Retrospective Legislation
One almost has to admire the spin. Dr Cullen says that he will not be introducing “retrospective” legislation to let his party off paying for the cost of their election plegde cards but instead “validating” legislation.
There is of course no difference, but the hope the media and public are stupid enough to be fooled.
The Greens look to be throwing out what remains of their principles and seem poised to back the retrospective legislation.
Winston Peters actually is talking about doing the correct thing. If you don’t like the ruling, then challenge it in court.
And big kudos to the Herald, for mentioning the Darnton v Clark lawsuit, because this is going to become more pivotal.
This lawsuit was filed some months ago, and any retrospective legislation would cut across that lawsuit which would be constutionally even more horrific. It would also raise issues of compensation for the plaintiffs.
John Armstrong’s column is spot on:
The Prime Minister is instead arguing that it is the Auditor-General who has changed the rules of the game after the referee had blown the final whistle.
This is bunkum. While the rules confusingly allow parties to inform the public of its views, the definition rules out anything that promotes the election of a person or party.
Moreover, Brady warned three months before the 2005 election about not using parliamentary advertising for electioneering or related purposes.
August 12th, 2006 at 9:06 am
So when is National planning to add up ALL the PS funding it has ever spent? Because according to the AG’s ruling it was ALL, and ALWAYS has been corrupt. Hoisted on your own petard again.
August 12th, 2006 at 9:10 am
Logix:
? I think it’s time you took that one-eye along to the nearest optometrist, or are we still recovering from a particularly hard night?
August 12th, 2006 at 9:20 am
So–according to Logix, government corruption is ok, can’t be fxed because there’s a history of corruption by everybody and until the historical corruption is addressed corruption is ok?
Riiight….
August 12th, 2006 at 10:05 am
Yet again we have one eyed people attempting to defend the indefensible. Corruption is corruption, it doesn’t matter who did it,when they did it or whether the other side has done it in the past.It’s still corruption & there is no justification for it.If this legislation goes thru, it sets a precedent, it effectively means the goverment can do anything to anyone & then write legislation to make it legal.Does anyone seriously think this is OK..?
August 12th, 2006 at 10:06 am
Yet again we have one eyed people attempting to defend the indefensible. Corruption is corruption, it doesn’t matter who did it,when they did it or whether the other side has done it in the past.It’s still corruption & there is no justification for it.If this legislation goes thru, it sets a precedent, it effectively means the goverment can do anything to anyone & then write legislation to make it legal.Does anyone seriously think this is OK..?
August 12th, 2006 at 10:07 am
Yet again we have one eyed people attempting to defend the indefensible. Corruption is corruption, it doesn’t matter who did it,when they did it or whether the other side has done it in the past.It’s still corruption & there is no justification for it.If this legislation goes thru, it sets a precedent, it effectively means the goverment can do anything to anyone & then write legislation to make it legal.Does anyone seriously think this is OK..?
August 12th, 2006 at 10:10 am
Yet again we have one eyed people attempting to defend the indefensible. Corruption is corruption, it doesn’t matter who did it,when they did it or whether the other side has done it in the past.It’s still corruption & there is no justification for it.If this legislation goes thru, it sets a precedent, it effectively means the goverment can do anything to anyone & then write legislation to make it legal.Does anyone seriously think this is OK..?
August 12th, 2006 at 10:11 am
Yet again we have one eyed people attempting to defend the indefensible. Corruption is corruption, it doesn’t matter who did it,when they did it or whether the other side has done it in the past.It’s still corruption & there is no justification for it.If this legislation goes thru, it sets a precedent, it effectively means the goverment can do anything to anyone & then write legislation to make it legal.Does anyone seriously think this is OK..?
August 12th, 2006 at 10:14 am
Sorry posted 5 times. Kept getting server error.
August 12th, 2006 at 10:34 am
The AG’s ruling that ALL PS funding for non-Ministerial political activity at ANY time actually encompasses the large majority of expenditure by all the significant parties going back some considerable time.
In the last election Labour INCLUDED relevant expenditure on it’s behalf by the Unions. If National had the integrity to include the EB expenditure that it authorised on it’s behalf we would then see who was WAY over the limit by at least a million dollars…not including the GST cock-up. Well you guys are the ones foolish enough to have started the name-calling and “corruption” charges, so you really have no defence when the worm turns have you?
Labour of course argued that the proposed rule changes around the PS funding of the pledge card (as they had legitimately done two election prior) was unreasonable so close to the election and they were unwilling to accept the narrow interpretations being pushed at it in those discussions. Now well after the election we have a definitive ruling from the AG that actually NO-ONE wants to accept. It turns out Labour were right….not even National would be willing to go back over the decades and refund ALL the PS funding it ever received for ANYTHING it ever spent that could be construed as “party political promotion”.
What the AG has really done is bring to light the fact that the current rules if strictly intepreted they are simply not workable for anyone. This happens to laws regulations and rules all the time…they become dated and need fixing. All the hooey about “corruption” is just self-serving noise making.
August 12th, 2006 at 10:39 am
Logix – the AG, for the three months he looked at found basically no National material at all which was illegal. For Labour he found reportedly almost one million dollars.
This is because Labour pushed to the margins, and went over it.
The supposition that if you go further back, more expenditure may be deemed illegal is merely an opinion put forward by MPs who have been caught out.
I am amazed at your stupidity in delcaring the AG ruling to cover all expenditure, without having read the report. Because it is obvious from the three months he did audit that much expenditure was okay.
August 12th, 2006 at 10:41 am
Sorry, but why does the new ruling only apply to just that particular three months that suit your case? If the rule applies it must cover all PS expenditure at all times.
August 12th, 2006 at 11:37 am
Logix – the AG has only looked at those three months. It is speculation to suggest he would find something different if he went further back.
August 12th, 2006 at 12:24 pm
With such a precedent we could potentially have retrospective legislation increasing tax rates by 20% and sending a bill to everyone in the country for the last year. It is a very dangerous precedent to set, and perhaps it should be covered in some sort of constitution (I’m starting to become a convert to such a document – I never was before!). Or perhaps making it OK for the PM to order her driver to go 150km/h. Or even making it OK for cabinet ministers to pay overstayers less than the minimum wage in exchange for visas. Where would it stop?
There should be no retroactive legislation, full stop. Legislation should be for events in the future and present. Political parties know the rules and should follow them.
August 12th, 2006 at 12:24 pm
The only reason the Herald mentioned Darnton v Clark was because staff at the worldwide headquarters of Big News told Audrey Young that there was a court case.
she had no idea prior to that
August 12th, 2006 at 12:50 pm
My understanding is that the rules were clarified in 2002, and all parties were then to operate under the 2002 rules.
In which case even if there is an element of retrospectivity, we can only look as far back as 2002 – natural justice and all that. Which essentially means the 2005 election only.
Can someone tell me if I am wrong.
I think I also saw in the herald that of the roughly $1m overspend, around $750k seems to be labour. That seems quite a lot in the overall scheme of things – around 20+% more than they were allowed to spend on the election?
August 12th, 2006 at 4:43 pm
Validating legislation – is not the same as retrospectuive legislation because it’s now about legitimising something after the fact, it’s about sustaining historic precedent from a belated challenge.
The same spending was allowed in 2002 1999 1996 etc. Thus unless there was some legislative reason for the changed assessment by officials in 2005/2006, Labour can argue (as Winston says also) that one either sutains the historical legitimacy of their spending or widens the review to all spending across 15 or so years.
August 12th, 2006 at 4:44 pm
Validating legislation – is not the same as retrospectuive legislation because it’s NOT about legitimising something after the fact, it’s about sustaining historic precedent from a belated challenge.
The same spending was allowed in 2002 1999 1996 etc. Thus unless there was some legislative reason for the changed assessment by officials in 2005/2006, Labour can argue (as Winston says also) that one either sutains the historical legitimacy of their spending or widens the review to all spending across 15 or so years.
August 12th, 2006 at 4:49 pm
Can anyone say whether the 2002 changes were made before or after the 2002 election and what changes made had any effect on the positions of the two officials in 2005 and 2006?
August 12th, 2006 at 9:33 pm
Does the statute of limitations apply? If you believe validating or retrospective legislation is ok think on this Helen. An incoming non labour led government decides to overturn the previous governments validation expenditure and validates the AGs argument with the addition of making it a criminal offence punishable by say 5 years imprisonment and the loss of any parliamnetary pension for all those involved, at one stroke you bankrupt the Labour party and even if you do not actually imprison anyone they are barred from being MPs and will have to earn an honest living. Still favour retropspective legistion Dr Mc Twit.
August 12th, 2006 at 9:37 pm
Does the statute of limitations apply? If you believe validating or retrospective legislation is ok think on this Helen. An incoming non labour led government decides to overturn the previous governments validation expenditure and validates the AGs argument with the addition of making it a criminal offence punishable by say 5 years imprisonment and the loss of any parliamnetary pension for all those involved, at one stroke you bankrupt the Labour party and even if you do not actually imprison anyone they are barred from being MPs and will have to earn an honest living. Still favour retropspective legistion Dr Mc Twit.
August 13th, 2006 at 12:37 pm
This is a real low-point. I cannot believe how anyone other than those on the Labour payroll could defend this. They do no one except their masters a service, and you offend me.
Now I know why Helen and Cullen do not want a constitution; or unification for Auckland (or NZ).
Power corrupts.
August 14th, 2006 at 12:25 pm
My reflections on this point over on my blog: laws179.blogspot.com
“Shifting goalposts
It’s a pity the recent discussion about the Parliamentary Leaders fund has become so politicised because its an interesting legal scenario in its own right. [...]“
August 14th, 2006 at 1:17 pm
An interesting poll question you could try DPF:
Q: Would you rather be governed by a corrupt government whose policies you agree with; or by a government whose policies you disagree with, but who you know to be generally honest?
Would responses to this depend more on one’s political preferences, or on whether “your team” is in power at present?
August 14th, 2006 at 2:55 pm
Rule of law must prevail.
August 14th, 2006 at 3:38 pm
Call it what you will but this is contrary to the principles of a constitutional parliamentary democracy.Its immoral and unethical being a gross abuse of power and made worse as its done with self interest to boot.One way to fix the bastards though would be to lay a complaint with any professional body that an MP is a member of seeking to have them thrown out. This would be on the basis that they had breached the bodies Code of Ethics. It would hard if not impossible for the MP or body to argue that such an act was not a breach of ethics.No moral or ethical person would argue that it was not an act of self interest and abuse of power given the circumstances.Good governance principles clearly state that it is unethical to take part in a vote where you have a self interest.Being a member of a political party voting to avoid having to pay back the funds is self interest.The excuses “but we didnt understand the law” or “but we have always done it this way” is bollocks Try that on the next cop that stops you or the next Judge you come up before in the Court and they will laugh at you. MPs make the bloody law If they cant understand the laws they make then they have admitted to a level of incompetence that demands their resignation.
December 21st, 2006 at 12:34 pm
clubhaul clueless