want Them?” does not contravene the Electoral Finance Act 2007 at present.

The couching of the wording of the determination should be ringing a few warning bells now. The Commission appears to have been very careful in their wording of determination to cover future and as yet unforeseen circumstances. What happens if a political party, between now and the election releases an education policy that includes reducing class sizes, or increasing the teacher:student ratio? Well, I believe at that point this billboard would then need to be reviewed by the Commission to determine if the PPTA billboard is now seen as the PPTA ‘supporting’  voting for parties with such a policy. I can’t presume anything at this point, and it may be that even if a policy is announced by a party or three that the advert is not seen as promoting voting for a particular party. I certainly can’t make that call.

But I disagree with PPTA President Robin Duff claiming that the complaint was “ludicrous”. No, not the complaint, just the Electoral Finance Act. I do agree with Robin that messages such as this “shouldn’t grind to a halt because it is election year”, however, things may get a little sticky when party policies around education are released.

Other linkies:

• Discussion on Kiwiblog
• NZ Herald
• NoRightTurn

I’ve just received my first annual KiwiSaver statement from Mercer KiwiBank and I must say I am very disappointed with the reporting. There is a key gap in making the connection between money contributed and the conversion to units held. Whilst the statement clearly outlines the dollar contributions, it does not include the number of units purchased by each contribution, nor the unit price on date of conversion to units. This is fundamental reporting for managed funds.

Instead, all I received was effectively a ‘black box’ statement that I held x units at 31 March, and here was the value of the units on this date. This gives absolutely no accountability of the conversion process from contributions to units. For a Government imposed savings scheme we deserve far more transparency in investment transactions. This is less of an issue with conservative investments where unit prices won’t vary significantly, but with high-growth long term investments unit pricing will need proper and transparent reporting.

I called Mercer KiwiSaver this morning, and confirmed that this information is not accessible either on the statement, or via the website. As a result, I have emailed KiwiSaver to let them know about this oversight and my concerns. Only the current unit pricings are available.

I recently received my annual KiwiSaver statement from the Mercer KiwiBank scheme I am a member of, and I am concerned that the statement does not provide enough detail about investment transactions.

My concern is that there appears to be no record accessible by the member that details for each contribution how many units in the investment were purchased. The only reference that is given is the number of units held at the end of the period and their current value.

I feel that this is a critical gap in the reporting requirements of KiwiSaver – members should be able to see on their statement that if they contributed $100, how many units were purchased with that contribution, and the price that they were purchased at. This is more important for the high-growth investments that will see more variability in unit prices than it is with more conservative investments.

As someone that has invested in managed funds for the past 15 years or more, I am used to seeing this information reported on, and I am very concerned that this information is not being openly provided by the fund managers – either in the annual statement, or on their website. This was confirmed by a phone call to their call centre this morning.

I haven’t done some political blogging for a while, but figured I’d briefly wade in with a couple of comments re: Michael Cullen’s Budget.

One particular comment I’d like to raise and highlight as a point of difference that National could make. In Cullen’s Budget speech he stated that the structure of the income tax system would be simplified.

This programme consists of a combination of a cut in the bottom rate of income tax, threshold changes, a simplification of the structure of the income tax system, a bringing forward of indexation of Working for Families and a forecast second round of such indexation.

In theory the current personal tax system has three rates: 19.5 per cent up to $38,000, 33 per cent from $38,001 to $60,000, and 39 per cent above $60,000 a year.

In practice, the operation of the Low Income Rebate for earned income creates an effective four-step scale with the bottom step split into two: 15 per cent up to $9500 a year and 21 per cent from $9501 to $38,000.

At the completion of the Budget 2008 tax-cut programme the rates will be 12.5 per cent on the first $20,000 of income, 21 per cent from $20,001 to $42,500, 33 per cent from $42,501 to $80,000, and 39 per cent above $80,000.

Call me blind, but aren’t we starting with a four-tier system and ending with a four-tier system? What is simple about that? If Cullen was serious about simplifying the income tax system he would look at removing one, and ideally two of the tiers. This would create a far simpler two-tier structure. Why not have a lower tax bracket for all income up to say $20k-$30k, and a higher rate for everything over that bracket?

For a while I was keen on a single income tax rate, but I have come to recognise that there does need to be some break given to lower income earners to recognise that tax can be more significant.

A simple two-tier income tax system would achieve true simplification. One has to wonder if Cullen only wants to keep complexity in the tax system to make juggling the numbers easier.

I have been having an ‘enlightening’ discussion with the Electoral Commission recently when they released the maps of proposed electorate changes for the next two elections. After having a little look at the site, it struck me that the maps provided actually made it quite difficult to allow proper spatial analysis to occur as the proposed boundaries were not available for download and analysis.

There are broad level maps available, for example Rangitata, as well as a web mapping solution – although as I write this, it doesn’t appear to be displaying the proposed boundaries to any significant level of detail.

Disappointed at the options of trying to compare the current and proposed electoral boundaries, I sent some feedback to the website asking if they would consider making the information available in a more suitable format.

Hi,

I have just visited this page on the proposed electoral boundaries.

Is there any chance that you could provide the boundaries in
geospatial formats so that the people can view it in say Google
Earth? Publishing shapefiles for the proposed changes would also be
useful for those people that are GIS-savvy like myself and would like
to perform a bit more analysis.

Thanks in advance for the consideration.

A few days later on the 8th of May, I received this reply from the Electoral Commission.

Dear Mr Treadgold

The Commission is required under the Electoral Act to make the proposed boundaries available in a form that ensures they are defined accurately. This is to facilitate public inspection of the proposals and the making of objections and counter objections to them. The Commission is not able to provide the boundaries in geospatial format because it would not be able to control the continued accuracy of the boundaries released in this format.

Yours sincerely

name removed
For the Secretary of the Representation Commission

I replied with the following.

Thank you for the reply name removed.

There is a need to strike a balance between making the information
available, and making it available in a form that can be used for
analysis. Currently, there is no demographic information provided on
the interactive mapping of the Elections website. If there are no
plans to make this available, then some means is required to make the
proposed boundaries available in a form that opens them up to more
rigourous analysis, so that more thorough consultation over proposed
boundary changes can occur.

Can I make a suggestion to the Representation Commission that they
should consider making the proposed boundaries available as a web
service as suggested by the e-GIF Geospatial Information Standards
that are part of the NZ E-Government Programme? It should also
include the use of metadata to define the accuracy and other relevant
metadata. Land Information NZ could naturally provide more
information here.

e-GIF Geospatial Information Standards

A suitable compromise may be able to be reached by providing the
information via a Web Feature Service (WFS) that allows control and
accuracy to be maintained, but at the same time allows GIS users to
combine the trusted information directly from your server, with
demographic and other relevant information (that is currently not
being provided on the Elections website) in their GIS to allow proper
analysis to occur. This mechanism works by allowing GIS software to
connect directly to a server (under Elections control) that allows
downloading of the boundaries directly into the GIS software so that
analysis can take place with other data layers.

If the boundaries are not provided in a geospatial format, I would
suggest that it will not be long before individuals sit down and
digitise the boundaries themselves to meet the need. This process
would likely produce more errors, errors that may not have occurred
if the data was provided in suitable formats in the first place by
the responsible agency.

This would most likely occur in the lead up to the next election as
interest in the electorates increases. I am aware of individuals that
have downloaded the whole topographic database of New Zealand from
LINZ’s TopoOnline website just so that the data can be used to
produce maps for use in mapping GPS units because the current
offering in the market at the time were abysmal (I am currently
President of the NZ Recreational GPS Society ).

It would make more sense for the Commission to consider the
publication of authoritative boundaries in a manner that pre-empts
moves to produce boundaries by alternative*, labour-intensive and
error-prone means.

Kind regards

Gavin Treadgold

* There are a number of countries that don’t provide road information
in a geospatial format – such as Australia[1] and the UK. In the past
few years, significant data capturing efforts[2] have been undertaken
in numerous countries to create duplicate datasets because the
Government is not meeting the demand.

[1] http://www.gpsoz.com.au/tracks4australia/
[2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/

I believe this is a very important issue, perhaps one of the most important spatial issues that we could face – that of making the data available in a means that allows detailed analysis of any proposed electoral changes to occur. If you feel strongly about this, then I would recommend that you contact the Electoral Commission and ask them to make the information available.

I’ll keep you informed of replies.