Place your bets
UPDATE: All bets are off. See this post for reasons.
CURRENT BETS:
Illegal $265
Legal: $30
As of latest comment
At present a $10 bet on Labour’s pledge card being legal, would pay almost 9:1 odds. Come on Dr Cullen? Helen? Trevor?, you must be willing to bet at least $10 on the legality of the pledge card.
—-
Here’s a chance for true believers of Helen to make some money from the evil right.
Place a bet here on the outcome of the court case that seeks a declaration from the High Court that the expenditure on the production and distribution of the “Pledge Card” and related brochure from money allocated by Parliament as funding for the Labour parliamentary party was in breach of the Constitution Act 1986 s.22(c), the Public Finance Act 1989 sections 4, 5 and 9, and Article 4 of the Bill of Rights 1688..
Now here is how the betting works. You can bet either that the spending will be found to be legal (the plaintiffs lose on all grounds) or that the spending will be found to be illegal (the plaintiffs succeed in having the expenditure found to be in breach of one of the cited Acts). All bets are off if the lawsuit does not proceed to judgement for any reasons (including Labour retrospectively changing the law).
Now I will make no money out of this. All money bet, will be distributed to those on the winning side in proportion to each person’s bet. Here’s an example of how it works.
Say $5,000 is bet that the spending is found illegal and $250 is bet that the spending is legal. If it is found to be legal, then those who bet it is legal will get $20 for every $1 they bet.
People should place bets by publicly pledging their bet below in the comments, and also sending an e-mail to dpf@ihug.co.nz confirming they placed the bet, and their contact details so I can verify them.
I will update this page with the running total of bets for and against, and the payout odds for each.
I suggest $10 should be the minimum bet. Again this is a great chance for all those people who argue that Labour have not broken the law to put their money where their mouth is. And also a great chance for those of the other view to do the same.
Let the betting begin.
August 24th, 2006 at 11:44 am
My bet (invalid under DPFs rules) is $10 that the case gets thrown out long before it gets to trial because he’s named the wrong parties in the case – namely the Attorney General instead of the Speaker of the House.
August 24th, 2006 at 11:44 am
The court case is merely seeking a declaration that at the time the Labour Party spent the money it was illegal. Making it subsequently legal will not in my view alter what is being sought. To directly interfere with this Court case will be a very bold step indeed. When I was working on legislation 100 years ago we were very careful not to let legislation interfere with pending court cases. Hence if Labour were to do this I doubt they would have a majority in parliament to do that. But it seems the Labour has effectively “bought” the votes of all the minor parties including Hide with a promise of validating their ILLEGAL spending. How utterly corrupt is that.
August 24th, 2006 at 11:52 am
Is this legal?
August 24th, 2006 at 11:59 am
$10. Illegal.
August 24th, 2006 at 12:02 pm
DPF, you might this page useful for determing legality of what you are trying to do. http://www.dia.govt.nz/Pubforms.nsf/URL/FactSheet8.pdf/$file/FactSheet8.pdf
Good luck
August 24th, 2006 at 12:13 pm
David – I am happy to put down $10 to say the spending was illegal –
If this is illegal we could all say that we were unaware of the law – which in confusing, and everyone else was doing it anyway so it is alright. We could ask for an inquiry (with no teeth) and if we join the labour Party it will all quietly go away.
(just joking about joining the Labour party – i would rather have my skin peeled off than join those corrupt thieving bastards.
August 24th, 2006 at 1:44 pm
taranaki – if this is illegal then every office sweepstake at Melbourne Cup time must be illegal as well (I didn’t read your link I have to admit).
August 24th, 2006 at 2:04 pm
My bet is on the court saying it doesn’t have jurisdiction to consider the issue because it’s a matter of Parliamentary privilege. Under that scenario, the plantiff will lose, but the spending would not actually be declared legal. If I bet on that, can I have all the money if I’m right?
August 24th, 2006 at 2:10 pm
OK, I’ll be a big-shot and up the stakes to $20 that it was illegal.
August 24th, 2006 at 2:11 pm
If you are unlucky enough to end up in court before the judge and claim you were ignorant of the law( say a tax matter for example ) the judge will laugh that hard he will probably fall of his chair. To quote that old line ” ignorance of the law is no justification” . One only hopes the Dear Leader will hear the same words.
$20 illegal
August 24th, 2006 at 2:48 pm
Brian – Every Melbourne Cup office sweep IS illegal. IA has made this point prior to several Melbourne Cups (often this is reported in the same newspaper that provides a printed template to run your sweep with).
August 24th, 2006 at 3:08 pm
Camryn – not every melbourne cup office sweepstake is illegal.
The Gambling Act 2003 substantially increased the limit surrounding lawful betting not requiring a gambling licence – an office sweepstake, if no-one takes a cut, and all bets are paid out as winnings can have a prive pool of up to $5,000 and be lawful.
A bet like this (where DPF is not taking a cut) can have a pool of up to $500 [poker with friends for cash has a similar $500 limit to the pool].
August 24th, 2006 at 3:16 pm
Ha! What if no-one bets that it is legal?
August 24th, 2006 at 3:19 pm
Then DPF will have made his point. But it would be quite safe for Labour apologists to place their bets since the case has slim to no chance of being heard.
August 24th, 2006 at 3:27 pm
So, if the court finds the allocation of spending was ” was in breach of the Constitution Act 1986 s.22(c), the Public Finance Act 1989 sections 4, 5 and 9, and Article 4 of the Bill of Rights 1688″ who is at fault and are the parliamentary parties liable?
As I understand ignorance of the law is not really an issue here for the political parties. There is an approval process. It is not as if they can just grab handfulls of cash and stuff it down their trousers to spend at Insolent Prick’s favourite bordello. Now that would be corruption.
August 24th, 2006 at 3:29 pm
$10 the spending is declared illegal.
August 24th, 2006 at 3:31 pm
no bet yet Noddy?
August 24th, 2006 at 3:32 pm
$100 on illegal.
August 24th, 2006 at 3:37 pm
I’d really like to see a betting agency to take up the bet. Centrebet could publish the ‘odds’ and offer payouts – same as when we bet on the sport.
August 24th, 2006 at 3:38 pm
I’d really like to see a betting agency to take up the bet. Centrebet could publish the ‘odds’ and offer payouts – same as when we bet on the sport.
August 24th, 2006 at 3:39 pm
I’d really like to see a betting agency to take up the bet. Centrebet could publish the ‘odds’ and offer payouts – same as when we bet on the sport.
August 24th, 2006 at 3:39 pm
I’d really like to see a betting agency to take up the bet. Centrebet could publish the ‘odds’ and offer payouts – same as when we bet on the sport.
August 24th, 2006 at 5:22 pm
“no bet yet Noddy?”
No, that would be silly, almost as silly as calling for a new election.
Do I think Labour are a bunch of wide eyed innocent lambs? No.
But nor do I think National or any of the other parties involved in the last election come anywhere close to any sort of high ground. Right now I find National’s hypocrisy quite sickening and their ongoing attempts to undermine the results of a national election even more so. Don Brash is leading a crusade against our democracy and deserves to be opposed in this action. It may pander to your blind hatred of anyone less right wing than Ghengis Khan but in the long term his behaviour is very, very damaging.
August 24th, 2006 at 5:32 pm
how hard would it be to find all kinds of statements of noddy supporting Democrat efforts to undermine the election of G.W. Bush in 2000 and 2004??
And right here in NZ we have the most blatant corruption case in the western democratic world. An election was bought. But the left doesn’t want to investigate. It’s not interested. Doesn’t find there’s anything to answer.
How sickening.
And how disapointed they’re gonna be.
August 24th, 2006 at 6:10 pm
noddy: “Don Brash is leading a crusade against our democracy….”
That’s hilarious!
August 24th, 2006 at 6:30 pm
Steven P and Dim:
No money if you are right in terms of the case being thrown out for the various reasons cited, but you do get the moral victory of being provewn right.
The issue Dim raises of whether the AG should be a party, is unlikely IMO to get a case thrown out. I know from InternetNZ having been sued incorrectly that one can get yourself removed as a respondent (which we did and got costs) yet having the case against the remaining respondent conclude in the plaintiffs favour.
Steven Price’s suggestion is more likely, but I have no idea how likely. I’d be interested if there are any precedents.
August 24th, 2006 at 6:46 pm
I’m SO not a lawyer – I’m just repeating someone elses opinion here – but my understanding is that the problem is not mistakenly naming the AG but failing to name the Speaker who is the correct representitive of PS. I’d be interested to hear from DPF or anyone else informed about this.
August 24th, 2006 at 6:56 pm
I am not sure who should be named to represent The Parliamentary Service. It could range from the entire Parliamentary Service Commission to the Speaker to the General Manager.
Having said that, getting this sorted out is more likely to delay the case, rather than derail it.
August 24th, 2006 at 7:12 pm
$25 on illegal. Illegal illegal illegal.
August 24th, 2006 at 7:13 pm
noddy can’t even find $10 to back his delusional rants against National.
I’ve got $50 says that says was illegal.
noddy nothing more from you till you put up would be reasonable on this thread I think.
August 24th, 2006 at 7:18 pm
And right here in NZ we have the most blatant corruption case in the western democratic world.
I’ll put $10 on some wicked hyperbole. Cash for Peerages? Abramoff? Oil for wheat?
August 24th, 2006 at 7:41 pm
If the final odds are 10 to 1 or better I’ve got ten on legal.
August 24th, 2006 at 7:47 pm
Funny how MCMC misses the biggest one of all. He actually places PEERAGES above it!!!
Oil for Food scandal, dude! BILLIONS OF DOLLARS! Oh, but it was the UN, and the UN is the international law maker, so by definition it cannot be corrupt!
August 24th, 2006 at 9:16 pm
I’m almost inclined to put up $10 on legal, after all, Helen has the police (and most of the rest of the bureaucracy like the department of labour) too scared to take action against her and hers, who would bet against her being able to undermine the judiciary in the same way ?
August 24th, 2006 at 11:04 pm
I will bet $10 on legal, and undertake to donate any winnings to Bernard’s legal costs.
August 24th, 2006 at 11:07 pm
I will bet $10 on legal and undertake to donate any winnings to Bernard’s legal costs.
August 24th, 2006 at 11:25 pm
Labour’s corruption does not stop at the misuse of parliamentary service money. It extends right into the civil service where employees get paid a “bonus” if they belong to a Union _ the PSA and then that funding gets laundered by the PSA back to the Labour Party as donations. What do you call that.
August 24th, 2006 at 11:37 pm
I’m in for a twenty !
August 24th, 2006 at 11:58 pm
I’ll put a bet either way, I’ll put a tenner on the spending being declared legal. I am a crypto-fascist bourgeoise right wing conservative after all…
August 25th, 2006 at 1:57 am
Dear Spirit of ’76,
The definition of a facist is simple: someone who ascribes to facist ideology. The definition of crypto-facist is also easy: someone who ascribes to crypto-facist ideology.
I would be curious to know, however, if you are capable of defining facism or crypto-facism.
August 25th, 2006 at 4:38 am
I wasn’t counting the UN as part of the “western democratic world” because it’s a global institution. Thanks.
August 25th, 2006 at 10:00 am
“I wasn’t counting the UN as part of the “western democratic world” because it’s a global institution. Thanks.”
You forgot ‘unelected’ and ‘unaccountable’ to your description of the UN.
August 25th, 2006 at 10:33 am
Re: Parliamentary privilege: it is not an assault on parliamentary privilege for a Court to determine that the Parliamentary Services Commission breached the Public Finance Act in approving certain expenditure. The Speaker has already ruled that the misallocation of public funds is not a matter of privilege, and can’t be considered by the Privileges Committee. It would be an absurdity for the Speaker to rule that the expenditure is not a matter of privilege, but a court to decline to consider an issue because it is a matter of privilege.
As for the appropriate respondent, this is a public law action. The Attorney-General is the default respondent in any public law action.
My personal view is that the Labour Party are a bunch of thieving, lying, corrupt scum, and they ought to be thrown out of office by any means available. But since the odds are so good, and given Auntie Helen’s history of dodging responsibility for any of her disgraceful behaviour, I’ll put $30 that the spending is deemed legal.
August 25th, 2006 at 10:41 am
@IP – you have a point re priviledge, but remember: The speaker is Margaret “She addressed the question” Wilson.
August 25th, 2006 at 10:55 am
“And right here in NZ we have the most blatant corruption case in the western democratic world. An election was bought.”
Bernard, truely, you must get out more. Can you show examples of people being paid to vote, ballot box tampering, prevention of people going to the polls, removal of people from the roll, spurious reading tests?
August 25th, 2006 at 11:23 am
“Can you show examples of people being paid to vote”
A question that highlights the moral bankruptcy of the left, who have managed thru deceit and subterfuge to turn every election into an exercise in thievery, where their supporters vote for politicians whose core message is “elect me, and I will rob the productive sector of NZ and give the proceeds to you”..
August 25th, 2006 at 11:39 am
The real test will come when the pollies are asked to vote for retrospective legislation in which they have self interest Good governance 101 says you must abstain from a vote in such circumstances No ifs buts or maybes.Those who vote for the legislation will be in breach of this principle.Of course this is nothing to do with legality. Its all about ethics and morals or in this case demonstrably bad ethics and bad morals.Dismiss it as the Socialists and their supporters here and elsewhere may do but its a fact of life. Remember what goes around comes around.Those who have good ethics and morals and can demonstrate this will command the hiogh gorund and can look down on the pollies and their supporters and dismiss them and any opinions they hold with contempt.
August 25th, 2006 at 2:02 pm
“It would be an absurdity for the Speaker to rule that the expenditure is not a matter of privilege, but a court to decline to consider an issue because it is a matter of privilege.”
Ah No IP.
Parliamentary Privilege finds its wellspring in common law thus the extent or outer reaches of it are defined by the Courts, assuming that there is no statutory determination of the issue. Therefore Parliament could conclude something was either covered or not covered by Parliamentary Privilege and a Judge may or may not agree after considering common law. Parliamentary supremacy is of course also a common law doctrine.
There are some interesting aspects to the privilege issue.
Is the production of physical communications with electors ‘an MP going about his or her parliamentary business’? Would a declaration of illegality be interfering with MP’s going about their parliamentary business?
The case if successful will result in enmeshing the Courts in close scrutiny parliament and what MP’s do there.
The next declaration sought would be one on the legality of MP’s travel and accommodation which is electioneering (i.e. within 3mths of the election according to the Auditor General). Every time an MP flies to an election meeting or to a t.v. studio to argue why they should get the votes of their fellow citizens they are electioneering in any reasonable interpretation of the term. Indeed the tv debates often end by the host asking the MP’s to directly appeal to the voters down the barrel of the camera and address the question in 1 minute: “why should people vote for you and your party?”
The cost of this electioneering activity to the taxpayer is millions. Remember the Electoral Act 1993 does exclude things done in the “capacity as a Member of Parliament” which Labour formerly could rely on for its pledge cards. However the Chief Electoral Officer, Auditor General and Solicitor General seem to have a narrow view of what this means. What is clear is that Parliament assumes that MP’s will be doing things in their capacity as MPs during the three months prior to an election because the exemption exists in the Electoral Act 1993.
While the Auditor General has since the production of his “brightline” rules said that electioneering = three months prior to an election, I think he is wrong on this. I don’t know where he is getting the 3 months from as being determinative of whether the spend is lawful or not. If he ment 3 months he should have just said that.
August 25th, 2006 at 3:26 pm
” right here in NZ we have the most blatant corruption case in the western democratic world”
That’s really funny. No, seriously.
You really need to learn a bit more about USA politics. NZD$400K is small change in their political-favours system.
Not to mention Italy. Or England – the amount of money Labour NZ took doesn’t rate vs Tony “the cheque is in your campaign fund can I have my peerage now” Blair.
I’m not trying to excuse Labour: I think what they did in their spending was wrong. I also think and hope that it was illegal, though that is a separate issue from right and wrong.
But likewise what the Exclusive Brethren + National (or at least Don Brash – who obviously knew and support the E.B.’s campaign) did in their spending was wrong – and probably legal, though again that is a separate issue from right and wrong.
August 25th, 2006 at 3:59 pm
Here’s fun – what is the biggest case of political corruption? I think we should limit the discussion to Western democracies over the last 106 years. Any suggestions?
August 25th, 2006 at 9:56 pm
Does THIS count as corruption??
Israeli police have questioned President Moshe Katsav over allegations of sexual harassment and corruption.
Two former female employees of Mr Katsav have said he forced them to have sexual relations with him.
One of the women also reportedly said he illegally granted pardons. Police searched Mr Katsav’s home earlier this week. He has denied any wrongdoing.
Several Israeli leaders, already receiving criticism over the war in Lebanon, face charges of misconduct.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is under investigation over his purchase of a property in Jerusalem.
Justice Minister Haim Ramon was indicted on Wednesday over claims he forcibly kissed a female soldier. He stepped down on Sunday over the claims, insisting he was innocent and would clear his name in court.
Last week, another senior member of Mr Olmert’s Kadima Party, Tzachi Hanegbi, was indicted on charges of fraud, bribery and perjury. He insisted he could prove his innocence.
The head of the Israeli armed forces, General Dan Halutz, has also been under pressure for selling his entire share portfolio hours before the outbreak of fighting in Lebanon.
Police conducting the inquiry into the allegations against the Israeli president seized computers and documents during a raid on his Jerusalem home this week, officials said.
Mr Katsav was questioned for five hours on Wednesday and police said he would be questioned again on Thursday.
“The president has never committed any violation,” said Mr Katsav’s lawyer Zion Amir. “He did not harass any man or woman.”
If charged, President Katsav will be immune from prosecution.
However, he can be impeached by parliament if it feels he acted inappropriately.
Mr Katsav is a veteran member of the right-wing Likud party, serving as transport minister in the late 1980s and in 1996 as minister of tourism and deputy prime minister.
He has held the office of president, a largely ceremonial role, since 2000.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5278286.stm
August 25th, 2006 at 10:39 pm
DPF – What happens if there is a “stalemate” – e.g. the court decides the issue is outside their jurisdiction, dances around without making a clear ruling, or says it was ‘partly legal and partly illegal,’ or some other such bullshit legalistic outcome? Can I put $10 on this third option?
August 26th, 2006 at 6:18 am
Doug – No-one wins or loses in that case. I’m not accepting bets on that option because it is too fraught with interpretation battles.
August 26th, 2006 at 10:31 am
$10 ilegal.
August 26th, 2006 at 9:03 pm
I reckon I’ve worked out the optimum labour strategy. Since Margaret Wislon has already ruled that the spending isn’t a matter of parliamentary privilege, what the judge in Darnton will rule is that he (or she) cannot continue with the case because it is a matter of parliamentary privilege !. In one stroke the whole matter dies. Wilson will restate her opinion, and the judiciary will refuse any challenge to the initial ruling. With the greens up to their eyeballs in this, Tandor will keep schtum and the select committee will issue a meaningless report as well.
There will be no avenues but through the public to make any headway, and if Cullen and Clark play their cards right by offering additional money give-aways, the public will forget all about it. Next, prove that Field has been hard done by nand that he is really a bit of a pussy cat, albeit an entreprenurial cat with an eye for the main chance, and like all the other scandals that so many thought would finish this lot of, the puiblic sink back into apathy.
Easy, when your morals are those of the gutter.
September 12th, 2006 at 5:53 pm
Thoughts
If Labour is guilty, (as I suspect it is) then equally, so is National …Has everyone forgotten about the 1.2 million given to National from the Exclusive Brethren, a party that doesn’t vote. And the many other donations that National puts through trust funds etc .
So what Hypocrisy, what bias to single out one party. Sure Labour is far from perfect but at least we have a PM who is her own person, rather than a Yes Man Like dithering Don who changes his mind at every interview .
We need total transparency from all party’s. I notice National and Act is opposed to that, I wonder why
There will be no court case and by 2008 people
will have forgotten
September 12th, 2006 at 8:09 pm
Hamish,
Try doing some reading and research.
The exclusive bretheren is legally allowed to spend their OWN MONEY advocating that people don’t vote for Labour or National. It is perfectly legal.
And regarding the “I wonder why?” Well, when the Herald wrote an editorial slamming Cullen for proposing retrospective legislation, he threatened them. Can you not see that anonymity is required to protect people who back the wrong horse from vindictive bullies who get to the seats of power?
September 15th, 2006 at 6:31 pm
Spam
Your reply, frankly, is hardly worthy of a response but let me say this I spoke of the pure Hypocrisy surrounding your / the E.B.s donation. Not the legality. To say nothing of the morals, principles and ethics behind such a choice..
I spoke of transparency in election spending and funding …your reply was typically self serving to say the least, and begs the question . Who really are the vindictive bullies that need protecting from backing the wrong horse ? As you put it . Why do they not come out of the shadows and reveal their names ???
Finally in response to me reading a paper let me say this, ….It is one thing to read it , another to understand it , and another to apply common sense to what is read . Try that sometime