Talk:2005 New Zealand election funding controversy

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Bias? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Primary sources 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Subheadings 

message: 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)
replies: text: $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)
thread_title:  Completely OT 

message: 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%2C_2005#Controversies.-gadfium 04:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: I agree with your point about "despite three warnings", and I'm sorely tempted to go on a rampage with  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%2C_2005#Controversies.  This article's about funding, not tactics. --Tirana 08:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: National party advertising

message: 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)
replies: text: The Hansard might be a useful source when it's written up. --Tirana 01:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debate in [[Parliament of New Zealand|Parliament]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  More ideas for improvements 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Chris Trotter op ed 

message: 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)
replies: text: -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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Third party campaigning 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Polls

message: Bunkley 02:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Well it would be a way of presenting POV in an ostensibly NPOV manner anyway. <<-armon->> 11:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Differences between Exclusive Brethren leaflets and Union advertising

message: 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)
thread_title: Hollow Men

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Third party campaigning" section 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.elections.org.nz/elections/e5_party_return_expenses.html
** In 2005 New Zealand election funding controversy on 2011-05-25 08:03:01, 404 Not Found
** In 2005 New Zealand election funding controversy on 2011-06-12 02:21:09, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 02:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.elections.org.nz/news/ec-media-labour-lateness-090206.html}}
** In 2005 New Zealand election funding controversy on 2011-05-25 08:03:01, 404 Not Found
** In 2005 New Zealand election funding controversy on 2011-06-12 02:21:20, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 02:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 2 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.elections.org.nz/elections/e5_party_return_expenses.html#gen3
** In 2005 New Zealand election funding controversy on 2011-05-25 08:03:01, 404 Not Found
** In 2005 New Zealand election funding controversy on 2011-06-12 02:21:31, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 02:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 3 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3834764a6160,00.html
** In 2005 New Zealand election funding controversy on 2011-05-25 08:03:01, 404 Not Found
** In 2005 New Zealand election funding controversy on 2011-06-12 02:21:40, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 02:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 4 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3807544a11,00.html
** In 2005 New Zealand election funding controversy on 2011-05-25 08:03:01, 404 Not Found
** In 2005 New Zealand election funding controversy on 2011-06-12 02:21:51, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 02:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 5 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/sundaystartimes/0,2106,3792193a6005,00.html
** In 2005 New Zealand election funding controversy on 2011-05-25 08:03:01, 404 Not Found
** In 2005 New Zealand election funding controversy on 2011-06-12 02:22:00, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 02:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 6 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.act.org.nz/action/documents/labour_busads.pdf
** In 2005 New Zealand election funding controversy on 2011-05-25 08:03:01, 404 Not Found
** In 2005 New Zealand election funding controversy on 2011-06-12 02:22:10, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 02:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 7 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3806123a6160,00.html
** In 2005 New Zealand election funding controversy on 2011-05-25 08:03:01, 404 Not Found
** In 2005 New Zealand election funding controversy on 2011-06-12 02:22:21, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 02:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 8 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3804622a10,00.html
** In 2005 New Zealand election funding controversy on 2011-05-25 08:03:01, 404 Not Found
** In 2005 New Zealand election funding controversy on 2011-06-12 02:22:30, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 02:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 9 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3801283a10,00.html
** In 2005 New Zealand election funding controversy on 2011-05-25 08:03:01, 404 Not Found
** In 2005 New Zealand election funding controversy on 2011-06-12 02:22:40, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 02:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 10 

message: An image used in this article, File:PledgeCard.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 1 December 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:PledgeCard.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on 2005 New Zealand election funding controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.elections.org.nz/elections/e5_party_return_expenses.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/E984B1D8-AEF3-49F0-A45B-B526CF2B7101/41876/DBHOH_PAP_14263_3664.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.elections.org.nz/news/ec-media-labour-lateness-090206.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.police.govt.nz/news/release.html?id=2345
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.elections.org.nz/elections/e5_party_return_expenses.html#gen3
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/AboutParl/HowPWorks/Speaker/PressReleases/9/5/a/95ad213d0c94486a83cd87979b107883.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.labour.org.nz/news/latest_labour_news/news-061012/index.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0612/S00108.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060922000859/http://www.act.org.nz/action/documents/labour_busads.pdf to http://www.act.org.nz/action/documents/labour_busads.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?ArticleID=7645
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0609/S00279.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://subs.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10402288
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://subs.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10402616
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2006/4095/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=16481&cid=15&cname=Politics
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/C56F067E-FF68-4822-B1F4-E4277B00953D/42434/DBHOH_BILL_7688_3698.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2005 New Zealand election funding controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051109081232/http://www.nzlistener.co.nz:80/default,3770.sm to http://www.nzlistener.co.nz/default,3770.sm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on 2005 New Zealand election funding controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061005005756/http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/other9194.html to http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/other9194.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nzlistener.co.nz/default%2C3770.sm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061107040129/http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2006/4095/ to http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2006/4095/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on 2005 New Zealand election funding controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061002111042/http://www.elections.org.nz/elections/e5_party_return_expenses.html to http://www.elections.org.nz/elections/e5_party_return_expenses.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061002111058/http://www.elections.org.nz/news/ec-media-labour-lateness-090206.html to http://www.elections.org.nz/news/ec-media-labour-lateness-090206.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060618232653/http://www.police.govt.nz/news/release.html?id=2345 to http://www.police.govt.nz/news/release.html?id=2345
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061002111042/http://www.elections.org.nz/elections/e5_party_return_expenses.html to http://www.elections.org.nz/elections/e5_party_return_expenses.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061023085134/http://www.labour.org.nz/news/latest_labour_news/news-061012/index.html to http://www.labour.org.nz/news/latest_labour_news/news-061012/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927214124/http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=16481&cid=15&cname=Politics to http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=16481&cid=15&cname=Politics
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified