Darnton vs Clark
June 29th, 2006 at 5:57 pm by David FarrarA lawsuit has been filed today against Helen Clark and the other 48 Labour MPs (as at August 2005) in relations to their use of taxpayer funding for their 2005 election pledge cards.
The lawsuit claims the expenditure on the production and distribution of the pledge card and related brochure was a breach of Article 4 of the Bill of Rights 1688, section 22(c) of the Constitution Act 1986 s.22(c) and multiple sections of the Public Finance Act 1989.
A high court lawsuit is not a cheap affair, and the lawyers and parties involved would not be undertaking this without a very reasonable belief they can succeed. It will be a fascinating legal battle, somewhat reminiscent of Fitzgerald vs Muldoon 1976 (which Muldoon lost).
Related posts:
- Amendments Voted Down
- Danrnton v Clark case dropped
- Labour wants to renege on pledge card repayment
- Clark does a u-turn
June 29th, 2006 at 6:59 pm
I must say that the statement of claim makes for very interesting reading – no doubt Crown Law will apply their legal minds to the points of law involved. We can no doubt look forward to an application to strike out the proceedings and then the proper bullfight can begin.
Vote:June 29th, 2006 at 7:23 pm
A declaration only? If I had the money for the lawsuit I’d be seeking punitive damages.
Vote:June 29th, 2006 at 7:50 pm
I am not sure whether this is an action Crown Law should be involved in. No doubt there will be an early application for strike-out. But expenditure contrary to an appropriation is unlawful, the interesting legal issue is whether the appropriation for the leader’s fund expenditure is as specific as the cause assumes. Appropriations these days are fairly broad as set out in the estimates and whether it got down to the nitty gritty detail of party political advertising will be an interesting test of the Public Finance Act.
Vote:June 29th, 2006 at 7:55 pm
I wonder if the Labour party will pay for their own defence or apply for Legal Aid?
Vote:June 29th, 2006 at 8:47 pm
about time.
this govt has lost its mandate and by right should be in jail for corrupt practice.
I wonder if the court could order that as “other relief as deemed appropriate” – or if Labour stuffs up, dump them inside for contemt?
Vote:June 29th, 2006 at 9:20 pm
David, I think comparing this action with Fitzgerald v Muldoon is a bit of a stretch frankly. One is definitive of the limitations on government’s right to legislate (or rather the processes by which they do or don’t), the other almost certainly will not be. Still, no one in the media will understand the difference.
Vote:June 29th, 2006 at 9:23 pm
DPF, do you know an email address of the persons/people responsible?
If yes, can you please email me.
Enjoy your warmth in Port Douglas!!!!
Vote:June 29th, 2006 at 9:25 pm Vote:
June 29th, 2006 at 9:28 pm
It’s peanuts if the taxpayer is funding you as well.
Is that really the best you have?
Vote:June 29th, 2006 at 10:52 pm
Crown Law should not have anything to do with this. There is no action being taken against the Crown.
It will be Labours legal minds attempting to find an answer here.
Good luck. You will need it.
Vote:June 29th, 2006 at 11:19 pm
Its peanuts if the Exclusive Brethren are bankrolling you though.
Last time I checked secretive Christian groups weren’t too big on Libertarianism.
Vote:June 29th, 2006 at 11:27 pm
Ed you clearly aren’t clued up on how smeers work.
You just sling away without regard for those pesky fact thingies. It’s the default setting of the labour monkey.
Vote:June 30th, 2006 at 5:45 am
Of course when it would *really* be peanuts is when the police prosecuters did their jobs properly and it didn’t take a private prosecution in the first place…
Vote:June 30th, 2006 at 8:08 am
Silas:
“DPF, do you know an email address of the persons/people responsible?”
Check out: http://www.darntonvsclark.org/
Cheers
Vote:Julian
June 30th, 2006 at 8:22 am
Doesn’t appear to have made much of an impact on the news yet, or the news I’ve heard.
Vote:June 30th, 2006 at 8:35 am
I find this interesting because it is a case brought on constitutional grounds.
Vote:We seldom think about such grounds let alone act on them.
This is a useful reminder.
June 30th, 2006 at 8:47 am
Julian – Thanks.
Mickey Bill – It is up on the stuff website.
Vote:June 30th, 2006 at 8:52 am
Wow, The Libz trying to take down the Govt.
Vote:When costs are award against the Libz after they lose, I wonder who will foot the Bill.
June 30th, 2006 at 8:57 am
Private Eye used to have a “Goldenballs” fund.
Vote:What’s the Kiwi equivalent?
June 30th, 2006 at 9:04 am
Cadmus said: “When costs are award (sic) against the Libz after they lose…”
Here we go: Cadmus, the poodle’s terrier, can also predict the future! Another bauble of office, maybe?
Good on Libz for taking Helen ans her corrupt government to court.
Vote:June 30th, 2006 at 9:13 am
They are upholding a free democracy here folks.
I think if you agree with the reasons for the lawsuit, then you should get your credit card out and support this Darton fellow, who has put his money and balls on the line to make this very important point. As there is no such thing as a vast right wing conspiracy (sponsored by Excl Breth/ Bus Roundtable/ US Republican Party etc), I imagine the funds would be welcome and put to good use.
I wish him all the best. If Helen Clark is right that the law is not clear, then her legal defence will have nothing to fear. However, if she is wrong, and it is clear cut… the loss of face (let alone the funds), will be huge.
Vote:June 30th, 2006 at 9:21 am
Manolo, …No just stats. I can’t recall any NZ govt bought down by a private lawsuit? Because that’s what the outcome would be.
Vote:No doubt the Labour party would want the Judge to make the Libz put costs up front for this lawsuit, due to vexatious litigants just wanting to cause trouble ? I wonder who’s name will be one the cheque? Yours no doubt?
June 30th, 2006 at 9:38 am
Where in the lawsuit is there mention of breaches of section 221 and 214B of the Electoral Act? This is the guts of Mr Darnton’s lawsuit, is it not?
Vote:June 30th, 2006 at 9:39 am
Where in the lawsuit is there mention of breaches of section 221 and 214B of the Electoral Act? This is the guts of Mr Darnton’s lawsuit, is it not?
Vote:June 30th, 2006 at 9:43 am
If Crown Law get involved in any way helping the Socialsts to fight this action then thats a clear conflict of interest.Its no different from the referee in a fottie game starting to play for one side during the game. but that wont stop this little corrupt lot.
David can be have a discussion on the latest developments in the saga of El Jeffe. Cullen hasnt denied the costs have topped quarter of a million and rising. I noted his comments in the House yesterday when attacked on the costs that the Opposition call for such inquiries 3 or 4 times a day.I wonder if the costs of this are being blown out to get the public put off these so the Socialists can hide their dirty washing away.Given the TORs for the El Jeffe incident I cant see any costs remotely approaching that amount.And Im not impressed by Noel Ingram QCs attitude on the matter.He needs to consider that the legal profession doesnt enjoy much favour with the public at the best of times and this is only adding fuel to the fire.
Vote:June 30th, 2006 at 9:58 am
Crown Law will be involved because the second respondent is the Attorney-General, sued in respect of Parliamentary Services.
ross – no, those are not the guts of the lawsuit.
There were always (at least) two issues with the pledge card:
1) Whether they were election spending (which it is clear that they were);
2) Whether they could be paid for out of the leader’s fund (which is less clear);
Darnton’s case is only about the latter of these questions (which he’d consider theft of taxpayer money). I can’t imagine him suing to enforce the former (the Libz believing that Political Parties should be able to do just about whatever they want to get elected, spending as much money as they feel necessary.)
Vote:June 30th, 2006 at 10:56 am
Graeme,
But if Labour breached the Electoral Act, and I understand that police believe they did, why not take Labour to task over that, especially if such a breach is more clear-cut than the other breaches claimed by Darnton?
Vote:June 30th, 2006 at 11:08 am
Crown Law are going to have to be careful to manage the situation so they dont either give the perception or actually get involved with the Labour Partys defence That was my point.Of course they can act to defend the AG but not the Party.And given past behaviours thats were the problem may lie
Vote:June 30th, 2006 at 11:10 am
I can certainly see arguments for doing just that, I just can’t see principled libertarian arguments for it. But perhaps you could ask a libertarian =)
There’s also the issue that such action could be seen as abuse of process and thrown out because of the existence of the time bar on criminal proceedings under the electoral act.
Vote:June 30th, 2006 at 11:21 am
Ross, my case has nothing to do with the Electoral Act because I don’t believe in spending limits. If someone wants to spend their own money promoting their beliefs or their party, go ahead; I see that as a simple free speech question.
Vote:What Labour did wrong was take public money and spend it on their election propaganda. That was wrong, and it was illegal because the money was not appropriated by Parliament for that purpose.
A government that can just do whatever it likes for whatever purpose it likes without inconveniences like the will of Parliament is called a dictatorship.
June 30th, 2006 at 11:48 am
Good luck with the action Bernard And thank you for clarifying the governance we have suffered in your last paragraph
Vote:June 30th, 2006 at 11:56 am
The spending limits have a time limit I understand so there is nothing that could be done with that. As for this action it needs to be established that we are dealing with public money at all times and that expenditure accurred that was outside the terms of the appropriation. For instance a “corporation” has its own money and receives a bulk grant from the Crown which is no longer public money and outside the need for an appropriation except for the authority to make the bulk grant. In the Parliamentary Service it will be important that we are indeed dealing with public money and secondly expenditure occured outside the terms of an appropriation. There is an issue of standing whether the Plaintiff as a tax payer would have standing to raise these issues. All are complex issues but I do see it is a law suit of some importance and parliamentary expenditure being outside the terms of an appropriation is a very serious matter and in long entrenched in our constitutional history. It has long been the law that Parliament must approve how the Crown spends its money and this is a case of spending that was outside the assumed terms of how the money is spent and it is also in breach of statutory spending limits. I can see the Couts not viewing this matter as frivilous as it involves very serious and fundamental constitutional principles.
Vote:June 30th, 2006 at 12:04 pm
“my case has nothing to do with the Electoral Act because I don’t believe in spending limits”.
I certainly wish you all the best, Bernard, but the breaches, not your beliefs, are the nub of the issue here. Whether or not you believe Labour should be allowed to breach the Electoral Act seems to me to be irrelevant. The fact is they breached it. Although I’m no lawyer, I would have thought that since the police have already indicated that Labour broke the law, it would probably be difficult for Labour to defend successfully in court. Your action, however, may be able to be defended successfully.
Vote:June 30th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
“my case has nothing to do with the Electoral Act because I don’t believe in spending limits”.
I certainly wish you all the best, Bernard, but the breaches, not your beliefs, are the nub of the issue here. Whether or not you believe Labour should be allowed to breach the Electoral Act seems to me to be irrelevant. The fact is they breached it. Although I’m no lawyer, I would have thought that since the police have already indicated that Labour broke the law, it would probably be difficult for Labour to defend successfully in court. Your action, however, may be able to be defended successfully.
Vote:June 30th, 2006 at 12:16 pm
Can anyone spell “publicity stunt”?
“What Labour did wrong was take public money and spend it on their election propaganda”.
Well now that is just where they are wrong you see. Because our laws allow for *precisely* that to happen. This may not fit the intensely lopsided libertarianz view of the world which nobody outside that tiny sect belongs to but it is true. Still, it is typical of sects who are unable to motivate the voting population in their favour to attempt to seek power through dictatorial means that circumvent the electoral process. I suspect the libertarianz would prefer a clarion cry of $1million, 1 vote to replace 1 man 1 vote.
DPF and others have questioned the use of this particualr fund *during* an election but it seems that is not the issue they are arguing on.
Vote:June 30th, 2006 at 1:00 pm
Jesus you talk shit noddy.
Vote:June 30th, 2006 at 1:20 pm
Interestingly, we presently have no attorney-general since Terence Arnold went to the Court of Appeal. The governemtn has not appointed a QC, apparently because there were no suitably competent and experienced candidates. Word has it Carruthers QC has knocked back an offer for the position, so the government wil be looking for a real hotshot to wrap his laughing gear around this puppy back.
As an aside we can prepare for the unseemly spectacle of having a Court of Appeal judge summons to appear in the distrcit court to plead to the Berrymans private prosecution. Me thinks Justice Arnold’s attendance might just be excused.
Vote:June 30th, 2006 at 1:28 pm
Hooray! now the evil communists fake election victory will be annulled and a grand coalition of National and, er, ACT will sweep to power to the grateful applause of the outraged wingnuts.
Or perhaps not.
Vote:June 30th, 2006 at 1:34 pm
delboy – and me thinks that you’ve confused the office of Attorney-General with that of Solicitor-General.
Vote:June 30th, 2006 at 1:39 pm
The problem is even if the Socialists lose they will just pass retrospective legislation.They have utter contempt for any institution that stands in their way They see Parliament as their own fiefdom to manipulate to their own ends.the Socialists are contemptible immoral unethical pond life
Vote:June 30th, 2006 at 1:47 pm
Murray – with a name like “NODDY” is he going to talk anything else but SHIT.
Got the acount number for contributions to the fund and am quite happy to join in.
What I would like to know is how many tax payer dollars are we going to watch squandered defending this,(like BS Field enquiry) in effect I’m paying for the attack and the defence, but what the hell, at least this way Cullin can choke on it if the challenge is successful.
Vote:June 30th, 2006 at 1:48 pm
Murray if Noddy is talking shit, please point out exactly where and why?
A publicity stunt is exactly what this is. What exactly does Bernard hope to achieve with this except make his point? (valid as it may be about the Labour party appropriating public funds for party political means)
Vote:June 30th, 2006 at 1:55 pm
I suspect he hopes to bring down the government and cause fresh elections. Good on him.
Vote:June 30th, 2006 at 2:24 pm
Sorry, I should have said, what does he REALISTICALLY hope to achieve?
Vote:June 30th, 2006 at 2:24 pm
I always find it interesting that even self-proclaimed “democrats” on the right of politics just cannot ever accept the legitimacy of a left of centre government.
We have seen it in the UK with Harold Wilson, in the USA with Clinton and now, albeit in a rather smaller and more comical way, here in NZ.
The Labour govt and it’s allies have won three elections, yet some here still dream that by an amazing trick they can sweep back to power. Indeed they seem to believe that any trick is reasonable to get rid of the “socialists”
Aint going to happen chaps, keep your powder dry for the next election, you’ll probably lose that one too but hey, keep trying rather than crying foul.
Vote:June 30th, 2006 at 2:43 pm
Publicity? Absolutely!
Stunt? No!
Libertarianz are raising a valid issue, If the process generates substantive debate in the courtroom and all media forms, then the country is better off for hearing it.
As for 1 million dollars per vote. If your property rights are enshrined in a constitution as per http://www.freeradical.co.nz/content/constitution/index.php
then there is no trough for the politicians to feed at. i.e. no wealth is at risk therefore no point trying to buy votes.
Vote:June 30th, 2006 at 2:58 pm
There is no integrity in this Government.
Clark, Cullin, Wilson are not there to serve NZ, they don’t play by the same rules as the rest of us, so if someone out there has the skills to take them on, I’ll put my hard earned cash up to make sure they are held to account.
Vote:June 30th, 2006 at 3:06 pm
A fair point about the financial aspects Andrew, but the atomisation of society into individuals that is the Libertarian view leaves them susceptible to the actions of groups that gather to further their own interests and I can see life being, indeed, nasty brutish & short.
It’s a bit off the point but:
Given human nature this constitution seems to be as fanciful as Marx’s communist paradise or whatever, no matter how lofty its goals.
Vote:June 30th, 2006 at 3:06 pm
sonic there are a few of us who long for ethical moral governance. Even though this is always going to be a struggle to achieve given the lowlife politicans we have to endure we will keep fightng.So we will continue to highlight the shonky behaviour of our current batch of employees.They are a comtempible lot but they are there and so reality demands that we speak up and speak out against them. For as long as we are able given their desire to silence any critics.
Vote:June 30th, 2006 at 3:08 pm
“given their desire to silence any critics”
The hysterical hyperbole does your cause no credit mate.
I’ve yet to note a shortage of govt critics around these parts.
Vote:June 30th, 2006 at 3:14 pm
“I suspect he hopes to bring down the government”
Wow, what a stunning blow for democracy that would be…
Vote:June 30th, 2006 at 3:43 pm
For christs sake someone flush.
Vote:June 30th, 2006 at 3:58 pm
Noddy do you truly support this government with their history of corruption? You must be reasonably well informed. Even if you support their policies can you not see they are corrupt and must go? If the police had just done their job there would be no need for this lawsuit.
Vote:June 30th, 2006 at 5:54 pm
Cant quite see how some say its not a matter for the Crown law office and yet say its unauthorised expenditure.
Vote:Wont even make it past the JPs who will first hear it ! The Crown law are probably having a good laugh at Friday night drinks. They would have more brians in their big toe than this Darnton dill.
June 30th, 2006 at 6:05 pm
McPhee – it’s not a criminal matter so JPs will have nothing to do with it.
Moreover, it’s not a Distrcit Court matter so JPs definitely won’t have anything to do with it.
Vote:June 30th, 2006 at 6:35 pm
I have no idea what all this crapola is about – but it all sounds very tortious to me. That means the appellant (the he or she or it that wants something) has to show that the respondant (the he she or it that wants the appellant to go away) on a balance of probability did the nasty things that the applellant said the respondant did.
I’m very lazyy and I have to admit that I have not, in detail, read every post on this thread. So… can someone tell me who the appelant is? Who/what is Darnton? What is Darnton’s loss? What damage has Darnton suffered? Is Alexander Dumas involved in some way??
Vote:June 30th, 2006 at 7:06 pm
PabloR The alternative is the Labour party stays in power by whatever means and life becomes brutal, nasty and long.
Vote:June 30th, 2006 at 7:11 pm
“The alternative is the Labour party stays in power by whatever means”
Up to now those means seem to consist of winning elections. Try to do something about that if you want a change rather than engage in lawsuits.
Is anyone seriously arguing that those pledge cards are responsible for Labour’s victory?
Thought not.
Vote:June 30th, 2006 at 7:16 pm
Darnton vs. Clark???? What does ‘vs’ mean DPF? Isn’t that what the Yanks use … e.g. Roe vs. Wade? I’m no Matlock but I thought us colonials use ‘v’ which means ‘and’. So its ‘Darnton and Clark’. I don’t fancy Darnton’s chances.
Vote:June 30th, 2006 at 7:41 pm
Merde!! The unthinkable … the mind-blowing has happened. I agree with sonic’s last post. I’m certainly no Labour or Helen supporter but yes!!! Labour, with Helen as leader, formed a legitimate government. And moreover I’ve begrudgingly grown to respect the fact that Helen has balls. She is, reagrdeless of your political leanings, a forceful and effective leader. This is hard for me to admit because I’d never vote for her.
And Mick… Labour is in power because our electoral system fairly allows Labour, following our last general election, to form a government.
Its called democracy. Those that lose (like me) must accept the decision of the those that win through their democratic voice.
Vote:June 30th, 2006 at 8:04 pm
Most are missing the point of this lawsuit. It is not attempting to nullify the last election – but rather get a legal declaration that spending public money on something that parliament did not specifically approve is against the law. Even the Prime Minister has to get parliament’s permission to spend public money – otherwise we have a dictatorship.
Vote:June 30th, 2006 at 8:12 pm
I doubt very much if the District Court will have any appetite whatsoever for a case that would so obviously intrude into the political arena. Parliament and the Courts have a long-standing constitutional arrangement whereby each refrains from meddling in the others sphere of operations. Not too many Judges would be keen to accept a case that could potentially strike at the outcome of an election, fewer still would allow the action to proceed to the point of actually overthrowing a sitting govt that has been accepted by the GG and exercising Ministerial warrants for the better of a year.
Moreover the electorate itself would be very loath to accept the dissolution of a govt on the basis of a civil lawsuit that many would perceive as essentially vexacious in nature. Regardless of the narrow grounds of Darnton’s case, it’s wider implications rule out any likelihood of success. His lawyers must know that, and are simply happy to be charging their fees. Darnton in exchange will get his publicity stunt; I trust he thinks he is getting value for his money.
Vote:June 30th, 2006 at 8:21 pm
Point acknowleged. They are in power, majority wins minority loses. They formed a minority government with the support of Winston First, the Gormless Greens [a worm that has turned] and the less said about Dunne the better. The legality of some of the means are what is being taken to task by Darnton. The Police did not have the cojones to take on the Mighty Mistress, Darnton does. More power to his arm, Good luck to him. I will donate. Get stuffed if you don’t like that idea.
Vote:June 30th, 2006 at 8:40 pm
Logix you tosser… is this a District Court matter? I seriously doubt it. The District Court is staffed by failed legal practitioners (i.e. lawyers that either couldn’t make a buck in private practice or were vain enough to think the title ‘District Court Judge ‘ meant something.)
High Court Judges, Court of Appeal judges and our new Supreme Court judges are appointed on a somewhat different basis. (We’re talkng here about people like Blanchard and Glazebrook)The High Court and the Appeal Courts can feed upwards. It is an extremely rare occurrence for a district court plodder to rise through the ranks.
So you’re right for once Logix. The District Court won’t have an appetite or any jurisdiction whatsoever in relation to this case.
Vote:June 30th, 2006 at 8:58 pm
oops…brain fart… High Court it is.
Vote:June 30th, 2006 at 10:56 pm
This comment thread has an unusually low signal to noise ratio. Might I suggest that those whinging about bringing down the Government & other apocalyptic conspiracy theories actually read the Statement of Claim?
Vote:June 30th, 2006 at 11:37 pm
The first issue, is the party of interest (Darnton?) being legitimate (should a public interest matter be born by a private citizen, even if costs can be awarded?).
The second issue, is the question of the Court, referring the matter to another “party”. This might be kicked upstairs, or sideways into the executive straddling government/parliament/judiciary. Any port in a storm.
Without networking, who would know the consequences of any decision? And because of this, why not refer the matter?
Of course the whole point of the court case (for Darnton) is to make the issue a contested one, rather than one which merely results in a legal opinion from an official, or a collection of judges holding an internal debate and making a declaration.
If it is concluded that the result would be a declaration that an illegality had occured, it is one which occured without any warning to government over many years of their own behaviour (past and present governments). Thus there would be no cause for the GG to take it as any more serious than an instruction to government about future behaviour (which may be Darnton’s intent – his goal is reducing tax funded party activity and promoting unlimited private financing).
Vote:July 1st, 2006 at 12:43 am
SPC – go back to Fitzgerald v Muldoon – public interest matter taken by Mr Fitzgerald, citizen.
It was a case involving the question “can the government ignore a law that Parliament has passed?”
This is a case taken by a citizen involving the question “can the government ignore a law that Parliament has passed?”
If the court was the proper place to determine the legality of government action in Fitzgerald v Muldoon why wouldn’t it be in this case?
Vote:July 1st, 2006 at 6:51 am
I see this Law suit is of equal importance to Fitzgerald v Muldoon. It will not alter the election result but the Labour Party may have to repay the money. The constitutional issues are of equal importance are are of very long standing. Indeed given the allegation this involves a flagrant breach of the purpose parliament voted public money, in an area that arguably affected the upcoming election which was very close indeed, I can think of no more important case to come before the Court.
Vote:July 1st, 2006 at 11:52 am
We obviously need to brush up our education system when I read post after post claiming this is a frivolous matter. Revolutions have been mounted and wars fought over the matter of the primacy of Parliaments and their sole right to raise taxes and fund the executive. Limiting the executive power is at the core of democratic constitutions.
Vote:I knew of this some time ago and the Barrister who has put the case together is an expert in public law. He would not have taken on the case if he thought it was vexatious or frivolous.
July 1st, 2006 at 12:20 pm
Revolutions have been mounted and wars fought over the matter of the primacy of Parliaments and their sole right to raise taxes and fund the executive.
And yet this case asks a Court to usurp primacy over Parliament. That is my sole point. If Parliament has not seen fit to take further action on this entirely political matter , then why should a Court?
Vote:July 1st, 2006 at 1:40 pm
But isn’t the point that Labour is riding rough shod over parliamentary convention, and misappropriating funds which would otherwise legitimately been allocated for expenditure elsewhere. Thus this issue is in effect a defence of Parliament’s process, and is taking offence against those who would abuse/ corrupt that process.
Vote:As for the poo-pooing of the legitimacy of the Labour led Government, yes it is true that Clark brokered a deal with the poodle parties. But, were the spending restictions adhered to, what would have been the result? This I believe, is the basis for the argument put forward that Labour stole the election.
July 1st, 2006 at 7:43 pm
I think the point here is that it has nothing to do with parliamentary covention, nor with “Labour stealing the election.” It is about the limits placed upon a govt in what it can raise taxes for, and what it can appropriate money for.
As it stands, the law is clear. Parliament may appropriate money for pretty much whatever it pleases, provided that it declares that in the appropriation. Once the money is appropriated (I like that word) it must be spent for the purpose declared.
Governments are not above the law, and holding the government to the law has nothing to do with courts interfering in parliament. If Labour wanted to use government money to distribute election material it would be quite legal to do so, providing that it stated that when it appropriated the money. Of course, it would be politically quite difficult to do that – hopefully the media would raise merry hell, so instead Labour used money appropriated for something else for its election material.
An entirely different matter is the total amount that can be spent during an election. That is covered by the elections act, and I believe it deliberately ignores the source of the money, it just puts a limit on how much in total can be spent. That act also has a time limit for prosecution being initiated, and that time limit has passed – so there is (as I understand it) no ability to prosecute under that act.
I don’t believe this would bring the government down, an adverse finding would most likely lead to a resignation of a senior official – my guess as to the best scapegoat would be Heather Simpson.
More importantly, a finding like this would reinforce the limits on what money appropriated can be used for. I personally would prefer that an incumbent government didn’t have even greater advantage than they already have, irrespective of whether that government is headed by Labour or National – the whole point of having elections is that both parties have a chance at winning. A finding that the current behaviour is legal would basically establish that an incumbent government can spend government money on winning elections, a privilege that the opposition do not have – seriously damaging our democracy.
Vote:July 2nd, 2006 at 12:06 pm
All parties receive parliamentary funds, so do all MP’s.
There is more than one party and more than one MP who has used parliamentary funding for their electoral campaigns.
IF one has to repay money for the 2005 election, the same applies for all earlier elections where this too occured – for all parties and all MP’s.
For a range of reasons, I doubt that the court would want all these court cases to occur because of one private citizen focusing on just one instance in a much wider issue.
Which is why the court would be opening pandora’s box in a process which could go back decades, should any priovate citizen make a case.
The court may make the case one of principle (for declaration purposes), thus reject the specific matter of the Labour spending of the “private case” for this “public purpose” reason.
Vote:July 2nd, 2006 at 8:29 pm
A finding that the current behaviour is legal would basically establish that an incumbent government can spend government money on winning elections, a privilege that the opposition do not have – seriously damaging our democracy.
Nicely put. There is no question that Labour, finding itself pushed to match the very big money National had at it’s disposal (National had raised 1.8m, ie they still had 800k left over AFTER the election), and aware that National had about a 40 day head start in the campaign as a result (Nat billboards and TV ads were going running at least a month before anyone else’s)…determined to go ahead with the pledge card thing despite the somewhat slender justification for doing so. The simple point is that without the pledge card dodge Labour would have been well behind in total campaign spending. Hardly a big advantage for the incumbent party.
The whole point of spending limits is that they are a balance between one extreme, ie fixing every party the SAME amount of funding regardless of size or ability to raise funds….and the other extreme of allowing any party to spend whatever it can raise. I suggest that in reality neither option is especially palatable.
Givng all parties the same state funding is hard to justify for all manner of reasons. On the other hand allowing unlimited fund-raising from private sources, inherently biases the system towards those parties representing the wealthiest interests. The US is stark evidence of what a mess this produces. Campaign finance reform (or the lack thereof) has been a long-running political issue in the US, but dislodging the establishment on this question has proven all but impossible. As a result a huge proportion of the US electorate believe that the Rep/Dem two party choice is utterly irrelevant to them…and never bother voting.
Focussing on just the pledge card issue, really fails to ask the real question, ie what is the sane basis for funding party political election spending? Underlying Darnton’s case is his stated desire to eliminate all funding limits, permitting the party with access to the most funds to dominate the campaign as it wishes. We are already seeing National putting up billboards in recent months…clearly pushing a campaign message…but exempt from limits because the expense is likely to be outside the three month period prior to an election.
Then there is the documented influence of the EB’s who have attempted to influence elections in four different countries. Capable of and willing to spend very large sums of money to push their retrogressive reactionary messages, their actions raise real questions. Equally on the left, the money spent by Unions and the PSA falls into a similar category…although at least they had the brains to sign their material honestly.
And finally there is the question of “soft costs”. It is quite obvious that there is real potential for parties to obtain services at “mates rates”, thereby defeating the point of limits. While some materials and services such as billboard hardware, TV slots and the like can be readily tracked…other things such as consultancy, polling and design services are a lot harder nail down.
But overall my conclusion is that mostly we are well served by party managers who actually do a fairly good job of sticking within spirit of the rules. Sure the boundaries have been pushed at now and then….but would say that they have not been broken as such. The intent of our election spending rules has been largely observed, and NZ elections are by global comparison very fair and well run. This is reflected by the confidence the electorate has in them, and the very high turnout figures we achieve without the compulsion as the Aussies resort to.
Vote:July 3rd, 2006 at 2:20 pm
Having read the Statement, I still think comparing this case with Fitzgerald v Muldoon is overstating the matter significantly.
The situations are quite different, though its a long time since I studied the case and the matter at issue might be comparable (I’ll leave this for others to comment on accepting the inevitable bias).
In the Fitzgerald case, the issue was whether the PM could simply instruct the public to stop paying their super contributions without first changing the relevant legislation (an idiotic act by a meglomanical PM that led to 20 years screwing around on funding for retirement). In this case, the issue is whether or not Labour spent money that was or was not allocated for that purpose.
In one case, the court considered the process by which laws are made and amended, in the other the court may consider whether or not laws were followed i.e. whether the expenditure was authorised (para 23 of the Statement).
Vote:July 3rd, 2006 at 9:04 pm
Might I suggest that those whinging about bringing down the Government & other apocalyptic conspiracy theories actually read the Statement of Claim?
Come on – if Helen was allowed to lose this case, the court would be confirming what everybody here has already said labour bought the election.
That’s why the Nat’s still had their 800K – they didn’t cheat on spending limits.
That said, I think the most likely outcome is that the courts will defer (once again) to parliament as soverign (aka Helen) one way or another to make the determination.
Vote:July 4th, 2006 at 6:40 am
everybody here has already said labour bought the election.
You can say it…but the proof is fairly tenuous. Given that Labour and National spent in total similar sums of monaey, and that no-one has said that National’s ad and billboard campaign was in any way deficient…then the notion that Labour BOUGHT the election by spending vastly greater amounts of money is quite silly.
The implication of your thinking is that if campaign moneys = votes (and little things like policies, track record and people have no bearing on the outcome), then in order to run fair elections, all parties should have exactly the same sum of money’s to spend.
Vote:July 4th, 2006 at 7:25 am
“You can say it…but the proof is fairly tenuous. Given that Labour and National spent in total similar sums of monaey, and that no-one has said that National’s ad and billboard campaign was in any way deficient…then the notion that Labour BOUGHT the election by spending vastly greater amounts of money is quite silly.”
Right.
I don’t recall getting a pledge card. If I did then it went straight in the bin on the way back up the drive, with all the other junk mail that shows up in my mailbox every day.
National’s billboards, on the other hand, were bloody everywhere for ages. The only Labour one I recall driving past regularly was the one on Hobson Street with good old airbrushed aunty Helen on it.
I think it’s pretty clear that National had a considerably more flash campaign going this time. The whole red/blue billboard thing was considerably more eye-catching than anything Labour had going.
Any claims that Labour bought the election are quite ironic, given that National’s general position is that Labour are big-time money-wasters who should be removed from power so that National can get more efficient results with less spending…
Vote: