A Principled Act
May 29th, 2006 at 4:50 pm by David FarrarNational shows it is fully ready to make right the accidental election broadcasting over-spending, which has left broadcasters out of pocket. Leader Don Brash has submitted a bill to amend the Broadcasting Act which will allow the Electoral Commission to pay the $110,000 to the five broadcasters and in turn be paid by National.
I expect this bill could be introduced with unanimous leave of the House and passed through all stages under urgency.
It will also no doubt serve as the starkest of comparisons for ethical behaviour compared to Labour who over-spent by $418,000, broke their word to the Chief Electoral Officer, and refues to acknowlegde any wrongdoing whatsoever.
Tags: National
May 29th, 2006 at 5:05 pm
Well, it would be a credit on the House if this bill was passed at least as quickly as the Harry Duynhoeven (By-Election Over My Cold Dead Corpse) Job Protection Act. Wasn’t that three or four days under extreme urgency?
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 5:19 pm
What a joke.
Vote:I would place more faith in Nationals integrity
If they had submitted this as part of a review of the electoral act, not as an act of grandstanding
May 29th, 2006 at 5:20 pm
It’s of course, important to keep on side with the media.
But perhaps, it’s just a way to boast of being cashed up for an early election? Or a concession that one is not now likely?
If by any chance, it wa to allow a holier than thou pose towards Labour, expect reference to National’s any past use of “parliamentary” spending money during electoral campaigns to be mentioned.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 5:33 pm
JohnD reminds me of the person who when Jesus walks on water, complains he obviously can’t swim.
SPC menawhile making things up about past spending of parliamentary money *during* election campaigns.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 5:39 pm
So when National doesnt pay and cites a law which prevents them from doing so, they are being cute, and really just want to avoid paying.
When they try and change the law so they can still pay, they are grandstanding or boasting about their funding or just trying to keep the media on side.
It couldnt be that they just want to pay their bills, could it?
What is laughable is that you guys probably think you are being fair minded.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 5:44 pm
I propose a different version rather than ‘paying it back’- an admission it wasnt yours to spend to start with- then its deducted from next elections handout from the public purse. The same could apply to labours ‘inadvertant’ overspending, Reduce the amount from next elections total. This way the penalty fits the ‘oversight’
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 5:54 pm
I suspect National would be very happy with it coming from the 2008 budget, along with Labour’s overspend. I suspect Labour would not be though.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 6:15 pm
How can money spent before the 2005 election be part of any 2008 campaign?
“SPC menawhile making things up about past spending of parliamentary money *during* election campaigns.”
Perhaps you would like to read this a little more closely.
If by any chance, it wa(s) to allow a holier than thou pose towards Labour, expect reference to National’s any past use of “parliamentary” spending money during electoral campaigns to be mentioned.
You concede my, “If” by any chance, was pertinent, but failed to note the word “any”. By the way, a question is also not an accusation.
Has National never spent parliamentary spending money during election campaigns?
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 6:20 pm
“Perhaps you would like to read this a little more closely.”
Perhaps you would like to phrase it a little more precisely. At the moment it’s a pretty sloppy bit of grammar, so making pedantic arguments against somebody’s reading of it is pretty shaky ground to be arguing from.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 6:39 pm
It’s not pedantic to point out, I did not say “any” such thing.
Ignoring the qualification made, on whatever grammatical grounds, is simply to either miss, or fail to understand, the meaning of the word, “any”.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 6:40 pm
It’s not pedantic to point out, I did not say “any” such thing.
Ignoring the qualification made, on whatever grammatical grounds, is simply to either miss, or fail to understand, the meaning of the word, “any”.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 6:54 pm
“Wasn’t that three or four days under extreme urgency?”
Something like that. Of course, this matter isn’t urgent. It would be nice if it was passed this year, but if it’s not until the first few months there’s no great harm (of course the faster TVNZ et. al. get their money the better).
Whether you agree that the Duynhoven bill should have been passed or not, if it was to be passed it was an extremely urgent matter. Given the cost of urgency (all those Parliamentary employees needing to work when they otherwise wouldn’t etc.) it really should only be used when necessary.
I for one would appreciate the opportunity to tell a select committee that the Bill ought to be amended to remove the word ‘mistakenly’ from the proposed s 70E(1), and that this matter probably shouldn’t be dealt with by amendment to the principal act, but rather as a private act.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 7:10 pm
It will also no doubt serve as the starkest of comparisons for ethical behaviour compared to Labour who over-spent by $418,000, broke their word to the Chief Electoral Officer, and refues to acknowlegde any wrongdoing whatsoever.
Yes, well… at the risk of telling a water walking Jesus he can’t swim…
… do you really think this is motivated by a need to do the right thing, exclusively?
Or would the fact this does indeed draw a stark comparison and creates positive media coverage be intentional, maybe?
It is good strategy, but the holier-than-thou “Jesus walking on water” reaction is equally extreme.
What would have been so wrong by saying “we need to do the right thing, set an example, and if that emberasses the Government, then so much better”? Honest and… honest.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 7:45 pm
Please excuse me DPF while I have a brain explosion…
If National were serious about getting Labour prosecuted they would have atleast trumped them by getting a legal opinion from a QC and got a few others to countersign it as if it was a petition. That would have put enough pressure on officials to test the law in court.
The simple fact is that Labour officials aren’t just guilty of offences under tthe Electoral Act, they are guilty of crimes under the Crimes Act. Because the documented facts describe illegal acts not specfically defined under the Eectoral Act, section 107(1)(a) of the Crimes Act does not apply.
What Labour are guilty of are the following:
240.Obtaining by deception or causing loss by deception
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 8:56 pm
This is very smart politics from national.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 9:04 pm
I disagree GMan. The best defence is offence. As much as National will be trying to right an innocent mistake, they effectively forcing Labour into a position where they have to turn the bill into a confidence and supply issue. The bill is also a Harry Dynhoven retrospective law to only suit one party – which by it’s ver nature is bad law.
National should come out fists flyig and try to prosecute Labour and, due to the pecuniary gain of the criminal act is an election result, there should be another election.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 9:34 pm
Here here on that one Kiwi Bloke.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 9:49 pm
Kiwi Bloke – with all respect you are dreaming. Labour is past the six month limit for prosecutions.
Tax Cuts are the issue which is moving voters. National is doing just right concentrating on policy issues rather than try to relitigate the last election like an Al Gore type figure.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 10:16 pm
There must be another way around this without involving an Act of Parliament. But it is good politics I suppose. What is to stop one of those trusts that donates money to the National Party squaring up the broadcasters in an “ex gratia” payment or some other arms length transaction.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 10:22 pm
Perhaps the brethrens could pay $100k of non refundable deposit for millions worth of TV advertising to run a campaign of awareness about themselves. Then cancel the contract and forfeit the deposit.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 10:54 pm
KiwiBloke:
I seriously have to wonder what planet you’re living on if you think Brash’s proposed bill is politically or financially a soft option for the party. Contrary to paranoid opinion, we don’t have American sugardaddies delivering giant bales of Ben Franklins to Willbank House. And, Tim, I think Brash and Judy Kirk sought advice from bigger legal brains than you or I who advised that a law change is necessary. And have you heard of the concept that justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done?
Vote:May 30th, 2006 at 7:45 am
Craig, if justice be seen to be done, then National should do the right thing, pay the money to the broadcasters and face any consequences under the Electoral Act. Legislating to change the law is, IMHO, an abuse of parliament. Here is an organisation, with the ability to pass laws, changing the law to allow their past unlawful acts to become unpunishable. That is an abuse of power. Labour’s act is arguably worse because they knowingly broke the rules and relied on the ambiguity in those rules (and outright dishonesty from the looks of it) to avoid the consequences of their actions, but this is still an abuse.
Vote:May 30th, 2006 at 7:51 am
I think national has snookered liarbour yet again – the Nats should just about have the majority required to pass this – (assuming the greens 6, act2, National 48, maori party4 , they really now need the united party (3) and they will have the majority required. They pay the money, keep under the spending allowance, get publicity, and can be holier than thou –
Labour have dug the hole and if they don’t support the legislation then they cannot be critical. My bet is they will get the poodle to object so it cannot go thru under urgency (or use the excuse that parliament has better things to do. (in which case it sits in the ballot). No matter which way you look at it – Helen is buggered – she has been outflanked by Gentleman Don (who can be quite cunning at times)
Vote:May 30th, 2006 at 8:08 am
Well the Maori Party have said they won’t support, Green have said the Nats should take the amount out of next election’s spending, Act are just a pair of poodles ao it comes down to Winston 1st & the Cult of Dunne. UF will do anything to keep them at the gravy train so they are a fair bet for National but Winston will do anything to make them twist in the wind. Not a done thing at all.
BTW, am I right in understanding the complication to be that the parties don’t spend the allocation, the Electoral Commission does?
Vote:May 30th, 2006 at 8:24 am
Yes the EC pays on behalf of parties up to the amount allocated.
The bill can’t be introduced by leave if even a single MP objects. It may be drawn through the normal ballot though.
Vote:May 30th, 2006 at 8:42 am
Pablo R:
First, go read the Broadcasting Act. Second, how seriously would you any advice to go and deliberately break the law?
Third, please go read the proposed bill put forward by Don Brash which DOES NOT ‘chang[e] the law to allow their past unlawful acts to become unpunishable’ – the Police did that when they declined to lay charges before the clock ran out. (We’ve seen ample evidence that the Police know nothing about electoral law, and care even less – but that’s a whole other kettle of rotten fish.) All it does is allow National to pay the broadcasters concerned the GST they’re owed. Not a perfect remedy, as I’ve said ad nauseum I’d have preferred the Police to bring charges against both National and Labour and have then offer a defence in open court. It didn’t happen and now can’t.
And if you want to accuse National od deliberate fraud, then I have to say bringing this whole mess to the attention of the Electoral Commission themselves and promptly offering to pay up is a funny way to go about it. Then again, I don’t think National can do anything right by you.
Vote:May 30th, 2006 at 10:44 am
The bill is unusually smart politics by National. It looks good, and best of all it pushes Labour’s “unpatriotic” attack off the front page.
Now we just Labour to reimburse the $418k they illegally overspent.
Illegally. Illegally. Illegally. Illegally. Illegally.
Vote:May 30th, 2006 at 10:54 am
I have writtten to Jeanette asking her why the double standard – ie attack national but not labour – especially given given nationals error was accidential but labours fraud was deliberate – I will follow-up until I get a reply and then post here for interest.
Vote:May 30th, 2006 at 11:19 am
DPF,
You seem to have spent a bit of time on this issue – can you please clarify for me my ‘laymans’ impression of what has happened here.
It appears that both major parties have overspent illegally on their election war chests.
Initially Labour were caught out, and have obfuscated the issue for months.
Now National have been caught out (albeit with a lower amount) and have taken a different strategic approach by seeking to clarify the laws/regulations around election spending.
If this simplification is correct, surely its hard for either of the parties to claim the moral high ground on election over-spending – the differentiating factor has been the response.
Call me cynical, but any party who came second to the ‘election over-spend’ party is in a good position to see if the first party caught out has made a pigs ear of it (they have) and can respond differently as appropriate.
A nice piece of politics from the Nats – helps them recover from a week in which Big Don once again proved that there does not exist a bait that he will leave well alone.
Vote:May 30th, 2006 at 11:29 am
I agree, this is clever politics and I think the law change should be supported by the entire House. The thing about National’s 2005 election campaign finance scandal that I’ve never understood is how it can have “forgotten” to pay GST on electronic media advertising when its general manager was a former commercial radio boss. Surely this requirement was something Mr Joyce could have been expected to understand intimately?
Vote:May 30th, 2006 at 11:46 am
Accidental overspend? HAH, don’t make me laugh. This was a calculated and cynical. An extremely clever piece of deception!!
If it was an oversight, I’d hate them to get their hands on treasury.
Vote:May 30th, 2006 at 11:53 am
Younger Brother – not entirely correct.
There are two campaign spending limits:
1) The election activity spending limit in the Electoral Act; an
2) The broadcast advertising spending limit in the Broadcasting Act.
Labour overspent on the former after they were informed by Electoral Officials that the pledge card was an election activity that would come within the election activity spending limit.
National overspent on the latter, supposedly after someone muddled up the GST.
Election activity expenditure is paid for directly by the Party concerned (so National and Labour wrote out cheques to have it’s newspaper ads printed etc.). Party expenditure is limited to $1m + $20,000 for each electorate the party is standing a candidate in (individual candidates also get to spend up to $20,000 themselves). So Labour was allowed to spend $2.38m, and National $2.24m (National not having candidates in the Maori seats).
Broadcast advertisng expenditure isn’t paid for by individual parties. A few months before the election the Electoral Commission gets together and splits up an amount of taxpayer money to be spent by individual parties on broadcast advertising. They determined that Labour, for example, got $1.1m of taxpayer money to spend, National $900k, and the Greens, Act, NZF and UFNZ $200k, and most of the others $20k or $10k of taxpayer money.
Each party (or their ad agency) then books the ads with the various broadcasters, and is sent the bill. After the election each party then sends these invoices to the electoral commission which takes the money from the taxpayer money it got before the election and pays the various broadcasters. This is the only way broadcast advertising can be paid for.
National, of course, when tallying up the invoices realised they’d spent $1.0125m (GST Incl) instead of the $900k they were allowed and told the commission (which looked into the matter and referred it to the police). They also told the public, and were laughed at rather loudly for it (a former reserve bank governor who doesn’t understand GST etc.). The Electoral Commission, only have $3.157m to pay for everyone’s bills just didn’t have enough money to pay all of National’s, leaving a number of broadcasters out of pocket).
National, I understand, has been in discussions with the Electoral commission about paying it the money it’s short, so that the broadcasters aren’t screwed over, or about it paying the broadcasters directly. However, because of the way, broadcast advertising is paid for, all of these things would be illegal. National can’t even voluntarily use some of the allocation it will get next time, because the law requires the invoices to be paid within a certain time-limit.
After months of trying to work out a way of paying its debts (with the commision, lawyers etc.), National has realised that the only way it can is to change the law, which is what it has proposed.
Labour, of course, doesn’t have any outstanding debts, it spent over the limit, but all the people whom it spent that extra money with have already been paid.
That was somewhat longer than I’d envisaged, but the short point is that National haven’t just been found out – they publically released in the days after the election what had happened (and their concern about paying the broadcasters), it’s just taken them this long to realise a law change is the only way of fixing it.
Vote:May 30th, 2006 at 11:57 am
Graeme – tx for clearing that up!
Vote:May 30th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
Andrew:
Well, I’m really glad you weren’t the chap I dealt with at the IRD when I made a horrendous cock up of my tax return a few years back and initiated the embarrasing, and time-consuming, process of getting it sorted. I guess you’d have decided I was to be presumed guilty of tax evasion, and my attempt to rectify my own admitted error and desire to pay my bill was part of some Baldrick-ian cunning plot…
Vote:May 30th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
I
Vote:May 30th, 2006 at 3:06 pm
Rodney Grub: are we feeling clever having got that cheapshot out of the way? Incidentally, where were you with your law reform zeal when Alamein Kopu became conspicuous by her absence? Now how about actually addressing yourself to the substance of THIS bill?
Vote:May 30th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
Where Rodney is concerned, no shot can be too cheap.
Vote:May 30th, 2006 at 4:17 pm
Is this one cheap enough?
Vote:http://rodneygrub.blogspot.com/2006/04/guess-who-ive-got-in-my-sites.html
May 30th, 2006 at 5:57 pm
DPF and Craig Ranapia,
Tax cuts are a separate unrelated issue.
In relation to the phrase:
“Justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done.”
I would have thought that taking the Labour to court would achieve that, Craig. I would imagine a private prosecution would cost somewhere between National’s debt to broadcasters and one of National’s billboard campaigns.
As much as the purpose of the proposed bill is to pay a debt, can I also assume that the added benefit is to set a standard above the Labour Party by putting pressure on them to pay their debt as well?
I see your point about Al Gore. I don’t think that the issue is that the election result should be challenged but those who broke the law should be named, shamed, prosecuted and the culture of taxpayer funded progaganda challenged.
I would like to see a member of the public pick up one of the many investigations that saw ‘prima face’ grounds for prosecution that were not in the public interest and see where they end up in a court of law, rather than a political whitewash. I think they would achieve te opposite result in a court as Shane Ardern’s tractor antics.
Vote:May 30th, 2006 at 6:03 pm
… Oh, and by the way, the six month period prescribed under the Electoral Act does not apply to criminal acts not expressly covered by the Electoral Act. Look at section 107(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1961. There is no statute of limitations for what Labour officials did.
Vote:May 30th, 2006 at 6:09 pm
So what is stopping National repaying the debt out of their cofers straight to the broadcasters in question.
Vote:What is the need to go through the Electoral Commision?
I’m sure TVNZ and co don’t care where the money comes from, only that the debt is paid.
This a question not a comment.
May 30th, 2006 at 6:33 pm
JohnD, the way the law is structured, National can not pay money directly to a broadcaster.
Vote:May 30th, 2006 at 6:34 pm
JohnD, the way the law is structured, National can not pay money directly to a broadcaster above their allocation.
Vote:May 31st, 2006 at 9:30 am
Kiwi bloke – I’m confident you’re right (I’ve said similar things here and elsewhere), and I know the Electoral Commission is confident that’s the case (as are National’s lawyers), but I wonder if DPF could point us to the provision of the Broadcasting Act that forbids paying for this.
I can find provisions saying you can’t arrange advertisements outside the terms of the act, and can’t actually broadcast ads other than those ordered in accordance with the act.
I can also find provisions detailing how parties must give their invoices to the Commission, and detailing how the commission must pay them, but I can’t actually find anything in the Broadcasting Act that actually prohibits the payment for ads screened illegally (I know there are provisions in both the Broadcasting Act and Electoral Act relating to payments made after a certain time has passed, but these wouldn’t have stopped National at the time, and the Electoral Act provisions can be circumvented with leave from a District Court Judge).
Any ideas DPF?
Vote:May 31st, 2006 at 9:52 am
Craig – yes people make mistakes. No problem with that. However, the Nats like us to believe that when it comes to economics, they are the shit. If this is true, they shouldn’t make mistakes like this!! There is a big difference between you making a tax cock-up, and a party whose credibility rests on their fiscal and economic prowess making a mistake in their area of expertise.
I honestly believe this was calculated
Vote: