Political Idiocy
June 15th, 2006 at 7:25 am by David FarrarI’m amazed at the political idiocy of the Green and NZ First parties at blocking leave to introduce a bill to allow National to pay broadcasters for the GST portion of their election broadcasting.
By blocking the bill, they have effectively just made a donation of $112,500 to National. And that is a lot of money – around $2,000 per electorate saved. From a purely partisan point of view I’m laughing at how hard they are working to give National more money.
From a public policy point of view, I want the bill introduced and passed so the broadcasters can be legally paid. But if they don’t get paid, the broadcasters are now pissed at NZ First and the Greens, not National who has made its best endeavours to legally pay the money owing.
Oh yeah and still waiting for either NZ First or the Greens to say a single word about Labour’s $445,000 deliberate over-spending. Hypocrites.
No tag for this post.
June 15th, 2006 at 7:51 am
Without necessarily wanting to traverse well-trodden paths, we shouldn’t forget that the Greens and New Zealand First have an established track record for blinkered party-partisan contributions.
Incoming Green co-head honcho, Russel Norman, has made it clear that he intends to pursue electoral reform – his beef: the Exclusive Brethren affair. He made no mention of the involvement of the unions in Labour’s political campaign. That qualifies as a blinkered party-partisan contribution.
Ditto with Winston Peters – who was obsessed with the Exclusive Brethren issue.
I guess ideological purity comes in different shades of consistency?
Vote:June 15th, 2006 at 7:59 am
Could it be that Labour is putting pressure on NZF to object so that National can’t leverage it to tell Labour to pay the $445,000 back?
Vote:June 15th, 2006 at 8:01 am
I had a question on that.
The Maori and WPF parties say they should pay and then face the consequences of breaching the Electoral act. How does that square with the police investigations carried out?
Have National broken the law already and passed the 6 month time limit, or have they the potential to break the law, and thus if they payed now they would be open to prosecution.
I certainly wouldn
Vote:June 15th, 2006 at 8:03 am
Just a question…
If the broadcasters elect to instigate debt collection against the National Party, which would lead to court action, which I assume would lead to an order directing the party to pay, would the broadcasters be able to instigate liquidation? Or send around the debt collectors?
It doesn’t seem correct to assume that the creditors have no way of getting back the money.
Ideas?
BTW, i’d like to point out that this would not be the way i’d like to see the National Party go out, and I found myself defending them… weird.
Vote:June 15th, 2006 at 8:17 am
Weizguy, it is not clear how a judge might rule, but it is possible that the contracts would be ruled unenforceable. On a general principle you cannot enforce a contract that breaks the law, however I don’t think it is cut and dried. It does seem unlikely that a court would make a ruling that compelled one party to break a law in order to meet the courts demands.
Vote:June 15th, 2006 at 8:18 am
Ignorance of GST requirements is no protection for those required to pay it.
The big question is how National was so stupid to miscalculate in the first place.
Easy to blame it on the agency who placed the ads., but most people of even moderate ability have the brains to figure if GST is included.
Come on National, pay your debts and face the possible consequences. You are the Big Business Boys. We little guys cannot squirm out of these things. Why should you?
Vote:June 15th, 2006 at 8:23 am
Ignorance of GST requirements is no protection for those required to pay it.
The big question is how National was so stupid to miscalculate in the first place.
Easy to blame it on the agency who placed the ads., but most people of even moderate ability have the brains to figure if GST is included.
Come on National, pay your debts and face the possible consequences. You are the Big Business Boys. We little guys cannot squirm out of these things. Why should you?
Vote:June 15th, 2006 at 8:33 am
DPF, are you going to put a post up about how the Rt Hon Winston Peters uncovered one of the 9/11 bomber suspects here in NZ?
Rt Hon received a tip off, traced the phone call and the guy on the end spilt the beans to Rt Hon that a terrorist Mr Ali is in the country. This was how Terrorist Mr Ali was found. Lucky we had the Rt Hon as Foreign Minister!!!!!
Getting back to the subject.
In the words of Labour President Mike Williams…It’s time to move on!
Don’t you think so?
Vote:June 15th, 2006 at 8:54 am
No Cadmus – those would be the words of the esteemed Helen Clark – the same Helen Clark who has your Rt Hon on a leash and chain.
And as for your “move on” platitude – duh! Tell that to a debt collection agency like Baycorp. I’ve never had any involvement with them personally, but I doubt very much that they would respond favourably to a judgment debtor who decides that the world has moved on.
And Bryan… can we expect you to show some ideological purity and call for Labour to pay its dues arising from the last election (think here: pledge cards)… or is that asking too much from you?
Vote:June 15th, 2006 at 8:58 am
Why isn’t Bryan Dods insisting Labour face up to its breaking of the law – by a far larger margin – as well?
Hypocrite?
Vote:June 15th, 2006 at 9:06 am
Why is it that so many involved in this blog immediately resort to personal insult?
Just because I did not mention Labour’s errors I am labelled a hypocrite.
Why don’t you stick it where it fits, you one-eyed dicks?
Vote:(oh, it is fun coming down to your level)
June 15th, 2006 at 9:09 am
I would say that a pretty good argment of contractual frustration could be made here.
I.e. I do not think that the courts will enforce payment if to pay will result in a breach of the law.
Vote:June 15th, 2006 at 9:29 am
Jimmy D Agree with you on this.
Bryan Dods the Nats want to pay but as I understand it the law doesnt allow them to Yet another fine example of the hopeless governance and crap laws we suffer in NZ
As for NZ First and the Greens Both are thieves They are denying the taxpayers by their actions Neither have any morals or ethics.Arseholes all and those who support them
And the Socialists are the worst of all.The morals and ethics of pond life
Vote:June 15th, 2006 at 9:29 am
Oh, poor poor National what to do.
Vote:Have the integrity to actually pay your debts and suffer the concequences, i.e. risk of being proscecuted or hide behind the Electorial law.
As i said on a previous blog, National is only trying to play politics.
The chances of National being proscecuted would have to be no better or worse than Labours.
What i do agree (i think with the greens) is that the overspend of both Labour and National and any other party that overspends is to take it of there allocation for the next election
June 15th, 2006 at 9:33 am
Bryan Dodds:
I’ll just put you – and Winston Peters – on the list of people I’ll not ask for legal or financial advice. You’re seriously suggesting that National should try and remedy an unintentional breech of electoral law by knowingly and deliberately breaking it? Hum… interesting, especially coming from the wind-bags who are blocking attempts by Don Brash to introduce legislation that would allow the National Party to pay the outstanding GST legally.
Vote:June 15th, 2006 at 9:39 am
Bryan
Vote:June 15th, 2006 at 9:45 am
DPF, I accept that National would be breaking further laws if they paid these bills to the broadcasters directly (the Electoral Commission, or was it the Chief Electoral Officer, have publically stated it is so), but I’ve been having a rather hard time working out how this works.
Perhaps you can help – do you know what section of the Broadcasting Act would be breached by National if they were to just pay up (and how that breach arises)? Obviously the law was broken when the ads were booked, but the time for prosecutions for that has expired.
Chris – an excellent argument for contractual frustration; and an excellent argument that the contracts were unlawful under the illegal contracts act (contracting to commit an offence, such as the broadcast of illegal election advertisement, isn’t allowed, and such contracts are unenforceable).
Weizguy – the broadcasters could obviously send around debt collecters, but it wouldn’t do much, National wouldn’t pay. They could also send a statutory demand and try to put National into liquidation, but I don’t see that would get them very far either – if the contract is frustrated, illegal or both National should be easily able to defend any insolvency action.
As for the Green Party, I’m appalled at their actions, even to the extent that I sent e-mails to two Green MPs explaining my disappointment (which is something I don’t think I’ve ever done before). I hope when Brash’s bill is drawn from the ballot (and I hope every National MP who didn’t already have a bill in today’s members ballot has added their own copy of this) that the Greens will have realised their error (they are asserting that this is effectively an amnesty for National, which is inaccurate) and will at the very least support it to committee.
NZF – I’m not surprised with their opposition, and don’t see them changing their minds, but I think it rather funny that a Minister with a history of supporting public ownership wants to see an Crown company bilked out of its rightful earnings.
Vote:June 15th, 2006 at 9:57 am
DPF, another error by you..
I believe National’s ally the Maori Party also supported NZ1 & Greens on the “NOT” granting National leave?
I’m sure someone will be able to help?
Graham, how about giving some credit where credit is due concerning the Rt Hon Winston Peters flushing out a terrorist?
Vote:June 15th, 2006 at 10:10 am
Cadmus – before we all express confidence in the Rt Hon’s sleuthing abilities, could you please visit http://www.nzherald.co.nz/organisation/story.cfm?o_id=277&ObjectID=10338777
Vote:and then share your thoughts with us?
June 15th, 2006 at 10:10 am
Bryan Dods You and your mates would the first to jump up and down if the Nats broke the law and repaid the money You would correctly accuse them of constitutional immorality and you would be right.Isnt it a pity the Left cant and wont understand the law as witnessed by their not only breaching it but then refusing to own up when they have been caught,Scum bags all.
Vote:June 15th, 2006 at 10:31 am
gd
“Bryan Dods the Nats want to pay but as I understand it the law doesnt allow them to Yet another fine example of the hopeless governance and crap laws we suffer in NZ”
How is a mistake by the Nats the law’s fault. This amendment is to resolve a mistake that the National Party made, not a problem with the law.
Personally, I think this could be better dealt with by a complete overhaul of the system, with National putting the money in trust for the broadcasters until such time that they can legally pay.
I wonder how the National party would react to Labour proposing a law that made their actions at the last election legal. It appears to me that both parties gained an advantage that they shouldn’t have (i’m not going to quibble about quantum).
This turns DPF’s hypocrisy argument somewhat on its head, as I cannot see the Nats accepting a similar proposal put forward by Labour.
Vote:June 15th, 2006 at 10:31 am
Grahmam Miller… In the words of the Rt Hon …Never feed all the Hay from the barn at once!
I don’t doubt the Rt Hon will feed out more info in time.
So lets cut to the chase all the National Party with their big money backers want is to introduce this bill so Labour would also have to pay money back! Then force the Labour Party into debt…Is that the idea Graham, DPF????
I believe all Political Parties have learned their lesson.
Again in the words of Labour Party President Mike Williams …It’s time to move on.
Vote:June 15th, 2006 at 10:34 am
Would it be possible for national to either “donate” the money to the companies, or, purchase some minor services and be over-billed for them?
From a pure accountancy & legal perspective, the “actual” debt is still outstanding, but at least the financials are correct and the companies aren’t then out-of-pocket.
Vote:June 15th, 2006 at 10:51 am
Interesting yelping from the Poodle Pack. Right sleuth Winston! Sure he is. Emasculated little puppy on Mama Helen’s leash more like it. And what kind of idiot chides National for not paying a bill which the governtment is forbidding them to pay! Especially when National is making an effort to pay the bill while Labour is lying through their eye teeth and avoiding the far, far larger overspend they engaged in. Bring that up and suddenly it’s time to move on. The Poodle Pack sure know how to keep everyone entertained with their logical gymnastics.
Vote:June 15th, 2006 at 11:02 am
Wiezguy observed:
“I wonder how the National party would react to Labour proposing a law that made their actions at the last election legal. It appears to me that both parties gained an advantage that they shouldn’t have (i’m not going to quibble about quantum).
This turns DPF’s hypocrisy argument somewhat on its head, as I cannot see the Nats accepting a similar proposal put forward by Labour. ”
National’s proposed law change does not make what they did at the last election lawful. The reason they haven’t (and won’t) be punished for their illegal behaviour is that the police decided not to charge them, and now it’s too late (there’s a six-month time limit).
If National was proposing a law that was going to say “National did not break the law at the last election” then I would oppose it, and I am confident that DPF would too, however if the Labour Government were to propose a law requiring the Labour Party to repay Parliamentary Services for the money spent on the pledge card I have little doubt that National would support it.
If Labour were instead to propose a law that would state “Labour did not breach campaign spending limits at the 2005 election” then National (and I, and hopefully everyone else) should oppose it.
You are right that both parties gained an advantage they should not have, however the reason they got away with it was the police decision not to prosecute – not this bill, or any similar bill dealing with Labour. If this bill passes National will still have broken the law at the last election, and still only avoided prosecution because the Police don’t care about electoral law, but they will also be $100k+ poorer.
Vote:June 15th, 2006 at 11:59 am
Edge
I guess my point comes back to your earlier question.
“Perhaps you can help – do you know what section of the Broadcasting Act would be breached by National if they were to just pay up (and how that breach arises)? Obviously the law was broken when the ads were booked, but the time for prosecutions for that has expired.”
If the law was broken when the ads were booked, does this law retrospectively change that position? Does it make the contracts legal? If so, is this similar to saying that National no longer did anything illegal?
Or, does this law simply allow National to pay back the costs incurred during this election? What kind of message does this send? For me, this is no better than the Duynhoven Act… and yet the people who complained about that are happy for this to go ahead. Is it like using a credit? Or a case of: they did it, so we can too?
Vote:June 15th, 2006 at 12:36 pm
weizguy “If the law was broken when the ads were booked, does this law retrospectively change that position? Does it make the contracts legal?”
The bill as drafted does not change that position. It does not make the contracts legal.
The law as is currently stands does not require National to pay anyone anything. What this bill intends to do is create legal obligations on the National Party to pay the Electoral Commission some money, and the Electoral Commission to pay apportion that money between various broadcasters. Now Parliament legislating legal obligations like this onto people my constitutionally be a little dodgy – but the National Party agree to it, so I don’t see too much problem there.
You ask “What kind of message does this send?” Not much of a message – the message that campaign spending limits aren’t all that important has already been sent – not by National or Labour, against whom overspending was alleged – but by the Police when they decided not to prosecute either party.
I’d suggest that a difference between this and the Duynhoven law is that Duynhoven law was passed by a Government to the advantage of itself, and one of its MPs. National is proposing a law to its *detriment* – if the law passes National is $100k+ poorer than if the law doesn’t pass.
It would be no better than the Duynhoven law if the bill made the contracts lawful (in fact it would be far worse than the Duynhoven law), but thankfully National has decided not to go down that route.
In relation to the particular sentence of mine you quote, I’ll point out that I accept that if National were to now pay its bills that they would be committing a new offence, and a new six-month prosecution period would start (the Chief Electoral Officer has said it would, and that’s good enough for me) – I’m just buggered if I can find the section that actually makes it illegal.
Vote:June 15th, 2006 at 12:39 pm
So the Nats admit they screwed up and now want to put things right.But some of you are saying No they shouldnt be allowed to legally do so.What sort of twisted logic is that.What planet are you from. Labour didnt screw up They screwed the system and you smug little Socialists with no ethics and no morals just smile and say Hard cheese.Bunch of crooks.
Vote:June 15th, 2006 at 12:39 pm
While all this talk about the Greens is all very interesting, the question I pose is this, “What ever happened to Mark Peck? That ex-labour MP who apparently may be back on the booze as no one has heard anything from him for months.
Vote:June 15th, 2006 at 12:43 pm
While all this talk about the Greens is all very interesting, the question I pose is this, “What ever happened to Mark Peck? That ex-labour MP who apparently may be back on the booze as no one has heard anything from him for months.
Vote:June 15th, 2006 at 12:55 pm
Graham
“National is proposing a law to its *detriment* – if the law passes National is $100k+ poorer than if the law doesn’t pass.”
to its economic detriment yes, but I suspect National is more than happy to trade that detriment for the appearance that they are defaulters.
It’s only to their detriment if you think in purely economic terms.
Another question:
say, god forbid, this happens again – a situation where a political party is unable to pay what it owes because of a broadcasting evaluation. Do we pass another law (assuming the proposed one goes through) that allows this next breach… etc… etc…
For the record, I think National should be able to pay the money without prosecution. I just don’t like the proposed mechanism.
Vote:June 15th, 2006 at 1:17 pm
Easy one to fix, National says it will spend $112,000 less on commercials at the next election, to make up for the advantage it had at the last one, and I’m sure everyone will agree to make the law change.
Taking responsiblity, I thought that was what you guys were all about?
Vote:June 15th, 2006 at 1:31 pm
And Labour spends $450k less.
Vote:June 15th, 2006 at 1:37 pm
“It’s only to their detriment if you think in purely economic terms.”
Fair point.
“Do we pass another law (assuming the proposed one goes through) that allows this next breach… etc… etc…”
Ideally, if this happens again, the police will press charges and whomever was responsible will be fined, perhaps even to the current maximum of $100,000.
But if the law was the same, and it remained illegal for them to pay their debts, then yes, I’d hope that Parliament would make it possible for any broadcasters left out of pocket to be reimbursed.
Ideally, also, the law will be changed in general so that the sections surrounding overpayment of broadcast spending could be dealt with in a similar way to other election overspending. Under the Electoral Act, it is possible to obtain through an application to the District Court permission to pay election expenses even though that payment would otherwise be unlawful. It would be eminently sensible if the Broadcasting Act were changed to allow this, however such a change is probably best left until the conclusion of the review of the election by the Justice and Electoral Committee, where it can be dealt with sensibly together with the other electoral law matters that arise from the election.
If National is to pay up for its debts, a law change is required, and whilst I don’t have a particular problem with the content of Don Brash’s bill (although I think it would be better dealt with by a private bill, rather than a private member’s bill amending the Broadcasting Act), if NZF, the Maori Party and the Greens could be persuaded in advance to allow leave for a private member’s bill incorporating a general change such as I’ve proposed (allowing an application to be made to the District Court allowing an otherwise unlawful payment) to be tabled, I see no problem with that (it would appear to get past the Maori Party’s concern at least – as it would affect all political parties).
Vote:June 15th, 2006 at 5:28 pm
Cadmus, the PM needs Winston to be silent about the tip off because if the truth comes out she and the SIS will look rather inept.So the lies and no coments will continue.And we as tax payers will move on only when labour pays the money back.
Vote:June 15th, 2006 at 7:11 pm
National’s attempt to get the law changed is as ethically bankrupt as Labour’s actions to change the law for Duynhoven (sp?).
Vote:The police and courts are the answer to this issue not a legislative get out of jail free card.
People inadvertantly break the law everyday and it’s up to the police and the courts to resole such matters. This simply isn’t a special enough of a case to justify a legislative solution.
June 15th, 2006 at 9:03 pm
The $450,000 of Labour’s came out of the
Leaders Fund budget (which has routinely been used to promote government policy, existing and proposed).
If use of this money in the “electoral period” is to be seen (and one official’s opinion does not reverse precedent of government practice without bi-partisan agreement) as part of campaign funding this makes “snap elections” problematic.
This whole area needs parliamentary select committee work.
National overspent it’s 2005 campaign and underpaid media. It owes media money.
All Labour owes, is it’s committment to fulfill it’s manifesto/pledge card.
All parties should be entitled to their full spending allocation in 2008. Each election needs to be held under some assemblance of fairness.
If National had not been so blatantly partisan on the electoral issue, this parliamentary block may not have happened.
Vote:June 15th, 2006 at 9:05 pm
richard – yes, it would have been appropriate for the police to have charged National. The chose not to and now it’s too late. The police were given the option of sorting the matter out and chose not to, the courts were never given the option of sorting the matter out because the police didn’t lay charges.
Let’s look at the current situation: National received $112,000 of broadcast advertsing that no-one had paid for; the police chose to do nothing; and now National have $112,000 that should be with broadcasters; they can’t legally pay it to the broadcasters and those owed money can’t successfully sue National for it. If no-one does anything National stays $112,000 richer and the broadcasters $112,000 poorer than they should be.
Did National receive a “get out of jail free” card – yes they did – it was handed to them by the police who seemingly didn’t care about electoral law. Rather than trying to legislate themselves a “get out of jail free” card National is doing the abject opposite. If they do nothing the don’t get charged, don’t go to court and don’t get fined or have to pay their bills.
National have looked at this and thought “the police could have charged us and we would have faced a potential $100,000 fine; the police have decided not to charge us and have said we don’t have to pay anything at all. That isn’t fair, even though the police don’t think we should pay any money for breaking the law we think we should. It would be illegal if we were to pay the broadcastes directly, and breaking one election law is quite enough, thank you, so we are going to change the law so that even though the police said we don’t have to pay anything, we’ll have to pay $112,000″.
This isn’t a “get out of jail free card” this is a “go to jail, do not pass go and pay up $112,000″ card. The time limit has passed, National can never be charged with breaching the broadcasting act at the last election, and rather than showing off about how they got off (like Mike Williams was when he thought the time-limit would save Labour) they thought – well, the courts can’t convict us, maybe we should propose a law that will effectively convict us instead.
Vote:June 15th, 2006 at 9:27 pm
Richard:
Graeme has politely fisked your nonsensical arguments and those of many other here much better than I could.
But I’ll tell you something else: As a member of the National Party, I’m well on record saying that I believed National should have been prosecuted over this. And I think my criticism of the Police for not doing not has been absolutely clear and unambiguous.
But if the elected President and Board had authorised a clear and deliberate additional breech of electoral law, contrary to internal and external independent legal advice, I’d be seeking to have every one of them removed from office for a grotesque violation of their legal and ethical duties as officers of an incorporated society.
I’ve also written to Doctor Brash and party President Judy Kirk, and congratulated them for trying to do the right thing rather than the expedient thing. The moment this bill passes, I’ll certainly be putting my money where my mouth is and making a $100 donation over and above my membership dues.
Vote:June 15th, 2006 at 10:07 pm
Does the media believe National made a GST “mistake”?
Do any of the parliamentary parties have a reason to hold a grudge about the media?
Was it a mistake of National to promote themselves as taking the moral high road, so they could attack Labour (despite the electoral advantage they took against third parties from the GST matter), before they had parlaimentary support?
Was this, a bit like crossing the line and while saluting the crowd dropping the ball?
After all, if the purpose was to pay the bill, they have so far failed.
Vote:June 15th, 2006 at 10:37 pm
SPC – this bill (or one like it) should pass even if National deliberately and knowingly flouted broadcast advertising spending limits. In fact if their behaviour was deliberate that is even more reason to punish their financial situation by making this a law.
You may also be correct that National took the high road so that they could attack Labour, I however note that even if that is the case Labour still supports the bill.
Vote:June 15th, 2006 at 11:22 pm
Graeme:
The proposed bill would allow the outcome of National having overspent on the election with no penalty – hardly go directly to jail. As they owe money to the broadcasters, without the bill, they’re likely to end up in court if they don’t pay. The courts are perfectly able to deal with this situation – requiring them to pay or whatever.
Vote:Passing legisaltion to prevent politicians having to bear the consequences of their actions is unacceptable. This situation can be resolved without it and if that means the National party has to make the choice between being a deadbeat debtor or an election law breaker they have no one to blame but themselves – it’s entirely a situation of their own making.
June 16th, 2006 at 7:42 am
richard – the police have already allowed the outcome of National having overspent on the election with no penalty.
If they don’t pay, and are sued in court they’ll win and still won’t have to pay (even if National don’t argue they shouldn’t be forced to pay illegally I’m confident the Chief Electoral Officer would seek to intervene).
I’ll reiterate some of my points from above – National is not a debtor – they owe no-one any money. The contract is an illegal contract with no force of law; and even if the contract is lawful it is frustrated, and unenforceable. The courts are not perfectly able to deal with this matter – they are perfectly able to do absolutely nothing except waste everyone’s time and money.
That said, if he wants it passed, perhaps Dr Brash should re-word his bill – the effect will be identical, but if it helps, why not? Would this be acceptable?
“The New Zealand National Party, having illegally overspent it’s broadcast advertising allocation, and being unable to be prosecuted for this breach, is fined $112,493.48 for this breach, such fine to be paid within one week of coming into effect of this Act to the Electoral Commission, who shall apportion the fine as reparations for National’s illegal actions as follows:
(a) $57,369.00 to TVNZ
Vote:(b) $20,013.62 to TV3 Ltd; and
(c) $3,327.49 to Prime Television Ltd; and
(d) $6,887.75 to Sky Network Television Ltd; and
(e) $24,895.62 to The Radio Bureau Ltd.”
June 16th, 2006 at 8:16 am
I find the argument that National should be docked next time around nonsensical. The point of the law is, one assumes, to attempt to bring some balance to advertising (whether it is successful under MMP is a matter for debate). National having $112k the next election simply rorts yet another election. For the record I do not believe that Labour should be docked $450k next time around either.
Graeme – I see no reason for the act to be worded that way. That would be contrary to ‘one law for all’ – the police have made the (wrong) decision not to charge Labour or National. National has put its hand up and said, our cock up – we might have avoided a charge but we should at least put the matter right financially.
It seems that some to the left are so blinkered by their ideological dislike of National that they will leave the broadcasters out of pocket in a desperate attempt to have a dig at National.
Although what political capital there is to be gained by blocking a move undoubtedly viewed by the majority of the public as ‘doing the right thing’ is beyond me.
Vote:June 16th, 2006 at 9:22 am
GPT – I largely agree. However, more important to me than the exact form of the legislation is that some legislation actually gets passed (and sooner is better).
The Brash bill was not drawn from the ballot, it may not be drawn next time, it may never be drawn. If the only way to have all the other parties in the House grant leave for it to be introduced outside the members ballot process is to reword it then it should be so worded.
Yes the exact re-wording I proposed would amount to a bill of attainder, and breach international law etc. (but if National agrees maybe it’s not that bad).
The idea that any party should be docked at the next election is an idea to introduce retrospective criminal legislation – and I am highly disappointed that the Greens even consider it a good idea.
Vote:June 16th, 2006 at 11:02 am
Richard:
I’ll ask you this question again, and look forward to your answer. Are you seriously auggesting that the President and Management Board of the National Party (elected officers of an incorporated society) should knowingly and deliberately break the law?
In all seriousness, Richard, if I had a lawyer or financial advisor giving me that kind of advice they’d be fired – and I’d be seriously considering laying a complaint with the appropriate professional body. It certainly further confirms my belief that Winston Peters (who has been running this line in the House) cannot be taken seriously by any rational adult.
Vote: